J.K. Rowling and Guardian ‘Person of the Year’ award closed

Watch
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
Here’s an article I came across online just now:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/...uickly-closed/

Apparently the Guardian ran a poll for 2021’s “Person of the Year” award, in which you could nominate and vote for anybody. As the votes started coming in, J.K. Rowling started to take a clear lead and it became obvious that was going to be the winner. However, the poll was quickly closed and taken down before it could complete, and the Guardian has provided no explanation or said anything of it since.

If we really give the Guardian the benefit of the doubt, they may have cancelled the poll for some other reason unrelated to J.K. Rowling. However there’s no shortage of people reacting on Twitter and such, believing that the Guardian probably did this because they didn’t want to have to announce her as the winner. As I’m sure most of us are aware, J.K. Rowling has recently caused some uproar amongst the transgender movement with comments in which she maintains a distinction between those who are biological women and those who are not.

Volunteer NoteThis has been reported by other websites here:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/briti...-with-top-spot

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/cl...ntroversy.html

https://goodwordnews.com/guardians-p...-the-lead/amp/

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...akes-lead/amp/

https://thepostmillennial.com/guardi...takes-top-spot

Please be aware that TSR cannot validate the authenticity of these news site.



So I’m curious to hear - what are everyone’s thoughts on this?


EDIT: As a further development, the Guardian have now released some results of this exercise, acknowledging that J.K. Rowling received a significant number of nominations, without confirming who received the most:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/20...on-of-the-year
Last edited by 04MR17; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
if the guardian doesn't want to give an arbitrary title to someone they really don't have to. Their articles are generally against JKR, so it's not unexpected that they wouldn't want to give her that boost. Its just a twitter poll.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
People brigade online polls like this all the time. Ever heard about the Taylor Swift fan poll that had some 40~ year old neckbeard win? Was brigaded by 4Chan, or something. 😂

Don't blame the Guardian, tbh. Was a mistake to begin with, welcome to the internet.
1
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
if the guardian doesn't want to give an arbitrary title to someone they really don't have to. Their articles are generally against JKR, so it's not unexpected that they wouldn't want to give her that boost. Its just a twitter poll.
Certainly, they aren't compelled to do anything. It's their award, they can do whatever they like with it.

However, what I find interesting is the fact that such a majority of people voted for JKR in the first place. Professionally speaking, I don't think she's done anything particularly special this year; nowadays she's probably best known for her views on gender and her steadfastness in standing by them. To me this indicates that the people who admire her for this probably far outnumber the people who criticise her for it; something that the Guardian would prefer people not to realise. If a poll like this was cancelled for any other reason, one would normally expect them to explain why.


I think it sheds a light on political correctness and cancel-culture in a wider sense as well. When we decide that some views are "publicly acceptable" to hold whilst others are not, we may only be creating the illusion that all good, upstanding citizens hold the acceptable views, whilst the contrary views are only held by the incel types who frequent 4chan. But when people can express their views privately or anonymously without fear of "cancellation" and other forms of backlash, we may find that the reverse is actually true. And then by suppressing this information, we perpetuate that illusion further. It's a very "Emperor's New Clothes / Elephant in the Room" sort of situation.

The fact that the Wizarding World franchise is now downplaying its links to JKR and the actors in its films are now publicly coming out to denounce her views is understandable; their livelihoods depend on protecting their brand image from harm. But perhaps none of this is actually necessary. Whilst they may think that they are receiving the support of the majority for doing so, perhaps it is really only a minority they are pandering to - albeit one which is empowered to be far more vocal.
2
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by SHallowvale)
People brigade online polls like this all the time. Ever heard about the Taylor Swift fan poll that had some 40~ year old neckbeard win? Was brigaded by 4Chan, or something. 😂
I haven't heard about this actually. Do you have a link to the story by any chance?

Don't blame the Guardian, tbh. Was a mistake to begin with, welcome to the internet.
Why would we assume that this is a "brigaded" poll though? I think another possible conclusion to be drawn from this is that actually, quite a lot of people agree with the views she has expressed, and respect the fact that she's been so resolute in spite of those who have tried to punish and defame her for them or issue death threats etc.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I haven't heard about this actually. Do you have a link to the story by any chance?


Why would we assume that this is a "brigaded" poll though? I think another possible conclusion to be drawn from this is that actually, quite a lot of people agree with the views she has expressed, and respect the fact that she's been so resolute in spite of those who have tried to punish and defame her for them or issue death threats etc.
KnowYourMeme have a good article on it. Happened a fair few years ago.

---

Have you ever used Twitter? 😂 I'm sure a lot of people agree and respect her opinion, I don't doubt that at all. What I am saying is that the poll either got brigaded or was heavily retweeted within pro-JK circles. In either case the result will be heavily biased, which will also happen due to the nature of the question itself.
1
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Certainly, they aren't compelled to do anything. It's their award, they can do whatever they like with it.

