5 ms·

The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. I don't mean that as an attack or dismissal-- they do have good reporting sometimes-- but you have to keep that in

The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. I don't mean that as an attack or dismissal-- they do have good reporting sometimes-- but you have to keep that in mind when talking about their business model and what it implies for the broader industry. Any doofus on Substack or YouTube can make a living posting ragebait because it keeps engagement high. The question is whether the same business model (no paywall, unobtrusive ads) can work for sober and honest journalism, and IMO the answer sadly appears to be no, because not enough people value that to pay for it.

abstractbill 2y ago
It's been a long time since I've been a regular reader of any newspaper, but when I was (admittedly at least 20 years ago!) I don't remember it being that way at all. Can you suggest a good example of a recent Guardian article that's ragebait?
- Tesl 2y ago
  [flagged]
- ipv6ipv4 2y ago
  What do you think about this one, from 2017? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/ashamed-to-work-in-silicon-valley-how-techies-became-the-new-bankers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/ashamed-t... I remember this one in particular for random reasons. But these kinds of articles aren’t particularly rare in the guardian. The guardian’s editorial policy appears to be to generate a steady stream of random human interest stories with the common agenda of finding fault with everything that isn’t British.
  - smackeyacky 2y ago
    If you consider that rage bait, it might be time for a little counselling.
    - ipv6ipv4 2y ago
      The article is typical Guardian rage bait hit piece. It took the opinions of a handful of engineers and tried to paint a picture of an industry wide trend in an effort to show moral superiority. It was patently false. There was no industry trend like this, as was obvious to anyone in the industry a the time. And as we all know today, Facebook had no problem growing by leaps and bounds since. You need counseling for your sad hostility.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    > common agenda of finding fault with everything that isn’t British. Believe me they find fault in everything that is British as well! They are most definitely at the forefront of the "everything here is shit and we are all dreadful" mindset that infects a lot of the centre-left of the UK. For all that I like them better than most other news sources, the repeated refrain that we are all awful and should be ashamed of ourselves does get tiresome.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    They find fault with lots of British things, but you'll need to look at the UK section. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news The article you linked has some sources, though maybe a survey would help (if one exists). It might be applying a British viewpoint on America, in Britain the "shameful" jobs are in banking.
ljm 2y ago
AI Slop. s/The Guardian/The Telegraph/ and the result is the same.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Uh no. They are radically different newspapers.
nisa 2y ago
> extremely-polarized ragebait. From all the newspapers the Guardian isn't exactly what comes to mind here. Their opinion section might have some content that is very liberal or left from an American perspective but their news reporting is factual and pretty good while succinct in my experience.
- LorenDB 2y ago
  It's not just the opinion section. While I don't regularly read The Guardian, I do read some articles from it that show up here, and the donation nag at the end of every article is always specifically anti-Trump. Not trying to say that's right or wrong, but definitely doesn't give them a "unpolarized" look.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Being a bit polarised (and really most newspapers have a political leaning and this is part of the reason subscribers pick them!) is a very different thing from 'ragebait'. And really Trump is doing enough to warrant rage, all the guardian needs to do is report on it :)
    - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - gamegod 2y ago
        [flagged]
        blisterpeanuts 2y ago
        You speak for all Canadians? Because I know a lot of Canadians (and I'm from there, myself) who are quite disenchanted with the Liberal Party.
groby_b 2y ago
It is in no way "extremely polarized ragebait". It has a mild bent to its reporting, and that's about it. The world isn't "ragebait" just because you happen to disagree.
mmooss 2y ago
> The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. Doesn't that describe your comment? I don't meant that as an attack or dismissal.
afavour 2y ago
IMO it’s telling to view something as innocuous as The Guardian as “ragebait”. Yes, it leans mildly left but that’s only notable because so few other outlets do. Most major news outlets lean center to center-right, they just look left wing because they get compared to Murdoch tabloids and FOX News. Just because it makes you angry doesn’t make it “ragebait”.
dannyobrien 2y ago
(Disclosure: I used to work at the Guardian, a million years ago, and helped with their early entry onto the web, including decisions about not having a paywall.) What the Guardian has, throughout its editorial, is a political position. This is something that UK national newspapers naturally evolved over time as a differentiator, and is common (but not universal) in many countries. There are various political stable-ish ecological niches -- left, center-left, center-right, upper class, business, popularist right, and various news media that have staked out their territory. That means that they can attract with "ragebait", and also build a reasonably consistent (or self-consistent, at least) factual reportage. Someone who leans right-wing but wishes to be informed might buy the Guardian regardless, because they can disregard and triangulate. You have a core audience, and as long as that audience is loyal -- and needs some connection to reality, you can fund greater than just ragebait. Ragebait isn't the only business model for supporting honest journalism, and one of the lessons I learned at the Guardian is that the actual business models can be surprising and frequently unrelated to news reporting. For many years, the Guardian was kept solvent through used car sales via Autocar, the most profitable asset in the Scott Trust. (One of the reasons why the Guardian was so early going online is that its editors, in particular Alan Rusbridger, recognised presciently that the Web was going to absolutely gut Autocar's profits, and so they needed to get ahead of the game.) You will be surprised about how many booms and busts in UK media industry have been determined by audience-pullers like crosswords, bingo, photos of naked models, and sudoku.
