4 ms·

About The Guardian in particular, I've been saying this for a while. [0] I'll quote #peoplewindow's reply, broadly agreeing with my comment: >The Guardian has

About The Guardian in particular, I've been saying this for a while. [0] I'll quote #peoplewindow's reply, broadly agreeing with my comment: >The Guardian has been pushing the line that non-Guardian news sources are 'dangerous for democracy' for a long time now. Other similar publications like the NYT have the same viewpoint. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573111

randomsearch 9y ago
Utter nonsense. Check out the Guardian’s history and structure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. Pretty much the opposite of Facebook.
- delhanty 9y ago
  >The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. That statement is nonsense. Of course The Guardian can't possible be objective w.r.t. Facebook. Facebook and The Guardian are competitors in the market for online advertising. edit: double-down
  - ghughes 9y ago
    GP's statement is fairly accurate and so is yours. All mainstream news outlets are competitors in the online ad market, and The Guardian is about as good as you get in terms of independence and objectivity.
- wbillingsley 9y ago
  > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-appeals-eu-fine-search-engine-results-shopping-service https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-ap... Technically, no. Though the Guardian is good and thorough at what it does, it is explicitly established to advance a liberal viewpoint, rather than be purely "objective". See their own about page for the Scott Trust, which is the non-profit that is responsible for publishing and governing The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-... The current editor, Katharine Viner, has also been fairly explicit about this in the past (notably in live chats when in charge of the then-new Australian edition). Most UK news outlets wear their political stance on their sleeve. One of the common ways to get an objective view is to read both The Guardian (left) and The Telegraph (right), and from that triangulate what in the story is a matter of political perspective. In terms of this topic, the power of tech, Katharine Viner posted a "long read" in 2016 that it's unlikely they'll deviate from in terms of "The Guardian view on..." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology... From an organisational perspective, you can also read a bit "between the lines" from their financial situation -- growing readership but losing money. Which puts them at an awkward cross-roads where their mission to promote liberal values is best served by remaining free, but it that places their future in jeopardy. TL;DR: though The Guardian is good, don't mistake "independent" for "neutral"; it has a well-established political view.
fineline 9y ago
Despite being a progressive-leaning person I find the Guardian's recent political correctness and value-signalling to be grating, and have been looking for an alternative and less hyperbolic sources of news. It's like they abandoned their detachment, independence and integrity in a bid to become the mirror image of the Murdoch press. I guess there's a good market for that, a large and growing choir to preach to.
- delhanty 9y ago
  >Despite being a progressive-leaning person I find the Guardian's recent political correctness and value-signalling to be grating +1 That's (part of) what I'm trying to say. The other part is that, though I'm not all a fan of Facebook, The Guardian (as a competitor) clearly has a self-interested agenda with these anti-Facebook articles. A few years ago, they used to run a lot of snide, sneering articles about "bloggers". Now that it turns out that blogs have modulo-zero impact on their bottom line, their focus has turned to Facebook et al.

randomsearch 9y ago

Utter nonsense. Check out the Guardian’s history and structure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. Pretty much the opposite of Facebook.

delhanty 9y ago
>The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. That statement is nonsense. Of course The Guardian can't possible be objective w.r.t. Facebook. Facebook and The Guardian are competitors in the market for online advertising. edit: double-down
- ghughes 9y ago
  GP's statement is fairly accurate and so is yours. All mainstream news outlets are competitors in the online ad market, and The Guardian is about as good as you get in terms of independence and objectivity.
wbillingsley 9y ago
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-appeals-eu-fine-search-engine-results-shopping-service https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-ap... Technically, no. Though the Guardian is good and thorough at what it does, it is explicitly established to advance a liberal viewpoint, rather than be purely "objective". See their own about page for the Scott Trust, which is the non-profit that is responsible for publishing and governing The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-... The current editor, Katharine Viner, has also been fairly explicit about this in the past (notably in live chats when in charge of the then-new Australian edition). Most UK news outlets wear their political stance on their sleeve. One of the common ways to get an objective view is to read both The Guardian (left) and The Telegraph (right), and from that triangulate what in the story is a matter of political perspective. In terms of this topic, the power of tech, Katharine Viner posted a "long read" in 2016 that it's unlikely they'll deviate from in terms of "The Guardian view on..." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology... From an organisational perspective, you can also read a bit "between the lines" from their financial situation -- growing readership but losing money. Which puts them at an awkward cross-roads where their mission to promote liberal values is best served by remaining free, but it that places their future in jeopardy. TL;DR: though The Guardian is good, don't mistake "independent" for "neutral"; it has a well-established political view.

fineline 9y ago

Despite being a progressive-leaning person I find the Guardian's recent political correctness and value-signalling to be grating, and have been looking for an alternative and less hyperbolic sources of news. It's like they abandoned their detachment, independence and integrity in a bid to become the mirror image of the Murdoch press. I guess there's a good market for that, a large and growing choir to preach to.

delhanty 9y ago
>Despite being a progressive-leaning person I find the Guardian's recent political correctness and value-signalling to be grating +1 That's (part of) what I'm trying to say. The other part is that, though I'm not all a fan of Facebook, The Guardian (as a competitor) clearly has a self-interested agenda with these anti-Facebook articles. A few years ago, they used to run a lot of snide, sneering articles about "bloggers". Now that it turns out that blogs have modulo-zero impact on their bottom line, their focus has turned to Facebook et al.