However, what I find interesting is the fact that such a majority of people voted for JKR in the first place. Professionally speaking, I don't think she's done anything particularly special this year; nowadays she's probably best known for her views on gender and her steadfastness in standing by them. To me this indicates that the people who admire her for this probably far outnumber the people who criticise her for it; something that the Guardian would prefer people not to realise. If a poll like this was cancelled for any other reason, one would normally expect them to explain why.


I think it sheds a light on political correctness and cancel-culture in a wider sense as well. When we decide that some views are "publicly acceptable" to hold whilst others are not, we may only be creating the illusion that all good, upstanding citizens hold the acceptable views, whilst the contrary views are only held by the incel types who frequent 4chan. But when people can express their views privately or anonymously without fear of "cancellation" and other forms of backlash, we may find that the reverse is actually true. And then by suppressing this information, we perpetuate that illusion further. It's a very "Emperor's New Clothes / Elephant in the Room" sort of situation.

The fact that the Wizarding World franchise is now downplaying its links to JKR and the actors in its films are now publicly coming out to denounce her views is understandable; their livelihoods depend on protecting their brand image from harm. But perhaps none of this is actually necessary. Whilst they may think that they are receiving the support of the majority for doing so, perhaps it is really only a minority they are pandering to - albeit one which is empowered to be far more vocal.
i think it represents that shes trending on twitter right now and her new movie and tv shows are all coming out so a lot of people think its their job to personally defend her as she hypes up the nostalgia for their favorite childhood book series.
i have no idea what the statistics are for the support of trans people in the UK, but in the US support tends to be 30-60% depending on the issue. it's not always a majority but it is a large number of people. if they distance themselves from JKR the people who support trans people will be happy to engage with harry potter things, and those that don't support trans people will also be happy to engage because the money goes to JKR either way.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
if the guardian doesn't want to give an arbitrary title to someone they really don't have to. Their articles are generally against JKR, so it's not unexpected that they wouldn't want to give her that boost. Its just a twitter poll.
I don't think it's accurate that their articles have been anti-JKR, the ones I've read have all been trying to even handedly depict the different arguments and people involved. They have however been giving space to covering the anti views, which is different to the right wing media, who have only been projecting it as a "wokeist lynching" and therefore I can see how someone used to that might interpret what the Guardian has done as being "anti".
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I don't think it's accurate that their articles have been anti-JKR, the ones I've read have all been trying to even handedly depict the different arguments and people involved. They have however been giving space to covering the anti views, which is different to the right wing media, who have only been projecting it as a "wokeist lynching" and therefore I can see how someone used to that might interpret what the Guardian has done as being "anti".
i agree. I couldn't quite figure out how to phrase it. I didn't mean anti-jkr in a biased or "out to get her" sense, but they don't seem to cover for her, or promote her views in the same way other news outlets are.
0
reply
Crazed cat lady
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
I'm confused. Did this really happen? If so, can someone post a screenshot?

I've seen plenty of Guardian Tell Us submission forms. They typically look like this . What I have never seen is an open ended poll that gives instant results.
Last edited by Crazed cat lady; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Have you ever used Twitter? 😂 I'm sure a lot of people agree and respect her opinion, I don't doubt that at all. What I am saying is that the poll either got brigaded or was heavily retweeted within pro-JK circles. In either case the result will be heavily biased, which will also happen due to the nature of the question itself.
What makes you so sure of that though?
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
i think it represents that shes trending on twitter right now and her new movie and tv shows are all coming out so a lot of people think its their job to personally defend her as she hypes up the nostalgia for their favorite childhood book series.
i have no idea what the statistics are for the support of trans people in the UK, but in the US support tends to be 30-60% depending on the issue. it's not always a majority but it is a large number of people. if they distance themselves from JKR the people who support trans people will be happy to engage with harry potter things, and those that don't support trans people will also be happy to engage because the money goes to JKR either way.
I think that "support of trans people" is a really pretty vague concept, so it really depends what you mean by that. I mean JKR herself has on several occasions described herself as a supporter of trans people. It's one thing to say you support their right to live whatever sort of lifestyle they choose, another to say that you personally agree with their theories on how sex/gender works, another to say that society should should adopt official policies on the basis of those views, and another to want to eradicate the traditional model of sex/gender from the public domain through negative consequences for those who stick by it. I suspect the support for each of those options would decrease the further along you go.

Regarding PR, I suppose the Wizarding World franchise and the actors know what they're doing though, and it'll probably be in their best interests. I think most people engage with Harry Potter content on the basis of how much they enjoy it, rather than caring where the money's going and what that person's political and philosophical views are - and the fact is that it's a hugely popular and well-liked franchise. They only really need to placate the extreme sort of person who would actually cause a scene in terms of public outrage, boycotting it because of JKR's views, and making others feel pressured into doing the same. So the cast have essentially all come and said to them "we're as opposed to JKR's views as you, but here's why we think you should still engage with the content..." giving them a supposedly legitimate avenue to do so.


