3 ms·

I didn't really equate them, I just used as them as examples since they'd both already been mentioned. Also, don't you think that suggesting Breitbart is worse

I didn't really equate them, I just used as them as examples since they'd both already been mentioned. Also, don't you think that suggesting Breitbart is worse than the Guardian might point to your own bias? The Guardian is designed to look less like a tabloid, which gives the appearance of it being more honest - but is it really a less biased source of news? It's very hard to judge such things. I've been reading the Guardian for a long time and I've noticed it's been embracing some of the more unsavory elements of the left in recent years. Someone else might contend those elements are warranted. The differences in news reporting today seems to come down to the values we prioritize and the narratives that push them.

te_chris 9y ago
So because you don't like what they write, they're biased?
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  That's effectively what is happening with media consumption. Beause of special interests and ideologies, it's very hard to tell how biased or honest information really is without doing a lot of research. Ideally, journalists would do that research for us and present the information as objectively as possible. And we would trust them. But doing that takes a lot of time and doesn't result in a lot of clicks.
anon1385 9y ago
>I've been reading the Guardian for a long time and I've noticed it's been embracing some of the more unsavory elements of the left in recent years. What elements? If you mean deliberately antagonistic opinion pieces from transphobic feminists (TERFs) then yes you're right. But I'm guessing that's probably not what you were referring to. If you mean run of the mill socialists then I can't see any truth to your claim - there's a small handful now and it's mostly the same small handful they published 10 years ago (Monbiot, Jones, previously Milne, and a couple of others). The Guardian as an institution hates socialism, even if it occasionally allows a mild opinion piece from a socialist about how it might be nice to raise the top rate of tax by 1% to pay for hospitals. Other than an increase in the amount of clickbait the Guardian is mostly the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago. The editorial position has actually shifted to the right slightly since Viner took over. But historically it's always been a liberal paper. It supported the SDP, has supported the Lib Dems at various times, supported Blair and supported Iraq. Part of liberalism involves giving voice to any old opinion no matter how dangerous, crazy, offensive or wrong, at least as long as it comes from the elite class and doesn't do anything as gauche as question the property rights of the wealthy middle class readership (coincidentally this leads to great clickbait on a lot of social and religious issues). So that's why you see the Guardian doing things like publishing articles by Ergodan or other fairly repulsive people as well as hosting flamewars over atheism/islam/feminism/cultural appropriation etc. It's not being left wing that leads to any of that. If it was a left wing paper it would contain far fewer articles of that type because the left wing generally doesn't subscribe to a "free market of ideas" like liberals do.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  I can think of several common opinions surrounding Islam, gender and culture that the Guardian would not publish today. So I don't believe its as liberal as you say.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    If you are making these statements, you need to identify the things you think will not be published. It's very easy to whip out an accusation like "This would never be published" if you never say what "this" is.
    - hyperdunc 9y ago
      I'd love to specifically describe what wouldn't be published. However, last time I wrote about one of them on HN I was very quickly flagged.

te_chris 9y ago

So because you don't like what they write, they're biased?

hyperdunc 9y ago
That's effectively what is happening with media consumption. Beause of special interests and ideologies, it's very hard to tell how biased or honest information really is without doing a lot of research. Ideally, journalists would do that research for us and present the information as objectively as possible. And we would trust them. But doing that takes a lot of time and doesn't result in a lot of clicks.

anon1385 9y ago

>I've been reading the Guardian for a long time and I've noticed it's been embracing some of the more unsavory elements of the left in recent years. What elements? If you mean deliberately antagonistic opinion pieces from transphobic feminists (TERFs) then yes you're right. But I'm guessing that's probably not what you were referring to. If you mean run of the mill socialists then I can't see any truth to your claim - there's a small handful now and it's mostly the same small handful they published 10 years ago (Monbiot, Jones, previously Milne, and a couple of others). The Guardian as an institution hates socialism, even if it occasionally allows a mild opinion piece from a socialist about how it might be nice to raise the top rate of tax by 1% to pay for hospitals. Other than an increase in the amount of clickbait the Guardian is mostly the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago. The editorial position has actually shifted to the right slightly since Viner took over. But historically it's always been a liberal paper. It supported the SDP, has supported the Lib Dems at various times, supported Blair and supported Iraq. Part of liberalism involves giving voice to any old opinion no matter how dangerous, crazy, offensive or wrong, at least as long as it comes from the elite class and doesn't do anything as gauche as question the property rights of the wealthy middle class readership (coincidentally this leads to great clickbait on a lot of social and religious issues). So that's why you see the Guardian doing things like publishing articles by Ergodan or other fairly repulsive people as well as hosting flamewars over atheism/islam/feminism/cultural appropriation etc. It's not being left wing that leads to any of that. If it was a left wing paper it would contain far fewer articles of that type because the left wing generally doesn't subscribe to a "free market of ideas" like liberals do.

hyperdunc 9y ago
I can think of several common opinions surrounding Islam, gender and culture that the Guardian would not publish today. So I don't believe its as liberal as you say.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  If you are making these statements, you need to identify the things you think will not be published. It's very easy to whip out an accusation like "This would never be published" if you never say what "this" is.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    I'd love to specifically describe what wouldn't be published. However, last time I wrote about one of them on HN I was very quickly flagged.