10 ms·

Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. 'Member when The

Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. 'Member when The Guardian was one of the outlets boldly reporting the Snowden and Manning leaks? I member. Right now on their front page I can read how democracy is being undermined "by not distinguishing between fact and opinion". And you know what? They're right on this front. But they categorically refuse to point the fingers at all guilty parties, and instead stick to the targets that are politically opportune and which they are ideologically opposed to. e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, an effect that was presumably related to the millions her campaign pumped into Correct The Record, and which had a _huge_ effect in creating and calcifying the "right wing hate subreddits" they now hysterically complain about. e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). But when Russia is said to be _attempting_ this, it is presented as akin to cybernetic warfare. Well in that case, America has been fighting WW3 under our noses, and they are equally reprehensible for doing so. Otherwise, this is simply how the game is being played, and all is fair in love and war. Which one is it? Because "muh russia" isn't a consistent stance on this. The response appears to be for suspiciously many people to start posting complaints about "whataboutism", in a spontaneous attempt at misdirection away from the hypocrisy. How curious.

cantrip 9y ago
I get your frustration but the answer is less money.
funkythingss 9y ago
I agree. Ever since Snowden they have been going to absolute horse shit. examples: https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com most recent example: basically calling Taylor swift a white supremacist for being silent on politics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu... I can't take them seriously anymore, their editorial board has gone mad
- fineline 9y ago
  Thanks so much for that link. As a "progressive leaning" individual I have despaired at the descent of the Guardian, along with much of the formerly progressive media, into pure political-correctness-gone-mad, value-signalling nonsense, especially as I'm white, male and not getting any younger (apparently there are some demographics it's still just fine to build very negative stereotypes about...) It's good to counter that despair with the humour of collecting the maddest headlines together. Perhaps the Guardian really is just a clever, ironic, self-parodying send up thesedays?
  - funkythingss 9y ago
    It's funny that you mention parody. I recently came across this guy, who says he can't parody feminism anymore, because they've gone completely mad https://medusamagazine.com/i-created-medusa-magazine-and-i-am-shutting-it-down-because-feminist-stupidity-has-surpassed-satire https://medusamagazine.com/i-created-medusa-magazine-and-i-a... :D
jrs95 9y ago
I remember seeing an article from them arguing that we get rid of white emoji to punish white people for racism written by someone woman with pink hair and half her head shaved. Ever since then I've wondered if they're actually doing journalism, if they're actively trying to sabotage the left, or if they're really just that off their fucking rocker.
- funkythingss 9y ago
  I can't say that's a surprising headline for them anymore
  - standupstandup 9y ago
    Lots of downvoting from Guardian fans in this thread. Other entertaining headlines: "Teaching my child to cook does not make me a bad feminist" "Why do women lie more than men? Because we're 'nicer'" "Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did"
- icebraining 9y ago
  Meh, it's an opinion column, and fairly innofensive at that. In the same period, the NYTimes had an opinion article literally called: "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran" I prefer the war on the white emoji, personally.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mayneack 9y ago
The Guardian on "Correct the record": https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%22correct+the+record%22&oq=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%22correct+the+record%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.3174j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-emails-trump-clinton-campaign-leaks-media-bias https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/wikile... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/bernie-sanders-clinton-super-pac-jeremy-corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/bernie-sande... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/17/when-is-a-campaign-not-a-campaign-when-its-a-super-pac https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/17/when-is-a-ca...
- dominotw 9y ago
  > "Correct the Record, that is solely focused on defending her record." > “Correct the Record”, a rapid rebuttal unit Portraying them as some sort of superhero warriors/defenders is precisely what OP was talking about.
  - mayneack 9y ago
    I don't think we read the same links. "defending" and "rebuttal" are in none of the links I gave.
jimnotgym 9y ago
> e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). The Guardian did, however, break the story of the connection between the Brexit campaign and Bannon and Cambridge Analytica and Mercer et al. See Carole Cadwalleder's long series on this
- eighthnate 9y ago
  Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    > Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? If you think there is a story here report it to the Electoral commission. I'm sure they could run this in parallel with the Arron Banks investigation > It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda. Leaving the pro-Brexit camp with just The Times. Oh and the Mail... and the Express, the Sun, the Telegraph....
    - 115100 9y ago
      The Times endorsed Remain during the referendum campaign.
      - jimnotgym 9y ago
        I was a subscriber back then. Endorsed, with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
eighthnate 9y ago
> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. They've always published clickbait. But member donations will make it worse since the guardian has to cater to their members. It's why NPR is so skewed and biased. They have to cater to their members who are extremely biased. If they stop being biased, their members will stop supporting them. > e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, Because the news organization employees took over major subreddits. There was NPR and WaPo employees begging everyone to support their organizations on the politics sub. It was ridiculous. It's why I stopped using reddit altogether. It's pretty much "I hate Trump" and "support media by joining or buying a subscription.
khawkins 9y ago
> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. Won't this crowdfunding potentially polarize journalism even more? In general, individuals are more passionate about their political opinions and social causes than for neutral, high-quality journalism which sometimes confirms, sometimes rejects their world-views. You also invite strong pressures from well funded special interest groups, seeking to borrow on the credibility of journalism to promote a particular world view. At the very least, it's much harder to get businesses to openly profess a particular political view. Often those which do face huge backlash and more ill-will towards their brands than the good-will they're trying to foster with ads.
- standupstandup 9y ago
  Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.
- tsbertalan 9y ago
  I don't understand. What you call "crowdfunding" I'd just call "subscription", which is how all journalism was paid for until fairly recently. You're really arguing that openly corporate-funded "journalism" would be superior, and have a lesser tendency to promote a particular angle, like, say, the capitalism-cures-all-ills mantra?
- lostphilosopher 9y ago
  It's "no win" right? Whomever the news source is financially dependent on they at the mercy of that funding source's interest in neutrality. And since journalism costs money it will always be financially dependent on someone/thing. While a business may be wary about weighing in on a politically charged issue just to attempt to foster supporters good will (for exactly the reasons you discuss) the calculus is different when that issue directly affects their business. I'm not concerned about advertisers biasing news about unrelated hot button political issues. I'm worried about advertisers biasing news in favor of their business interests: corporate tax rates, trade agreements, consumer and environmental safety concerns - etc. Things that could be good for making the business money, but not good for people. I don't have those same concerns about individuals, but I'd have the (similar) concerns you bring up. The question then is what bias are you more comfortable with?
Nursie 9y ago
I have to agree, the Guardian has degenerated substantially. I think the stuff on the Panama papers is good, but a lot of the content seems to be loony-leftie territory, and very divisive. Then there's the constant undercurrent of finger-wagging superiority. The right-wing UK press have a superiority complex too, which I'd describe more as arrogant than finger-wagging. I'd generally rather read the guardian than most of the rest, but TBH in this day and age I'd be happy enough to watch them all sink without a trace. Long live the BBC. Now if they can just clone David Attenborough and get the clones to read the news and pretty much any other factual programs, we'd be on to a winner.
- sideshowb 9y ago
  The BBC has its own problems. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedia.politicsandthemedia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedi...
  - Nursie 9y ago
    It's certainly not perfect, but I'll take it over the rest of what's on offer the vast majority of the time. And 14 years is a long old time... FWIW I agree with the findings in that piece, the BBC were too shy about holding the government to account during the buildup to the Iraq war.
    - sideshowb 9y ago
      Me too, I will use BBC for most news. 14 years is long but the power dynamic hasn't changed: they still rely on the government's blessing in one way or another.
ouid 9y ago
You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack. You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!" This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans.
- hitekker 9y ago
  I'd caveat this by saying that corrupt democrats do exist; not every democrat is pure and truthful. Far from it, a good swathe of them are likely just politicians with their own self interest. The left is very much not sunshine and rainbows. However, you are correct in noting that the parent commenter desperately wants to paint both sides as biased, guilty, and debased, in order to excuse the wrongdoings of the cause he fervently supports. "If I can convince myself that everyone did what we did, then there's nothing wrong if we continue to do it!" Ah, projection; the mark of the politically insecure.
  - theoh 9y ago
    You presumably don't mean "99% of democrats are not pure and truthful." Did you mean that apart from 1% bad apples, they are? Because what you wrote condemns 99% of them. Difference between "not everyone is pure" and "everyone is not pure".
    - hitekker 9y ago
      Good point, but I did actually mean to put down 99% of democrat leaders. To be "pure and truthful" to me is a high standard, which most of our representatives do not currently meet. I have updated my comment to clarify.
    - skinnymuch 9y ago
      Saying 99% of almost any group is not pure and truthful is probably much closer to the truth than a small fraction like 1%. And I'm assuming we aren't literally meaning completely pure and truthful either. Still has me think the original statement is closer to the truth. Democrats in America are no saints. Just compared to Republicans, in my opinion, they comparatively are much better.
lucozade 9y ago
The Guardian is the only British newspaper that genuinely makes me laugh. Every now and then it gets so tied up in knots with its internal contradictions that it intellectually implodes. Corbyn's been the main cause of that recently. Even the leftie journalists were starting to get a bit twitchy that he might actually do something leftie. As I'm writing this, the UK edition is leading with Prince Harry marrying (presumably republicans can like royals). It's running alongside an opinion piece stating that the marriage will change Britain's relationship with race forever. Not entirely clear why other than there has to be a gender/sexuality/race angle (just because). So that story's shaping up nicely.
- nicky0 9y ago
  It's the Independent that was the overtly republican paper, I'm not sure if the Guardian is?
kibwen 9y ago
> I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election Presumably because that didn't happen in the slightest, but I'll forgive your lapse of memory. Before the nomination, all the presumably "left-leaning" subreddits (like /r/politics) were firmly in Sanders' camp and out for Clinton's head. After the nomination the battleground only intensified, and the schism continued through the election. Meanwhile, the news subreddits like /r/news and /r/worldnews oscillated wildly between pro-Republican and pro-Democrat, major subs like /r/trees were vaguely pro-Trump (on balance, /r/TwoXChromosomes was vaguely pro-Clinton), and /r/all was completely overrun at all hours of the day by /r/the_donald's successful exploitation of Reddit's front page algorithm. Anyone claiming that Reddit was "pro-Hillary" must have been in a coma for all of 2016 (not that I blame them, I bet half of us here wish we had been too).
dv_dt 9y ago
It's possible for a newspaper to publish a mix of quality material as well as more generally popular material... it might even be an objective to to that depending on your business model.
Red_Tarsius 9y ago
The Guardian is not different from any other Tabloid, except the viewership is the left higher class. The journalists still mispresent data and exploit racial/gender tensions to make bucks. I used to read it every day, now I only look at the environment section.

