5 ms·

I'm not sure I would consider The Guardian and the NYT to be independent.

daverol 3y ago
You might not like their stance on issues, but in today's media landscape The Guardian is as good as it gets: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust
- Karunamon 3y ago
  The fact that they have a detectable "stance on issues" is exactly the reason to call their neutrality and independence into question.
  - zaphirplane 3y ago
    Media has always had a view, hence the editorial section. IMHO Having a guiding principle or view doesn’t mean the guardian is under influence
    - spidersenses 3y ago
      >IMHO Having a guiding principle or view doesn’t mean the guardian is under influence Whether they do this out of their own conviction or due to external influence is ultimately secondary. The Guardian is taking a clear side in the culture war and subjects her reporting to it. Check out their reporting on topics like race, immigration, gender relations, or the Middle East.
  - badcppdev 3y ago
    Humans are going to have a stance because they are human. Do you want to wait until there is an unbiased AI that can do journalism or do you want something that's ok now? Perfect is the enemy of good and all that.
nobodyandproud 3y ago
You can say that about any podcaster or newsroom and it would be true. The main thing is to digest multiple reputable sources of information with different viewpoints. Even rags like the NY Post I’ve come to respect (with a large grain of salt).
sorokod 3y ago
You could help The Guardian to resist commercial pressures by paying for a subscription. In the current climate that would also be a reflection of your ethical attitude.
- db48x 3y ago
  Subscriptions bring in a tiny fraction of the money that advertisers pay, and these days most journalists will happily lie for free if it supports their preferred political agenda. The only way a news organization can be impartial or unbiased is if they do not take any money from advertisers of any type, do not receive freebies or donations of any type (including press badges), and all the members of the organization actually believe that they should leave their own personal political opinions at home. On top of all of that, they actually have to be capable of investigating things, which is not a given. A pretty rare combination these days.
  - CaptainMarvel 3y ago
    I agree with you to a certain extent. Here's an example of a news organisation that does not take money from advertisements: https://bylinetimes.com/about/ https://bylinetimes.com/about/ It's part of the reason I switched my subscription to The Guardian over to them.
    - db48x 3y ago
      > While the newspaper is not politically partisan, it is not neutral and stands against corruption, injustice and the erosion of truth and the rule of law. Accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and, although everyone is welcome to their own opinions, facts cannot be debated. That is a very clear and welcome attitude for journalists to have. Very refreshing, and extraordinarily rare these days. It’s probably worth subscribing to their paper in the mere hope that they are capable, and can actually carry through on their promises.
DrBazza 3y ago
Independent, perhaps. Unbiased? Definitely not. Since we're on the topic of newspapers, this old Yes Prime Minister quote explains the UK press quite accurately: > Jim Hacker explains who reads the newspapers > Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. > Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun? > Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big **.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  And so as ever I should link perennial HN favourite investigation of this joke: https://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/ https://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/
  - DrBazza 3y ago
    Never seen that before. Thanks. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the joke went back to the turn of the century using different newspapers, but it's out of living memory now.

You might not like their stance on issues, but in today's media landscape The Guardian is as good as it gets: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust

Karunamon 3y ago
The fact that they have a detectable "stance on issues" is exactly the reason to call their neutrality and independence into question.
- zaphirplane 3y ago
  Media has always had a view, hence the editorial section. IMHO Having a guiding principle or view doesn’t mean the guardian is under influence
  - spidersenses 3y ago
    >IMHO Having a guiding principle or view doesn’t mean the guardian is under influence Whether they do this out of their own conviction or due to external influence is ultimately secondary. The Guardian is taking a clear side in the culture war and subjects her reporting to it. Check out their reporting on topics like race, immigration, gender relations, or the Middle East.
- badcppdev 3y ago
  Humans are going to have a stance because they are human. Do you want to wait until there is an unbiased AI that can do journalism or do you want something that's ok now? Perfect is the enemy of good and all that.

nobodyandproud 3y ago

You can say that about any podcaster or newsroom and it would be true. The main thing is to digest multiple reputable sources of information with different viewpoints. Even rags like the NY Post I’ve come to respect (with a large grain of salt).

sorokod 3y ago

You could help The Guardian to resist commercial pressures by paying for a subscription. In the current climate that would also be a reflection of your ethical attitude.

db48x 3y ago
Subscriptions bring in a tiny fraction of the money that advertisers pay, and these days most journalists will happily lie for free if it supports their preferred political agenda. The only way a news organization can be impartial or unbiased is if they do not take any money from advertisers of any type, do not receive freebies or donations of any type (including press badges), and all the members of the organization actually believe that they should leave their own personal political opinions at home. On top of all of that, they actually have to be capable of investigating things, which is not a given. A pretty rare combination these days.
- CaptainMarvel 3y ago
  I agree with you to a certain extent. Here's an example of a news organisation that does not take money from advertisements: https://bylinetimes.com/about/ https://bylinetimes.com/about/ It's part of the reason I switched my subscription to The Guardian over to them.
  - db48x 3y ago
    > While the newspaper is not politically partisan, it is not neutral and stands against corruption, injustice and the erosion of truth and the rule of law. Accurate information is the lifeblood of a democracy and, although everyone is welcome to their own opinions, facts cannot be debated. That is a very clear and welcome attitude for journalists to have. Very refreshing, and extraordinarily rare these days. It’s probably worth subscribing to their paper in the mere hope that they are capable, and can actually carry through on their promises.

DrBazza 3y ago

Independent, perhaps. Unbiased? Definitely not. Since we're on the topic of newspapers, this old Yes Prime Minister quote explains the UK press quite accurately: > Jim Hacker explains who reads the newspapers > Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. > Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun? > Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big **.

tialaramex 3y ago
And so as ever I should link perennial HN favourite investigation of this joke: https://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/ https://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/
- DrBazza 3y ago
  Never seen that before. Thanks. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the joke went back to the turn of the century using different newspapers, but it's out of living memory now.