5 ms·

The physcology behind this is more political than business, the guardian is a lefty newspaper and is getting political support

radmuzom 9y ago
While this comment is down-voted, it is not necessarily wrong. As an Indian, I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President that I subscribed to multiple organizations which are considered left-wing by American conservatives or libertarians. These include regular fees to NY Times, Propublica and Guardian with occasional donations to various organizations in the United States.
- netsharc 9y ago
  The danger is that "leftie" journalists hang out with leftie friends and they tell themselves "All my friends are voting Hillary/Remain, Trump/Brexit will lose". and then we lefties get shell-shocked the morning after. At least these papers are intellectually honest and admit mistakes, one trait of the right-wing, and their press, is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!".
  - gaius 9y ago
    is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!". Hardly - the NYT et al is yet to grasp the nettle and just admit that Hillary was a bad candidate. No Russians, no sexism, no conspiracies necessary.
- floatboth 9y ago
  NY Times is far from "considered left-wing". It's currently heavily criticized for publishing terrible articles sympathizing with and humanizing literal neo-nazis.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters, they're actual living breathing people, and only by understanding that fact can we surmise their motivations and act against them.
    - croon 9y ago
      > Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters I'm not sure that being mindful monsters is better.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        Oh no, absolutely not. Realizing that they're just people like you or me or anyone else is terrifying, because it means we all potentially have these impulses. It makes it much harder to think of them as an "other", and just brush them away with "well, they're just evil monsters".
    - pjc50 9y ago
      As someone pointed out, the coverage of neo-nazis was far more favourable and humanising than most of the coverage of black people wrongly shot by police. And surprisingly similar to a lot of the 1930s coverage of Hitler's charming dinner parties. Fascism generally is charming until you're on the wrong end of the jackboot.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Where is this pointed out?
- otalp 9y ago
  NYT and The Guardian are not "left-wing". They are establishment liberal and have supported every major war the US has been involved in. They regularly slander anti-establishment and left-wing intellectuals[1][2] and for the most part hate or ignore people like Corbyn and Sanders. [1] 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... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-c...
  - icc97 9y ago
    The Guardian is 'centre-left' and the most left wing (it's the only one that is left of centre) broadsheet newspaper in the UK [0]. I don't think your comment about hating Corbyn is that correct either. There clearly were some negative articles about him and there was a columnist who was attacking Corbyn but who has since apologised [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Broadsheet_and_former_broadsheet_newspapers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/jeremy-corbyn-general-election--labour-rewrites-rules https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/jeremy...
  - chimprich 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's total rubbish. The Guardian supported Corbyn in the recent general election [1]. The Guardian was very strongly opposed to e.g. the invasion of Iraq (articles too numerous to cite). Of your two references, one is from Glenn Greenwald criticising the Guardian. The other is Glenn Greenwald /published in the Guardian/ defending Chomsky. The article he criticises got corrected. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/201...
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President The other candidate was Hillary, so the Americans had no choice in voting for a criminal.
amriksohata 9y ago
Don't know why this got downvoted, it's the same as dailymail or the sun, or times, they have right wing donors and subscribers
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  Just they often happen to be a few billionaires that use the media platforms to push their agendas to get beefy returns. I'm not saying all, but as a general trend.
- otalp 9y ago
  There isn't a single left-winger I know who thinks the Guardian isn't mostly garbage. They are filled with Blairites, have long hated Corbyn, barely covered Sanders in their US edition and openly libel even moderately left-wing intellectuals before they are forced to retract their articles after their egregious reporting is pointed out.(eg: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-c... and https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublishing.corrections https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublis...) The Guardian is for the most part the paper of liberals and Hillary Clinton fans.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    I rolled my eyes so hard at this misrepresentation that I think I injured myself. Your point is not well-made. The Guardian is a soft-left newspaper, objectively so, and while it might not be a flag-waving neo-Pravda it’s anything but a paper for classical liberals.
    - otalp 9y ago
      It's not about being "flag waving neo-pravdas" - incidentally their example of egregious reporting that I gave an example of, was aimed at someone who's compared the soviet union to fascist states and was fiercely critical of Lenin, Trotsky and Marx. It's about their documented antipathy against anyone left of Blair and New Labour. Call a Bush-allied war-mongering neoliberal "soft-left" if you want, but it's risible to claim that the grassroots organising and activism that Momentum and Sanders represent is Stalinist.
Arnt 9y ago
You're making an unsupported assertion that people pay for leftist writing rather than for quality writing. Please supply arguments to support that.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Assuming "quality" means accuracy/truthfulness, how can the average reader rate the quality of any writing?
  - Arnt 9y ago
    That's a strange question. Do you perhaps mean: as opposed by judging by proxies like nuance, complicated sentences, absence of sensationalism, etc? Hindsight is one way. A reader looking for quality publications can wait a month, reconsider and form a conclusion.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Yes. But what conclusion can time bring? What independent conclusion can be better formed at a later date?
      - Arnt 9y ago
        (This feels weird.) Newspapers often print news. Things not yet confirmed or denied elsewhere. Today I see a headline about which ministers knew about a particular evil deed before it was too late. Right now the article rests on anonymous sources, in a week all of of the relevant people will have spoken on the record. The fairness of a summary or clarity of an interpretation is similarly easier to judge after the people involved have had the opportunity to react to the article.

