4 ms·

The Guardian was only re-reporting that the Washington Post wrote a report (which did reference HN, but put "...after Washington Post analysis" in the strapline

The Guardian was only re-reporting that the Washington Post wrote a report (which did reference HN, but put "...after Washington Post analysis" in the strapline), not doing any kind of active journalism that would involve verifying anything or checking sources. "People are saying", basically. I suppose by not directly linking to original source, they don't have to worry about if the WaPo (or HN) fluffed the analysis: after all, the WaPo did report on it, whether or not it's true, accurate or even correctly sourced is immaterial to the Guardian. It's completely devoid of journalistic talent (and I imagine well in the wheelhouse of generative AI, actually) but it fills slots on the website so you don't look "behind" on the news compared to others and you can get your "article" into SERPs and feeds without delay to jostle for clicks.

kaon123 3y ago
As a regular reader of The Economist, that switched to the Guardian last year to due circumstance, I can only concur. My god is The Guardian a poor "newspaper". All they do is whine about problems without providing any analysis or solution. So yeah, why even look up the source if the standard of your output is abysmal? Edit: FYI gave up my subscription after a couple of Months. Now I read the New Scientist. Significantly more optimistic news :).
- sph 3y ago
  Same. I am thankful that for some unexplicable reason, my residential IP has free access to The Economist [1]. I still click on The Guardian by habit, but it has become a left-leaning clickbait site, far from the glory days of the Snowden revelations. 1: even as an "anarchist" I confess that op-ed journalism like The Economist's is often more objective because of its economic point of view, than if it was driven by political ideology like the vast majority of newspapers. Another decent one is Financial Times. If I have to blindly believe someone, I'd rather it be Wall Street than the White House.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  If you want optimism, check out the FutureCrunch newsletter. It is truly incredible. I’m a paid subscriber, but they have a free version. https://futurecrun.ch/ https://futurecrun.ch/
  - winternewt 3y ago
    Got anything for objective analysis of facts to uncover trends and cause-effect relationships? Preferably in a weekly or monthly circulation.
- belter 3y ago
  Very much still true: "Who reads the papers?" - https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M?t=54 https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M?t=54
- fmajid 3y ago
  The Guardian used to be notorious for slipshod copyediting, earning the nickname of "The Grauniad".
  - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
    Interestingly, that was (allegedly) because the Guardian was printed in Manchester, and therefore had to be delivered to London by train overnight, meaning that in London (where most of the press and other media who could write jokes about "the Grauniad" were), the copies would be earlier editions that had more mistakes in the highly manual typesetting and proofreading process. The London papers, printed in London, would use the more-corrected later editions for distribution in London.

kaon123 3y ago

As a regular reader of The Economist, that switched to the Guardian last year to due circumstance, I can only concur. My god is The Guardian a poor "newspaper". All they do is whine about problems without providing any analysis or solution. So yeah, why even look up the source if the standard of your output is abysmal? Edit: FYI gave up my subscription after a couple of Months. Now I read the New Scientist. Significantly more optimistic news :).

sph 3y ago
Same. I am thankful that for some unexplicable reason, my residential IP has free access to The Economist [1]. I still click on The Guardian by habit, but it has become a left-leaning clickbait site, far from the glory days of the Snowden revelations. 1: even as an "anarchist" I confess that op-ed journalism like The Economist's is often more objective because of its economic point of view, than if it was driven by political ideology like the vast majority of newspapers. Another decent one is Financial Times. If I have to blindly believe someone, I'd rather it be Wall Street than the White House.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
If you want optimism, check out the FutureCrunch newsletter. It is truly incredible. I’m a paid subscriber, but they have a free version. https://futurecrun.ch/ https://futurecrun.ch/
- winternewt 3y ago
  Got anything for objective analysis of facts to uncover trends and cause-effect relationships? Preferably in a weekly or monthly circulation.
belter 3y ago
Very much still true: "Who reads the papers?" - https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M?t=54 https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M?t=54
fmajid 3y ago
The Guardian used to be notorious for slipshod copyediting, earning the nickname of "The Grauniad".
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  Interestingly, that was (allegedly) because the Guardian was printed in Manchester, and therefore had to be delivered to London by train overnight, meaning that in London (where most of the press and other media who could write jokes about "the Grauniad" were), the copies would be earlier editions that had more mistakes in the highly manual typesetting and proofreading process. The London papers, printed in London, would use the more-corrected later editions for distribution in London.