- blisterpeanuts 2y ago
  Pre-Trump, I had a paid online subscription to Guardian for a time, because it was so well written and informative. After 2016, however, they seemed to adopt a firm anti-MAGA stance which I found to be biased and off-putting. Their highly critical stance against Israel after the Hamas attacks of October 2023 was the last straw. Then, they withdrew from the X platform and now they might as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. I think that was a mistake, given their significant following on X, but I guess they felt they don't need it.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Their stance regarding Israel and Palestine is well within the mainstream in Europe, including the UK. How has the NY Times reported this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/israel-killed-15-palestinian-paramedics-and-rescue-workers-one-by-one-says-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/israel-killed-...
nickpsecurity 2y ago
I was a fan of the Guardian back during the Snowden leaks. Ive had to dodge them in recent months for what you described. Since people are doubting you, let's look at the headlines on the front page of a newspaper they is mostly factual despite having some bias. Here we go: Musk is evil, most scientists warning about Trump, Trump takes over Chips Act, and Trump is a "dictator." Then, Trump cuts Planned Parenthood, Trump reviews Harvard for antisemitism claims, and Trump pardons "Jan 6 loyalist." Also, Israel are killers and woke people were right per someone on TV. Then, a few, normal pieces of news if the articles themselves had no slant. Most of the front page would make those considering source integrity wonder if the paper was funded by a top opponent of Trump or Musk specifically to attack them. I'm not saying there's any data for that. I'm saying that, as a former liberal who used to want high-quality news with a range of views, I'd have thought the Guardian today was as extremely polarized as CNN or Fox. Then, a popup that billionaires control the media with only two, right-wing ones mentioned. No mention that richest oligarchs funding or controlling education, media, and political campaigns are leftist: https://youtu.be/fwZPrgcSRaw https://youtu.be/fwZPrgcSRaw Such papers are highly misleading with much drama following the games they play. It's unfortunate given that the Guardian's ownership model might let it be a politically neutral paper with a range of views. They could be independent with quality, non-extreme writing from many sides. We could see a range of views. If one side, reporting with data representing many perspectives where we know they aren't cherry picking. I want more news like that. Even the reliable sources that write in endless attacks or pour gas on the fire are draining to read. I'd rather it just be a little work or even pleasant. I dread reading the news these days.
- Nursie 2y ago
  Sometimes things are just bad, reporting on them at that point is a duty. Do you dispute that Trump has started talking about a third term? Or that those other actions are actually taking place? > was as extremely polarized as CNN or Fox. The guardian is an openly left-leaning publication, that's what it is, that's more or less what it's for. If you're in the US I understand that you may not understand such a thing, or it may seem extreme to you because there is effectively no political left wing in America, and news is generally captured by oligarchs with a right-leaning slant. In the other geographies where the Guardian has a presence (UK, Australia) its reporting doesn't feel particularly extreme, probably because the ideas and viewpoints of the moderate left are a normal part of our political landscape, and we also have national broadcasters that are (generally, in intent) pretty neutral. They're not in any way a Fox equivalent - the Guardian doesn't just make shit up or shit-stir for the sake of it, or try to pass itself off as an 'entertainment network' rather than news...
Nursie 2y ago
> The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. Errr, nah. It's mostly very high quality, sober and honest journalism. Yes, a lot of the opinion and editorial is very obviously politically biased, and they do publish some absolute lefty tripe occasionally, but the news coverage is generally high quality and the longer form stuff thought provoking. For ragebait in a British publication see "The Daily Mail".
analog31 2y ago
At one point I began to suspect that, but realized it was just the events themselves, reported in a straightforward fashion, were making me outraged. Since then, I have a personal filter that I apply to all journalism, which is to avoid articles of the form: "X is outraged by Y" (or horrified, shocked, etc). I don't need meta-outrage. With my filter turned on, I'm quite satisfied with the G's journalism.
wqaatwt 2y ago
> extremely-polarized ragebait What’s not then? I’m genuinely curious since Guardian seems to be one of the most balanced major newspapers in their reporting that there is. Sure it’s slightly left leaning overall and there are some quite unhinged editorials now and then but they are mostly isolated from the rest of the paper. > sober and honest journalism Well again.. can you give examples of more sober and honest journalism (besides just fact reporting news services like Reuters)
smackeyacky 2y ago
No, it isn’t. Compared to any of the Murdoch news sources it’s even handed and thorough. If anybody feels rage reading it perhaps some introspection is required.
xkbarkar 2y ago
I agree, don’t really see as much quality journalism on the guardian as the thread implies. I donated for the longest time until they succumbed to rage bait journalism. For a while I started avoiding it entirely, especially during the worst of the Trump and C19 years sanity and objective information seemed to have left everyone. Also HN remember this is NOT reddit, downvote only if the comment brings nothing to the discussion. The above comment is simply disgreeing with the current blind guardian admiration. They do not deserve all that praise, and those who point it out are not breaking HN rules and thus should not be removed from the discussion with mindless downvotes. Read the rules ppl !!! ( wish reddit users could just stay in their own ruined toxic echo chamber and leave the still relatively healthy forums alone. Dont you people have a Tesla somewhere to scratch??)