cantrip 9y ago

I get your frustration but the answer is less money.

funkythingss 9y ago

I agree. Ever since Snowden they have been going to absolute horse shit. examples: https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com most recent example: basically calling Taylor swift a white supremacist for being silent on politics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu... I can't take them seriously anymore, their editorial board has gone mad

fineline 9y ago
Thanks so much for that link. As a "progressive leaning" individual I have despaired at the descent of the Guardian, along with much of the formerly progressive media, into pure political-correctness-gone-mad, value-signalling nonsense, especially as I'm white, male and not getting any younger (apparently there are some demographics it's still just fine to build very negative stereotypes about...) It's good to counter that despair with the humour of collecting the maddest headlines together. Perhaps the Guardian really is just a clever, ironic, self-parodying send up thesedays?
- funkythingss 9y ago
  It's funny that you mention parody. I recently came across this guy, who says he can't parody feminism anymore, because they've gone completely mad https://medusamagazine.com/i-created-medusa-magazine-and-i-am-shutting-it-down-because-feminist-stupidity-has-surpassed-satire https://medusamagazine.com/i-created-medusa-magazine-and-i-a... :D

jrs95 9y ago

I remember seeing an article from them arguing that we get rid of white emoji to punish white people for racism written by someone woman with pink hair and half her head shaved. Ever since then I've wondered if they're actually doing journalism, if they're actively trying to sabotage the left, or if they're really just that off their fucking rocker.

