5 ms·

I mostly agree with this. I too lean left but appreciate the journalistic work done at the WSJ. I think The Guardian has lost much of their balance in the past

by oblib 9y ago

I mostly agree with this. I too lean left but appreciate the journalistic work done at the WSJ. I think The Guardian has lost much of their balance in the past couple years though. I see too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news lately and while I appreciate well thought out opinions I don't like them creeping into "News". When it does I feel the ghost of Orwell leaning over my shoulder and whispering "there it is".

calcifer 9y ago
Can you share a few Guardian articles that are not opinion pieces or a journalist's personal column but still has "too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news"?
- otalp 9y ago
  The article: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-interview https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange... The reason their extreme bias shows: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of... This is a bit of an exception, because it is quite possibly the worst article I've ever seen them put out. But they definitely have a bias, towards the Clinton/Blair faux-left to the point where they not only dislike the right, but also the people like Sanders/Corbyn.
  - lobster_johnson 9y ago
    How is that article biased or extreme? It's just a condensed summary of an interview Assange gave to the Italian newspaper la Repubblica. It looks pretty neutral to me. Edit: Apparently Assange didn't say the things the article claims. If so, it's just shoddy research on the part of the article author, and I'm surprised it hasn't been retracted.
    - nikanj 9y ago
      How extreme is your standard for biased reporting, if publishing an article with completely made up claims - and not retracting it - is not what you would consider biased?
    - the6threplicant 9y ago
      > This article was amended on 29 December 2016 to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange “has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime”. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said “there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there”. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia’s “many vibrant publications”.
- aedron 9y ago
  The bias shows in what they choose not not publish, as much in what they publish. Take Israel/Palestine (just to be sure to start an off-topic flamewar): Palestinian civilians are killed almost daily, nothing in the news. An Israeli casualty (military OR civilian): Instant top news on every mass media outlet.

by oblib 9y ago

calcifer 9y ago

Can you share a few Guardian articles that are not opinion pieces or a journalist's personal column but still has "too much rhetoric in what should be unbiased news"?

otalp 9y ago
The article: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-interview https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange... The reason their extreme bias shows: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of... This is a bit of an exception, because it is quite possibly the worst article I've ever seen them put out. But they definitely have a bias, towards the Clinton/Blair faux-left to the point where they not only dislike the right, but also the people like Sanders/Corbyn.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  How is that article biased or extreme? It's just a condensed summary of an interview Assange gave to the Italian newspaper la Repubblica. It looks pretty neutral to me. Edit: Apparently Assange didn't say the things the article claims. If so, it's just shoddy research on the part of the article author, and I'm surprised it hasn't been retracted.
  - nikanj 9y ago
    How extreme is your standard for biased reporting, if publishing an article with completely made up claims - and not retracting it - is not what you would consider biased?
  - the6threplicant 9y ago
    > This article was amended on 29 December 2016 to remove a sentence in which it was asserted that Assange “has long had a close relationship with the Putin regime”. A sentence was also amended which paraphrased the interview, suggesting Assange said “there was no need for Wikileaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there”. It has been amended to more directly describe the question Assange was responding to when he spoke of Russia’s “many vibrant publications”.
aedron 9y ago
The bias shows in what they choose not not publish, as much in what they publish. Take Israel/Palestine (just to be sure to start an off-topic flamewar): Palestinian civilians are killed almost daily, nothing in the news. An Israeli casualty (military OR civilian): Instant top news on every mass media outlet.