4 ms·

Why do you say Guardian is garbage?

tom_ 3y ago
It's bait. Are you sure you want to take it?
tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
Especially on climate, it's known for alarmist articles. Search their site for other headlines on an ice-free arctic and I bet you'll find similar doom predictions going back a long time with dates that are now in the past. A random example I found: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... The headline suggests half of the world will become uninhabitable. The text then reveals that it will happen "if the average global temperature rises by 7C on pre-industrial levels" and claims that the IPCC says "average temperatures could rise by 6C this century". Which isn't technically lying because they say "could", but it's the upper end of the error bars of the worst-case scenario, and as such, it doesn't support the "will" in the headline.
gryzzly 3y ago
I find its coverage of Israeli-Hamas war to be extremely biased and manipulative. Here’s an article from 2019 https://david-collier.com/guardian-israel-bias-obsessive/ https://david-collier.com/guardian-israel-bias-obsessive/ Here's a book from 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment:_The_Guardian_and_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment:_The_Guardian_a... here’s their own attempt to say that it’s not bias https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/accusations-of-bias-in-coverage-of-the-israel-palestine-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/accusa... A quote (judge by yourself if you agree with the editor): > One example is a complaint from Yiftah Curiel, the press attache at London’s Israeli embassy. He believes that all too often the “headlines of news pieces on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will turn events on their head, portraying perpetrator as victim”. > He complained about a headline on a story from the Associated Press. It was about one of four attacks on Israelis that left five Palestinians dead in one day. > Curiel said: “We would like to request a correction of the headline ‘Three Palestinian teenagers shot dead on West Bank’. The headline obscures the relevant and pressing fact that the youths themselves had opened fire at Israeli soldiers, while the headline basically insinuates that they were executed by the soldiers.” > (The headline to the original AP article stated: “Israel: 5 Palestinians killed while attacking Israelis”.) > In a later email Curiel said: “In fact, the sub headline in this case makes it even worse, almost insinuating that the soldiers were lying about being attacked (“Israeli security forces allege they were under attack before the killings – though no soldiers were hurt”), as if the fact that they weren’t hurt somehow undermines the veracity of the attack”. > I rejected the complaint because the headline is not inaccurate, nor in my view does it suggest that the three Palestinians were innocent victims. Three Palestinians are dead. But is it the whole story, no. Should headlines encapsulate the whole story? Traditionally they were required to capture the readers’ attention with the most significant part of the story: in this case the deaths. It was accepted that headlines were read in conjunction with the subheading and the article, which gave context. I’ve been a loyal reader for years and since their reporting is so corrupt on one subject, now I feel like my worldview was partially shaped by their emotional coverage of many other subjects, which I now simply don’t trust.
gryzzly 3y ago
I also generally think that a science report is more interesting than media rephrasing that report to make it more sensationalist.

tom_ 3y ago

It's bait. Are you sure you want to take it?

Especially on climate, it's known for alarmist articles. Search their site for other headlines on an ice-free arctic and I bet you'll find similar doom predictions going back a long time with dates that are now in the past. A random example I found: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/12/global-w... The headline suggests half of the world will become uninhabitable. The text then reveals that it will happen "if the average global temperature rises by 7C on pre-industrial levels" and claims that the IPCC says "average temperatures could rise by 6C this century". Which isn't technically lying because they say "could", but it's the upper end of the error bars of the worst-case scenario, and as such, it doesn't support the "will" in the headline.

gryzzly 3y ago

I find its coverage of Israeli-Hamas war to be extremely biased and manipulative. Here’s an article from 2019 https://david-collier.com/guardian-israel-bias-obsessive/ https://david-collier.com/guardian-israel-bias-obsessive/ Here's a book from 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment:_The_Guardian_and_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment:_The_Guardian_a... here’s their own attempt to say that it’s not bias https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/accusations-of-bias-in-coverage-of-the-israel-palestine-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/accusa... A quote (judge by yourself if you agree with the editor): > One example is a complaint from Yiftah Curiel, the press attache at London’s Israeli embassy. He believes that all too often the “headlines of news pieces on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will turn events on their head, portraying perpetrator as victim”. > He complained about a headline on a story from the Associated Press. It was about one of four attacks on Israelis that left five Palestinians dead in one day. > Curiel said: “We would like to request a correction of the headline ‘Three Palestinian teenagers shot dead on West Bank’. The headline obscures the relevant and pressing fact that the youths themselves had opened fire at Israeli soldiers, while the headline basically insinuates that they were executed by the soldiers.” > (The headline to the original AP article stated: “Israel: 5 Palestinians killed while attacking Israelis”.) > In a later email Curiel said: “In fact, the sub headline in this case makes it even worse, almost insinuating that the soldiers were lying about being attacked (“Israeli security forces allege they were under attack before the killings – though no soldiers were hurt”), as if the fact that they weren’t hurt somehow undermines the veracity of the attack”. > I rejected the complaint because the headline is not inaccurate, nor in my view does it suggest that the three Palestinians were innocent victims. Three Palestinians are dead. But is it the whole story, no. Should headlines encapsulate the whole story? Traditionally they were required to capture the readers’ attention with the most significant part of the story: in this case the deaths. It was accepted that headlines were read in conjunction with the subheading and the article, which gave context. I’ve been a loyal reader for years and since their reporting is so corrupt on one subject, now I feel like my worldview was partially shaped by their emotional coverage of many other subjects, which I now simply don’t trust.

gryzzly 3y ago

I also generally think that a science report is more interesting than media rephrasing that report to make it more sensationalist.