funkythingss 9y ago
I can't say that's a surprising headline for them anymore
- standupstandup 9y ago
  Lots of downvoting from Guardian fans in this thread. Other entertaining headlines: "Teaching my child to cook does not make me a bad feminist" "Why do women lie more than men? Because we're 'nicer'" "Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did"
icebraining 9y ago
Meh, it's an opinion column, and fairly innofensive at that. In the same period, the NYTimes had an opinion article literally called: "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran" I prefer the war on the white emoji, personally.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mayneack 9y ago

The Guardian on "Correct the record": https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%22correct+the+record%22&oq=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%22correct+the+record%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.3174j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-emails-trump-clinton-campaign-leaks-media-bias https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/wikile... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/bernie-sanders-clinton-super-pac-jeremy-corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/bernie-sande... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/17/when-is-a-campaign-not-a-campaign-when-its-a-super-pac https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/17/when-is-a-ca...

dominotw 9y ago
> "Correct the Record, that is solely focused on defending her record." > “Correct the Record”, a rapid rebuttal unit Portraying them as some sort of superhero warriors/defenders is precisely what OP was talking about.
- mayneack 9y ago
  I don't think we read the same links. "defending" and "rebuttal" are in none of the links I gave.

jimnotgym 9y ago

> e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). The Guardian did, however, break the story of the connection between the Brexit campaign and Bannon and Cambridge Analytica and Mercer et al. See Carole Cadwalleder's long series on this

eighthnate 9y ago
Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  > Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? If you think there is a story here report it to the Electoral commission. I'm sure they could run this in parallel with the Arron Banks investigation > It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda. Leaving the pro-Brexit camp with just The Times. Oh and the Mail... and the Express, the Sun, the Telegraph....
  - 115100 9y ago
    The Times endorsed Remain during the referendum campaign.
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      I was a subscriber back then. Endorsed, with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

eighthnate 9y ago

> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. They've always published clickbait. But member donations will make it worse since the guardian has to cater to their members. It's why NPR is so skewed and biased. They have to cater to their members who are extremely biased. If they stop being biased, their members will stop supporting them. > e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, Because the news organization employees took over major subreddits. There was NPR and WaPo employees begging everyone to support their organizations on the politics sub. It was ridiculous. It's why I stopped using reddit altogether. It's pretty much "I hate Trump" and "support media by joining or buying a subscription.

khawkins 9y ago

> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. Won't this crowdfunding potentially polarize journalism even more? In general, individuals are more passionate about their political opinions and social causes than for neutral, high-quality journalism which sometimes confirms, sometimes rejects their world-views. You also invite strong pressures from well funded special interest groups, seeking to borrow on the credibility of journalism to promote a particular world view. At the very least, it's much harder to get businesses to openly profess a particular political view. Often those which do face huge backlash and more ill-will towards their brands than the good-will they're trying to foster with ads.

standupstandup 9y ago
Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.
tsbertalan 9y ago
I don't understand. What you call "crowdfunding" I'd just call "subscription", which is how all journalism was paid for until fairly recently. You're really arguing that openly corporate-funded "journalism" would be superior, and have a lesser tendency to promote a particular angle, like, say, the capitalism-cures-all-ills mantra?
lostphilosopher 9y ago
It's "no win" right? Whomever the news source is financially dependent on they at the mercy of that funding source's interest in neutrality. And since journalism costs money it will always be financially dependent on someone/thing. While a business may be wary about weighing in on a politically charged issue just to attempt to foster supporters good will (for exactly the reasons you discuss) the calculus is different when that issue directly affects their business. I'm not concerned about advertisers biasing news about unrelated hot button political issues. I'm worried about advertisers biasing news in favor of their business interests: corporate tax rates, trade agreements, consumer and environmental safety concerns - etc. Things that could be good for making the business money, but not good for people. I don't have those same concerns about individuals, but I'd have the (similar) concerns you bring up. The question then is what bias are you more comfortable with?

