advertisement


Dump The Guardian!

Do you need more thinking time, Rich?



imo t'Guardian was simply doing the job of journalists - shining a bright light and reporting what they find.
They were providing exactly the same service re: May, The Johnson, Gove, etc, at that time.

No they weren't: the reporting was agenda-led, and the op-ed, with the exception* of a few voices, was uninformed, incurious, politically illiterate idiocy, with bells on. There were a few mea culpas after the election but no actual self-critique: Freedland and the rest are still churning out their bilge.

*In fairness, some of these exceptional voices, such as Aditya Chakrabortty, really are exceptional.
 
Crikey, I didn't realise so much could be read into a forum post...

In your specific case playing dumb appears pointless. Or maybe you're serious?

No they weren't: the reporting was agenda-led, and the op-ed, with the exception* of a few voices ...

I appreciate the not insignificant caveat ;-)

I'm not claiming T'Gruan is perfect, but it almost always provides good quality fact based news reports.
 
If you think the Guardian is bad, try The New Statesman - bland as f*ck.

It's challenging but fun trying to spot the left-wing opinion in what is supposedly a left-wing magazine.

Sad to see it reduced to irrelevance as it was my way in to left-wing politics when I was a teenager.
 
Don’t dump the Guardian, but do remember that like all new media outlets, it does have an agenda.

No different to any other media outlet including the Saintly BBC.

ATB from George
 
On the BBC bias thing, I understand that the BBC editorial position is to slightly lean towards the government of the day. The logic for this is that it represents what the nation chose so, as the national broadcaster, it is reasonable that it reflects the nation's choice. Whether you agree with that or not, it is a defensible position. Which is more than you can say for most media outlets. We can, of course, argue over whether it lends more support to the government than it is due, on the day, but that is going to depend, to a degree, on the extent to which you are on the government, or the opposition lines.
 
On the BBC bias thing, I understand that the BBC editorial position is to slightly lean towards the government of the day. The logic for this is that it represents what the nation chose so, as the national broadcaster, it is reasonable that it reflects the nation's choice. Whether you agree with that or not, it is a defensible position. Which is more than you can say for most media outlets. We can, of course, argue over whether it lends more support to the government than it is due, on the day, but that is going to depend, to a degree, on the extent to which you are on the government, or the opposition lines.

Sue and Richard in agreement alert!!!!! Mayday! Mayday! I need to go and edit post 36. This will not do!
 
Because the government is the government, it should not be subject to scrutiny by a national broadcaster? Because it was chosen by the nation? That is not really what I would call a defensible position.
 
Well, as we have already discussed; English, Scottish, Irish breakfast are all the same thing really.

No, no, no. The Ulster Fry is not sullied with beans, or haggis. It is sausage, bacon, vegetable roll, potato & soda bread, fried egg, and if you’re in the Malone Road, mushrooms.
 
Because the government is the government, it should not be subject to scrutiny by a national broadcaster?
Because it was chosen by the nation? That is not really what I would call a defensible position.

The BBC has a duty to reflect U.K. society, so how could it not include the elected government?
Of course Auntie does hold the government and opposition scrutiny.

Don’t dump the Guardian, but do remember that like all new media outlets, it does have an agenda.

No different to any other media outlet including the Saintly BBC.

Any news outlet worthy of the name doesn't allow any editorial leanings to influence the reporting of news.
The Telegraph used to be a near reference example of this.
 
No, no, no. The Ulster Fry is not sullied with beans, or haggis. It is sausage, bacon, vegetable roll, potato & soda bread, fried egg, and if you’re in the Malone Road, mushrooms.

I guessed there would be potatoes in there somewhere.
 
The BBC reflects U.K. society so how could that not include the elected government?
Of course Auntie does hold the government and opposition scrutiny.

It doesn't reflect society. I mean in any sense: first in that that's not how the media work, and secondly in that their workforce is unrepresentative of the country and so is their content. And their scrutiny of the government is, to put it diplomatically, circumspect and highly conditional - on the degree to which the government is willing to be scrutinised. The BMJ thing is a case in point. It's scandalous.
 
The BBC, along with all public service broadcasters, aims to reflect the society they serve. I'd agree the level of successful is variable.
Auntie puts an effort in to having a representative workforce that would make the DM cream its pants.
The fact is those on the right consider the BBC a traitor that should be shut down for precisely the opposite reasons to your criticisms - too left/liberal/multi-cultural/critical of government/agitating/etc.
Which is why I believe auntie is still doing a decent job.


I guessed there would be potatoes in there somewhere.

No you didn't - if only you had've found a suitable publication and informed yourself!

Screen_Shot_2017_11_18_at_20_57_36.png
 
The BBC, along with all psb, aim to reflect the society they serve, but I'd agree the level of successful is variable.




No you didn't - if only you had've found a suitable publication and informed yourself!

Screen_Shot_2017_11_18_at_20_57_36.png
Looks quite boring!
 
Well, I am quite thick, but I already know coal plants pollute. I guess Guardian numpties need reminding or did not know.

And the fact that they pollute is not the story at all.

6th form crap, whenever I look.
 


advertisement


Back
Top