4 ms·
Is this because you don't read The Guardian and would opt to blindly believe the first thing said about it?
by waboremo 3y ago
Is this because you don't read The Guardian and would opt to blindly believe the first thing said about it?
- throwaway202303 3y agoI read articles quite regularly. They are almost always heavily partisan, spuriously sourced and have been on the wrong side of major stories for years
- Capricorn2481 3y agoLet's hear that awesome, alternative, unbiased news source
- netbioserror 3y agoThere's no need, criticism of one thing does not require endorsement of an alternative. The Guardian deserves every rotten fruit and compressed fecal mass thrown at it.
- throwaway2037 3y agoI'm confused. (1) You read it regularly. (2) Then you say: "heavily partisan, spuriously sourced and have been on the wrong side of major stories for years". It seems strange to read a newspaper regularly that is so bad. What do you recommend instead?
- I_complete_me 3y agoFor a second there I thought it was throwaway responding to his own comment. I loved him for one second!
- gumballindie 3y agoI regularly read both sides of a story to avoid getting polarised. And by doing and avg of each side’s views i might find the truth. But the guardian has a heavy fetish for poverty porn and stereotyping making it difficult to digest. A bit like the dailymail but with less useful content and more racial tension.