Three years ago, on the tenth anniversary of the Guardian’s online comment section, Sarah Marsh sought to discover which articles their readers most remembered. Perhaps, she said, it’s those which ‘challenged your outlook on a key political argument, or changed your view entirely.’ Or, ‘perhaps it was a column with which you vehemently disagreed.’
Safe to say, knowing the Guardian’s comment section – and the sort of comments they get on social media – readers were stuck for choice, and picked the most egregious and most stereotypically Guardian-like articles.
Over our nearly 26 years as a newspaper, we at Concrete have also published plenty of comment articles which received a deal of attention, criticism, and even condemnation. In our last issue, we published one such article: ‘Trump: wrongly portrayed?’
Now, I’ve got to say I disagree with nearly everything that was said in this article. However, over the last two weeks we have seen responses to it online which we feel the need to address.
To begin with, the views expressed in our Comment section are not, and will never be, the views of Concrete, or our editorial team as a whole. While our team of nearly 30 section editors and 200 writers might share certain politics, there are obviously individuals holding more controversial opinions within our membership.
As well as a newspaper, Concrete is also a society. We’re open to all UEA students and their varying opinions; this is especially the case in our Comment section, given that it is not slanderous, hate speech, or illegal for any other reason. While questionable, the Trump article was none of these things.
This week, I’m proud to see Comment doing what it does best: hosting opinion and healthy debate. One writer, Tamar Moshkovitz, took umbrage at the article published last issue, and has written a response which I implore you to read.
And if it still leaves you unsettled, then feel free to write in for our next issue!