3 ms·

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, so

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.

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.