3 ms·

I meant "respective individuals" in the sense, it's lastly humans being responsible for the written piece of news. I find it very curious you would single out

I meant "respective individuals" in the sense, it's lastly humans being responsible for the written piece of news. I find it very curious you would single out "The Guardian" of all publications. That organ is maybe the most independent one you will find today. It is owned by "The Scott Trust Limited", successor of the similarly named trust created to shield it from commercial interests. Calling it a "commercial news source", as if it was the same as Murdoch's ilk, is an absurd take, even derogatory. Do you say that, because it is "centre-left"? What right-leaning source would you call "unbiased"?

denton-scratch 3y ago
I singled out The Guardian because it's the one I read daily, to learn what happened yesterday. The Guardian (and The Scott Trust) is institutionally biased. It backed the Balfour Declaration, and to this day it remains pro-zionist. It's also pro-war, and backed the invasion of Iraq. It's got a lot worse since the Assange dremels-and-angle-grinders affair; it has become the primary mouthpiece of the UK security services. It has the reputation of being a leftie paper; but that's an illusion. It holds up the left end of the Overton Window, and reliably backs the extreme right wing of the Labour Party. Its attacks on Jeremy Corbyn were consistent and cringe-making; even the token leftists in the newsroom were forced to join the pile-in. I call it a commercial news source, because that's exactly what it is; it's a business. I don't call any source "unbiased"; as I said up-thread, I don't think unbiased reporting is possible.