6 ms·

Isn't this the institutional version of an ad hominem? Every article from the Guardian, the NYT, or really any other large publisher gets this comment, and it'

Isn't this the institutional version of an ad hominem? Every article from the Guardian, the NYT, or really any other large publisher gets this comment, and it's often voted to the top. It adds nothing. Everyone knows half of the population doesn't trust any newspaper to get the date on the front page right. So the Guardian thinks #metoo and the financial crisis were among the topics of salience on the last year? I would actually bet both Bernie Sanders and Rupert Murdoch would agree the financial crisis mattered. And even Harvey Weinstein would agree #metoo had some sort of impact. Because we might no longer have a shared truth, but there's still quite a lot of agreement on what to disagree about, There is no "bias-free" book that shaped the decade. Unless you go by print run, and it's the leaflet that comes with every new iPhone. Or go by sales figures, in which case it's 50 Shades of Gray. Which is obviously wrong, but kind of fitting. After all, this seems to be the decade were anything but black and white disappeared.

mashby 7y ago
"Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias" The quote is from the donation plea box under this list. This list is only commercial and political bias. It even ends with a corporate sponsered book award. :)
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Love them or loathe them they are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers. They are not owned by an individual of extreme wealth setting the agenda, sometimes on day to day issues and prospective governing party e.g, Murdoch doing a deal with Blair. They're owned by a trust which, since before the war, aims to keep the paper's liberal position, without party affiliation. I don't think there's another UK paper without a sugar daddy, and suffering in reporting as a consequence.
  - mashby 7y ago
    This is irrelevant. It is at best a legalistic wrangling of irreality. Come on, be honest.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      It's not irrelevant as it separates them from day to day individual influence. The trust doesn't even pay dividends, so it's not beholden to investors. Its aim, I assume, is to keep the papers going indefinitely, representing a similar worldview as they always did. That's not the same as not having a position -- everyone has a position. It's just made rather more overt than the hidden whims of an owner. I would love for a UK paper of the right, or The Times, once a great independent and mostly apolitical source, to be funded on a similar basis. Our media would be much the better for it. "legalistic wrangling of irreality" I can decode no meaning from this.
      - mashby 7y ago
        Your point depends upon the idea that because the organisation is within a different type of legal entity than a company, it must be immune from all ills. This is obviously not true. You are exposing your own bias. I get it, you are left wing, that is fine, but... It is a legalistic wrangling of irreality.
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    Comments suggesting The Guardian is free of bias is why reminders are needed here that it is profoundly so.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      This is hilarious. Does no one understand the difference between a position, a worldview and bias any more? Bias is an unfair or dishonest prejudice, or attempt to distort one way or another. That someone happens not to be agreeing with me, or you, is not bias. Out of interest, among the UK sources, who do you consider unbiased? The FT has a financial worldview whilst aiming to be free of bias. The Guardian has a left of centre liberal worldview. The Telegraph used to have an honest worldview of the Conservative right. The Times used to be an independent source, with a small c conservative worldview of the establishment, rather than party or left / right. In 1980 I would probably view all of these as unbiased honest reportage, outside opinion columns, whilst they all had a very clear and obvious perspective on the world. The Guardian pretty much represents what they did 40 years ago. The Telegraph transformed themselves to something unrecognisable 15 years ago when the Barclay brothers bought them and they went from honest right of centre paper to Sunday Sport with multi syllable words, almost overnight. The fall of The Times under Murdoch has been as dramatic, just a little slower. p.s. Saying they "are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers" is not claiming them perfect, "free of bias" or immune to poor reporting. I know of no source that manages that perfectly.
      - mellosouls 7y ago
        Saying they are free of bias (or "free from the usual bias", like that's a big difference) is absurd, and attempting to backpedal by qualifying that claim and redefining the meaning of the word is no more useful.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Check Oxford Dictionary or Websters. No redefinition. I'm done here.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  "Commercial and political bias" in that quote refers to external actors (parties, companies, etc) having undue influence on their reporting, by for example party ownership (surprisingly common in some countries) or large advertising contracts tilted to some side of an issue. It is impossible for anything written in an article to be bias in the sense of the word clearly intended. What you are labelling bias could possibly be the outcome of bias. It could be evidence of bias. But since you bring no new argument, your logic is just circular: "this is biased because it's from the Guardian. And the Guardian is clearly biased, becaue they wrote this."
  - mashby 7y ago
    So...Their freedom from "Commericial and political bias" is conditional on conforming to their own commercial and political bias. How about that for circular? P.s This article is promoting products from "external actors" that they polictically agree with. You are being disingenous.
mellosouls 7y ago
Your first three paragraphs are rendered extremely questionable by the bizarre comments in the replies claiming The Guardian isn't biased. That's why reminders of its very skewed perspective are needed. The effects of the financial crisis (austerity) or the complete lack of accountability in the UK don't seem to be represented in the list as I pointed out - despite being of profound importance, instead The Big Short (excellent, but describing the venality of the previous decade) is. Apart from that, I acknowledged the difficulty in finding a bias free source, but I don't think there are as many places in the supposedly "serious" press that the tone leaps out so regularly.

