4 ms·
> That's ridiculous - The Guardian?? The Washington Post? New York Times? Yes, those. I'm not closely familiar with NYT and Washpo; but I'm a long-time reader
by denton-scratch 3y ago
> That's ridiculous - The Guardian?? The Washington Post? New York Times?
Yes, those. I'm not closely familiar with NYT and Washpo; but I'm a long-time reader of the Guardian. It's role is to delimit the left end of the Overton Window, which is roughly the left-ish end of the Shadow Cabinet, and is currently well to the right of Labour Party membership. From my limited exposure, I'd say NYT and Washpo are well to the right of The Guardian, as the Democratic Party is well to the right of Labour in the UK.
Your WP link doesn't speak to any strong bias in English Wikipedia; it says roughly that WP content is "establishment", which isn't surprising, considering the Reliable Sources policy. It also says that older articles exhibit a stronger "left-wing" bias (i.e. pro-Democratic). And the article is written from a US POV; in the USA, socialism is still a "bad word", and the word "liberal" is used instead.
- mellosouls 3y agoIf you consider the likes of The Guardian right-wing there is really no point in continuing this discussion as I don't believe it can be done in a good faith manner.
- denton-scratch 3y agoI hope you aren't accusing me of bad faith! The Guardian has been a supporter of the Israeli government since before there was an Israeli government. Nobody could accuse the Israeli government of being left-wing. The Guardian was part of the coalition that hounded Jeremy Corbyn out of the Labour leadership, because he was too "left wing". Starmer refused to let him stand in the seat he's represented for decades; The Guardian strongly backs Starmer, who represents the most right-wing elements in Labour. I'm happy to discontinue this discussion, not because I suspect you of bad faith, but because political discussions aren't generally on-topic on HN.