In any case, I just find it interesting how much this looks like the Emperor's New Clothes situation; people holding some views in private, different views in public, and having to tailor them to be palatable to those who are likely to have the strongest negative reaction.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
My thoughts are that the social media handlers at the Guardian started this, and when more senior staff caught wind of the votes, they pulled it

That's my theory, anyhow
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
shouldn't make assumptions about something on The Guardian i assume you also haven't read and you're also using an unreliable, clearly biased source.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Joleee)
shouldn't make assumptions about something on The Guardian i assume you also haven't read and you're also using an unreliable, clearly biased source.
As far as my point is concerned, I don't think it really matters whether the source is unreliable or biased. My point is not to say "look how terrible the Guardian is for doing this". For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that for all I know, this story could be totally made up. And even if it isn't - as I said, the Guardian is perfectly entitled to give an award (or not give an award) to whomever it likes. (However if it is true I'd still say it's rather embarrassing on the Guardian's part).

My point is actually wider one about political correctness and cancel culture in general; namely that by making some views socially unacceptable to express in public and threatening consequences for those who do, we may just be driving those views underground and hiding them from public view more than anything else. This would give the false impression that most other people agree with the socially acceptable view - even if in fact many of them just feel like they have to play along, not realising that others are doing the same thing. That's why the story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.


Having said that, no matter how unreliable or biased you think this source is, it would surprise me if the story was completely made up, given that there are multiple sources reporting this (which can be revealed by a quick Google search).
0
reply
username4522078
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
These HP people really need to get over themselves. So what the woman says things you disagree with? People say things I disagree with all time, I certainly don't engage in a personal vendetta because of it.
1
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by tazarooni89)
As far as my point is concerned, I don't think it really matters whether the source is unreliable or biased. My point is not to say "look how terrible the Guardian is for doing this". For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that for all I know, this story could be totally made up. And even if it isn't - as I said, the Guardian is perfectly entitled to give an award (or not give an award) to whomever it likes. (However if it is true I'd still say it's rather embarrassing on the Guardian's part).

My point is actually wider one about political correctness and cancel culture in general; namely that by making some views socially unacceptable to express in public and threatening consequences for those who do, we may just be driving those views underground and hiding them from public view more than anything else. This would give the false impression that most other people agree with the socially acceptable view - even if in fact many of them just feel like they have to play along, not realising that others are doing the same thing. That's why the story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.


Having said that, no matter how unreliable or biased you think this source is, it would surprise me if the story was completely made up, given that there are multiple sources reporting this (which can be revealed by a quick Google search).
it matters because i can't argue against your feelings; i can only argue against facts. that's why you need a reliable source otherwise you are creating a fictious story for all i know.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Joleee)
it matters because i can't argue against your feelings; i can only argue against facts. that's why you need a reliable source otherwise you are creating a fictious story for all i know.
This post makes it sound like you didn't read beyond my first sentence...

See again the below:
"My point is not to say "look how terrible the Guardian is for doing this". For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that for all I know, this story could be totally made up. And even if it isn't - as I said, the Guardian is perfectly entitled to give an award (or not give an award) to whomever it likes. (However if it is true I'd still say it's rather embarrassing on the Guardian's part).

My point is actually wider one about political correctness and cancel culture in general; namely that by making some views socially unacceptable to express in public and threatening consequences for those who do, we may just be driving those views underground and hiding them from public view more than anything else. This would give the false impression that most other people agree with the socially acceptable view - even if in fact many of them just feel like they have to play along, not realising that others are doing the same thing. That's why the story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind."




By the way - why exactly do you think this source is unreliable, and telling a fictitious story?
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by tazarooni89)
This post makes it sound like you didn't read beyond my first sentence...

See again the below:
"My point is not to say "look how terrible the Guardian is for doing this". For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that for all I know, this story could be totally made up. And even if it isn't - as I said, the Guardian is perfectly entitled to give an award (or not give an award) to whomever it likes. (However if it is true I'd still say it's rather embarrassing on the Guardian's part).

My point is actually wider one about political correctness and cancel culture in general; namely that by making some views socially unacceptable to express in public and threatening consequences for those who do, we may just be driving those views underground and hiding them from public view more than anything else. This would give the false impression that most other people agree with the socially acceptable view - even if in fact many of them just feel like they have to play along, not realising that others are doing the same thing. That's why the story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind."



By the way - why exactly do you think this source is unreliable, and telling a fictitious story?
because that's not journalism. it's unreliable.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Joleee)
because that's not journalism. it's unreliable.
Seems like some circular reasoning going on there.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever considered or are you currently considering an apprenticeship?

Yes, I am actively considering an apprenticeship (51)
12.41%
I am actively considering an alternative to uni that isn't an apprenticeship (8)
1.95%
I have considered an apprenticeship but it's not for me (103)
25.06%
I am considering a degree apprenticeship (38)
9.25%
I haven't considered an apprenticeship (196)
47.69%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (15)
3.65%

Watched Threads

View All