mashby 7y ago

"Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias" The quote is from the donation plea box under this list. This list is only commercial and political bias. It even ends with a corporate sponsered book award. :)

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Love them or loathe them they are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers. They are not owned by an individual of extreme wealth setting the agenda, sometimes on day to day issues and prospective governing party e.g, Murdoch doing a deal with Blair. They're owned by a trust which, since before the war, aims to keep the paper's liberal position, without party affiliation. I don't think there's another UK paper without a sugar daddy, and suffering in reporting as a consequence.
- mashby 7y ago
  This is irrelevant. It is at best a legalistic wrangling of irreality. Come on, be honest.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    It's not irrelevant as it separates them from day to day individual influence. The trust doesn't even pay dividends, so it's not beholden to investors. Its aim, I assume, is to keep the papers going indefinitely, representing a similar worldview as they always did. That's not the same as not having a position -- everyone has a position. It's just made rather more overt than the hidden whims of an owner. I would love for a UK paper of the right, or The Times, once a great independent and mostly apolitical source, to be funded on a similar basis. Our media would be much the better for it. "legalistic wrangling of irreality" I can decode no meaning from this.
    - mashby 7y ago
      Your point depends upon the idea that because the organisation is within a different type of legal entity than a company, it must be immune from all ills. This is obviously not true. You are exposing your own bias. I get it, you are left wing, that is fine, but... It is a legalistic wrangling of irreality.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  Comments suggesting The Guardian is free of bias is why reminders are needed here that it is profoundly so.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    This is hilarious. Does no one understand the difference between a position, a worldview and bias any more? Bias is an unfair or dishonest prejudice, or attempt to distort one way or another. That someone happens not to be agreeing with me, or you, is not bias. Out of interest, among the UK sources, who do you consider unbiased? The FT has a financial worldview whilst aiming to be free of bias. The Guardian has a left of centre liberal worldview. The Telegraph used to have an honest worldview of the Conservative right. The Times used to be an independent source, with a small c conservative worldview of the establishment, rather than party or left / right. In 1980 I would probably view all of these as unbiased honest reportage, outside opinion columns, whilst they all had a very clear and obvious perspective on the world. The Guardian pretty much represents what they did 40 years ago. The Telegraph transformed themselves to something unrecognisable 15 years ago when the Barclay brothers bought them and they went from honest right of centre paper to Sunday Sport with multi syllable words, almost overnight. The fall of The Times under Murdoch has been as dramatic, just a little slower. p.s. Saying they "are free from the usual bias of the major newspapers" is not claiming them perfect, "free of bias" or immune to poor reporting. I know of no source that manages that perfectly.
    - mellosouls 7y ago
      Saying they are free of bias (or "free from the usual bias", like that's a big difference) is absurd, and attempting to backpedal by qualifying that claim and redefining the meaning of the word is no more useful.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Check Oxford Dictionary or Websters. No redefinition. I'm done here.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
"Commercial and political bias" in that quote refers to external actors (parties, companies, etc) having undue influence on their reporting, by for example party ownership (surprisingly common in some countries) or large advertising contracts tilted to some side of an issue. It is impossible for anything written in an article to be bias in the sense of the word clearly intended. What you are labelling bias could possibly be the outcome of bias. It could be evidence of bias. But since you bring no new argument, your logic is just circular: "this is biased because it's from the Guardian. And the Guardian is clearly biased, becaue they wrote this."
- mashby 7y ago
  So...Their freedom from "Commericial and political bias" is conditional on conforming to their own commercial and political bias. How about that for circular? P.s This article is promoting products from "external actors" that they polictically agree with. You are being disingenous.

mellosouls 7y ago

Your first three paragraphs are rendered extremely questionable by the bizarre comments in the replies claiming The Guardian isn't biased. That's why reminders of its very skewed perspective are needed. The effects of the financial crisis (austerity) or the complete lack of accountability in the UK don't seem to be represented in the list as I pointed out - despite being of profound importance, instead The Big Short (excellent, but describing the venality of the previous decade) is. Apart from that, I acknowledged the difficulty in finding a bias free source, but I don't think there are as many places in the supposedly "serious" press that the tone leaps out so regularly.