Originally posted by badirishcharlie:Today's Guardian back to U2 bashing I see
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jul/12/where-the-streets-have-no-statues-why-do-the-irish-hate-u2#comment-101942392

I don't mind the article per se in so far as exploring the issues as to why some people do hate them and some people don't.
That said, I do have issues with brushstroke journalism, and indeed what feels like the modern desire to treat social groups as monoliths, e.g. '..so why are they so unloved in their home country?', 'why do THE IRISH hate U2'.
Such massive assumptions that generalise particulars annoy me immensely - if a journalist surveyed every person in the country and got their responses and based a feature on that, fine, there's substantial evidence to back up the assertion, but this isn't it.
Such broad assertions just smack of intellectual laziness and, to my mind, help no one but reinforce lazy thinking.
THE IRISH don't - doubtless, many people who identify as Irish do, many people who identify as Irish don't, and many who identify as Irish probably don't care either way. To make the point, change 'The Irish' to any other social grouping, e.g. Newcastle United fans (just to go for something completely unrelated / out of context) - a group of football fans rarely agree on anything, so why would an entire nation achieve any kind of consensus?
I'm sure this isn't a new phenomenon (whether it be the mass media or just social analysis as a whole), but from what I've seen, it seems to be far more pervasive in the modern era where modern comms give us so much instant access to information at the click of a button, but with that comes the whole instant digestion and gratification process - the world seems to have speeded up, but the analytical capacity for such consumption appears to have inversely decreased.
Alas.
(I grant that I'm positing some assertions above, but I'm writing on the fly unlike our journalist friend - happy to try and elaborate if needed!)