Nursie 9y ago

I have to agree, the Guardian has degenerated substantially. I think the stuff on the Panama papers is good, but a lot of the content seems to be loony-leftie territory, and very divisive. Then there's the constant undercurrent of finger-wagging superiority. The right-wing UK press have a superiority complex too, which I'd describe more as arrogant than finger-wagging. I'd generally rather read the guardian than most of the rest, but TBH in this day and age I'd be happy enough to watch them all sink without a trace. Long live the BBC. Now if they can just clone David Attenborough and get the clones to read the news and pretty much any other factual programs, we'd be on to a winner.

sideshowb 9y ago
The BBC has its own problems. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedia.politicsandthemedia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedi...
- Nursie 9y ago
  It's certainly not perfect, but I'll take it over the rest of what's on offer the vast majority of the time. And 14 years is a long old time... FWIW I agree with the findings in that piece, the BBC were too shy about holding the government to account during the buildup to the Iraq war.
  - sideshowb 9y ago
    Me too, I will use BBC for most news. 14 years is long but the power dynamic hasn't changed: they still rely on the government's blessing in one way or another.

ouid 9y ago

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack. You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!" This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans.

hitekker 9y ago
I'd caveat this by saying that corrupt democrats do exist; not every democrat is pure and truthful. Far from it, a good swathe of them are likely just politicians with their own self interest. The left is very much not sunshine and rainbows. However, you are correct in noting that the parent commenter desperately wants to paint both sides as biased, guilty, and debased, in order to excuse the wrongdoings of the cause he fervently supports. "If I can convince myself that everyone did what we did, then there's nothing wrong if we continue to do it!" Ah, projection; the mark of the politically insecure.
- theoh 9y ago
  You presumably don't mean "99% of democrats are not pure and truthful." Did you mean that apart from 1% bad apples, they are? Because what you wrote condemns 99% of them. Difference between "not everyone is pure" and "everyone is not pure".
  - hitekker 9y ago
    Good point, but I did actually mean to put down 99% of democrat leaders. To be "pure and truthful" to me is a high standard, which most of our representatives do not currently meet. I have updated my comment to clarify.
  - skinnymuch 9y ago
    Saying 99% of almost any group is not pure and truthful is probably much closer to the truth than a small fraction like 1%. And I'm assuming we aren't literally meaning completely pure and truthful either. Still has me think the original statement is closer to the truth. Democrats in America are no saints. Just compared to Republicans, in my opinion, they comparatively are much better.

lucozade 9y ago

The Guardian is the only British newspaper that genuinely makes me laugh. Every now and then it gets so tied up in knots with its internal contradictions that it intellectually implodes. Corbyn's been the main cause of that recently. Even the leftie journalists were starting to get a bit twitchy that he might actually do something leftie. As I'm writing this, the UK edition is leading with Prince Harry marrying (presumably republicans can like royals). It's running alongside an opinion piece stating that the marriage will change Britain's relationship with race forever. Not entirely clear why other than there has to be a gender/sexuality/race angle (just because). So that story's shaping up nicely.

nicky0 9y ago
It's the Independent that was the overtly republican paper, I'm not sure if the Guardian is?

kibwen 9y ago

> I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election Presumably because that didn't happen in the slightest, but I'll forgive your lapse of memory. Before the nomination, all the presumably "left-leaning" subreddits (like /r/politics) were firmly in Sanders' camp and out for Clinton's head. After the nomination the battleground only intensified, and the schism continued through the election. Meanwhile, the news subreddits like /r/news and /r/worldnews oscillated wildly between pro-Republican and pro-Democrat, major subs like /r/trees were vaguely pro-Trump (on balance, /r/TwoXChromosomes was vaguely pro-Clinton), and /r/all was completely overrun at all hours of the day by /r/the_donald's successful exploitation of Reddit's front page algorithm. Anyone claiming that Reddit was "pro-Hillary" must have been in a coma for all of 2016 (not that I blame them, I bet half of us here wish we had been too).

dv_dt 9y ago

It's possible for a newspaper to publish a mix of quality material as well as more generally popular material... it might even be an objective to to that depending on your business model.

Red_Tarsius 9y ago

The Guardian is not different from any other Tabloid, except the viewership is the left higher class. The journalists still mispresent data and exploit racial/gender tensions to make bucks. I used to read it every day, now I only look at the environment section.