radmuzom 9y ago

While this comment is down-voted, it is not necessarily wrong. As an Indian, I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President that I subscribed to multiple organizations which are considered left-wing by American conservatives or libertarians. These include regular fees to NY Times, Propublica and Guardian with occasional donations to various organizations in the United States.

netsharc 9y ago
The danger is that "leftie" journalists hang out with leftie friends and they tell themselves "All my friends are voting Hillary/Remain, Trump/Brexit will lose". and then we lefties get shell-shocked the morning after. At least these papers are intellectually honest and admit mistakes, one trait of the right-wing, and their press, is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!".
- gaius 9y ago
  is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!". Hardly - the NYT et al is yet to grasp the nettle and just admit that Hillary was a bad candidate. No Russians, no sexism, no conspiracies necessary.
floatboth 9y ago
NY Times is far from "considered left-wing". It's currently heavily criticized for publishing terrible articles sympathizing with and humanizing literal neo-nazis.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters, they're actual living breathing people, and only by understanding that fact can we surmise their motivations and act against them.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters I'm not sure that being mindful monsters is better.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Oh no, absolutely not. Realizing that they're just people like you or me or anyone else is terrifying, because it means we all potentially have these impulses. It makes it much harder to think of them as an "other", and just brush them away with "well, they're just evil monsters".
  - pjc50 9y ago
    As someone pointed out, the coverage of neo-nazis was far more favourable and humanising than most of the coverage of black people wrongly shot by police. And surprisingly similar to a lot of the 1930s coverage of Hitler's charming dinner parties. Fascism generally is charming until you're on the wrong end of the jackboot.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Where is this pointed out?
otalp 9y ago
NYT and The Guardian are not "left-wing". They are establishment liberal and have supported every major war the US has been involved in. They regularly slander anti-establishment and left-wing intellectuals[1][2] and for the most part hate or ignore people like Corbyn and Sanders. [1] 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... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-c...
- icc97 9y ago
  The Guardian is 'centre-left' and the most left wing (it's the only one that is left of centre) broadsheet newspaper in the UK [0]. I don't think your comment about hating Corbyn is that correct either. There clearly were some negative articles about him and there was a columnist who was attacking Corbyn but who has since apologised [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Broadsheet_and_former_broadsheet_newspapers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/jeremy-corbyn-general-election--labour-rewrites-rules https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/10/jeremy...
- chimprich 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's total rubbish. The Guardian supported Corbyn in the recent general election [1]. The Guardian was very strongly opposed to e.g. the invasion of Iraq (articles too numerous to cite). Of your two references, one is from Glenn Greenwald criticising the Guardian. The other is Glenn Greenwald /published in the Guardian/ defending Chomsky. The article he criticises got corrected. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/201...
Chris2048 9y ago
> I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President The other candidate was Hillary, so the Americans had no choice in voting for a criminal.

amriksohata 9y ago

Don't know why this got downvoted, it's the same as dailymail or the sun, or times, they have right wing donors and subscribers

dullgiulio 9y ago
Just they often happen to be a few billionaires that use the media platforms to push their agendas to get beefy returns. I'm not saying all, but as a general trend.
otalp 9y ago
There isn't a single left-winger I know who thinks the Guardian isn't mostly garbage. They are filled with Blairites, have long hated Corbyn, barely covered Sanders in their US edition and openly libel even moderately left-wing intellectuals before they are forced to retract their articles after their egregious reporting is pointed out.(eg: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-c... and https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublishing.corrections https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublis...) The Guardian is for the most part the paper of liberals and Hillary Clinton fans.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  I rolled my eyes so hard at this misrepresentation that I think I injured myself. Your point is not well-made. The Guardian is a soft-left newspaper, objectively so, and while it might not be a flag-waving neo-Pravda it’s anything but a paper for classical liberals.
  - otalp 9y ago
    It's not about being "flag waving neo-pravdas" - incidentally their example of egregious reporting that I gave an example of, was aimed at someone who's compared the soviet union to fascist states and was fiercely critical of Lenin, Trotsky and Marx. It's about their documented antipathy against anyone left of Blair and New Labour. Call a Bush-allied war-mongering neoliberal "soft-left" if you want, but it's risible to claim that the grassroots organising and activism that Momentum and Sanders represent is Stalinist.

Arnt 9y ago

You're making an unsupported assertion that people pay for leftist writing rather than for quality writing. Please supply arguments to support that.

Chris2048 9y ago
Assuming "quality" means accuracy/truthfulness, how can the average reader rate the quality of any writing?
- Arnt 9y ago
  That's a strange question. Do you perhaps mean: as opposed by judging by proxies like nuance, complicated sentences, absence of sensationalism, etc? Hindsight is one way. A reader looking for quality publications can wait a month, reconsider and form a conclusion.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Yes. But what conclusion can time bring? What independent conclusion can be better formed at a later date?
    - Arnt 9y ago
      (This feels weird.) Newspapers often print news. Things not yet confirmed or denied elsewhere. Today I see a headline about which ministers knew about a particular evil deed before it was too late. Right now the article rests on anonymous sources, in a week all of of the relevant people will have spoken on the record. The fairness of a summary or clarity of an interpretation is similarly easier to judge after the people involved have had the opportunity to react to the article.