Guardian editorial piece on Roman Britain

[Duncan Head]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/05/the-guardian-view-on-roman-britain-a-constantly-shifting-picture

[Jim Webster]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/05/the-guardian-view-on-roman-britain-a-constantly-shifting-picture

Interesting. I thought the phrase, " The only way to "know" about Roman Britain is to hold hypotheses and theories lightly and gently, ready for them to be revised in the face of new ideas and facts: " was an excellent summation

[DougM]

If it's as ill-informed as their piece on Culloden, it won't be worth reading.

[Duncan Head]

Nothing fairer than writing off something you haven't read just because you don't like another piece by a different author (in, technically, a different newspaper - the Culloden piece is under the Observer rubric).

[Imperial Dave]

I'm with Jim in that the summary statement wasnt a bluster or a fanfare but a useful position that sums it up nicely

[DougM]

Nothing fairer than writing off something you haven't read just because you don't like another piece by a different author (in, technically, a different newspaper - the Culloden piece is under the Observer rubric).

I did read it Duncan. I was just having a crack at their (and yes, Guardian and Observer are supposedly separate publications..) Culloden piece. Editorial oversight has really fallen away in recent years. Which is tragic given how famous the Grauniad was for typos in the time (40+ years), i have been a reader.

[Duncan Head]

I did read it Duncan.

OK. I didn't take "It won't be worth reading" to imply that.

Off topic, but what's wrong with the Observer's Culloden piece?

[Mark G]

I guess Jim is still hoping the other side can win, and doesn't like being reminded they didn't

[Duncan Head]

I guess Jim is still hoping the other side can win, and doesn't like being reminded they didn't

I guess you don't actually mean Jim?

[Jim Webster]

I guess Jim is still hoping the other side can win, and doesn't like being reminded they didn't

I guess you don't actually mean Jim?

Probably not but I'm a husband and used to being in the wrong 

[DougM]

I did read it Duncan.

OK. I didn't take "It won't be worth reading" to imply that.

Off topic, but what's wrong with the Observer's Culloden piece?

Hi Duncan -  whole range of things, starting with ignoring previous Jacobite wars, the myth about the special bayonet training, conflating battlefield combat casualties with killing the wounded and fugitives. It's essentially written by someone who learned their Jacobite history from 1950s textbooks. It's rubbish.

[Duncan Head]

I see. Can;t say I entirely agree, though, but thanks.

[Nick Harbud]

Editorial oversight has really fallen away in recent years. Which is tragic given how famous the Grauniad was for typos in the time (40+ years), i have been a reader.

Reading the footnote on the mix-up between Woodchester and Wotton-under-Edge, it would appear that there are some journalistic traditions one can still rely upon.