Профиль

“Could you still do your work without LLMs?” is a sly way of framing it, because functionally Yes of course it would be fine, but organisationally No I would probably be fired

One thing The News Agents demonstrates is that a lot of senior BBC presenters see their job as an annoying impediment holding them back from voicing their Excellent True Opinions, so it’s really no surprise that they idolise The Columnists

What more fitting way to remember Rod Liddle’s life and work than by making nasty jokes about someone who can’t answer back

IIRC in the covid period journalists alternated between using Twitter to call the cops on young people queuing for ice cream incorrectly, and explaining that - whatever you thought of Boris Johnson - he was a charismatic leader who almost died for his country.

There’s a tremendous amount of arrogance in book publishing, which unfortunately instead of manifesting as “we’re good at making books and we’ll continue to do that tyvm”, is mostly manifesting as “I shall expertly ride the AI wave because I am very smart”

In my experience you need to work quite hard not to notice somebody drinking as much as Coyle says he was on a regular basis. Yet we’re encouraged to believe MPs and hacks saw nothing amiss until he racially abused a journalist.

Intensely distilled political commentary this week, as Beth and Harriet first spend 10 minutes fretting that The Good Man Keir Starmer’s fall shows the uk is literally impossible to govern, then another 10 sighing that he was shit at politics and also didn’t do anything to make people like him

Much as football commentators are doomed forever to reference the Keystone Cops more than a century after the fact, UK political commentators will go to their graves insisting that two scenes in a movie released before they were born explain everything anybody ever needs to know about The Left.

When political commentary is dedicated to explaining There Is No Money & every penny spent needs to be taken from somewhere else, is it unreasonable for people to suspect investment in something they don’t need will be at the expense of something they do need - which is likely getting worse anyway

They’re bombing countries off the record, they’re lying about it, they’re doing numerous crimes which they’re also lying about while incriminating themselves in a data-gathering exercise that they didn’t think through: meet the new generation of alpha leaders

Quinceañera parties where the birthday boy or girl gets to see a translated dril tweet for the first time

Americans resorting to examples from 40 years ago in a country 3,000 miles away to explain why leftism is bad? You love to see it

We don’t necessarily live in the stupidest imaginable timeline, but a lot of journalists insist on promoting the stupidest imaginable elements

“Adapting to the AI era” by capitulating, FFS

In the 90s and early-mid 2000s, several national newspapers’ favourite activities were raging against paedophiles and publishing topless photos of teenagers. They sometimes ran out of paedophiles to rage against, but they never seemed to run out of teenagers to photograph topless.

When the heatwave word cloud mostly just says “hot”, maybe a word cloud isn’t the most effective way of visualising that data

What’s worse: not understanding or caring about the consequences until they’re specifically her problem, or not caring even when they are. These should both be disqualifying!

Testing the outer boundaries of radical government by having the same people, but some of them in different jobs

“Across the political spectrum” here of course means “Michael Gove AND Tony Blair”

Sometimes the new chancellor has a background in economics and the hacks do a million words on why that’s very important; sometimes the new chancellor has no economics background and the hacks are like “great choice, hope they press the ‘money go up’ button”