abstractbill 2y ago

It's been a long time since I've been a regular reader of any newspaper, but when I was (admittedly at least 20 years ago!) I don't remember it being that way at all. Can you suggest a good example of a recent Guardian article that's ragebait?

Tesl 2y ago
[flagged]
ipv6ipv4 2y ago
What do you think about this one, from 2017? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/ashamed-to-work-in-silicon-valley-how-techies-became-the-new-bankers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/ashamed-t... I remember this one in particular for random reasons. But these kinds of articles aren’t particularly rare in the guardian. The guardian’s editorial policy appears to be to generate a steady stream of random human interest stories with the common agenda of finding fault with everything that isn’t British.
- smackeyacky 2y ago
  If you consider that rage bait, it might be time for a little counselling.
  - ipv6ipv4 2y ago
    The article is typical Guardian rage bait hit piece. It took the opinions of a handful of engineers and tried to paint a picture of an industry wide trend in an effort to show moral superiority. It was patently false. There was no industry trend like this, as was obvious to anyone in the industry a the time. And as we all know today, Facebook had no problem growing by leaps and bounds since. You need counseling for your sad hostility.
- Nursie 2y ago
  > common agenda of finding fault with everything that isn’t British. Believe me they find fault in everything that is British as well! They are most definitely at the forefront of the "everything here is shit and we are all dreadful" mindset that infects a lot of the centre-left of the UK. For all that I like them better than most other news sources, the repeated refrain that we are all awful and should be ashamed of ourselves does get tiresome.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  They find fault with lots of British things, but you'll need to look at the UK section. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news The article you linked has some sources, though maybe a survey would help (if one exists). It might be applying a British viewpoint on America, in Britain the "shameful" jobs are in banking.

ljm 2y ago

AI Slop. s/The Guardian/The Telegraph/ and the result is the same.

wkat4242 2y ago
Uh no. They are radically different newspapers.

nisa 2y ago

> extremely-polarized ragebait. From all the newspapers the Guardian isn't exactly what comes to mind here. Their opinion section might have some content that is very liberal or left from an American perspective but their news reporting is factual and pretty good while succinct in my experience.

LorenDB 2y ago
It's not just the opinion section. While I don't regularly read The Guardian, I do read some articles from it that show up here, and the donation nag at the end of every article is always specifically anti-Trump. Not trying to say that's right or wrong, but definitely doesn't give them a "unpolarized" look.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Being a bit polarised (and really most newspapers have a political leaning and this is part of the reason subscribers pick them!) is a very different thing from 'ragebait'. And really Trump is doing enough to warrant rage, all the guardian needs to do is report on it :)
  - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gamegod 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
        You speak for all Canadians? Because I know a lot of Canadians (and I'm from there, myself) who are quite disenchanted with the Liberal Party.

groby_b 2y ago

It is in no way "extremely polarized ragebait". It has a mild bent to its reporting, and that's about it. The world isn't "ragebait" just because you happen to disagree.

mmooss 2y ago

> The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. Doesn't that describe your comment? I don't meant that as an attack or dismissal.

afavour 2y ago

IMO it’s telling to view something as innocuous as The Guardian as “ragebait”. Yes, it leans mildly left but that’s only notable because so few other outlets do. Most major news outlets lean center to center-right, they just look left wing because they get compared to Murdoch tabloids and FOX News. Just because it makes you angry doesn’t make it “ragebait”.

dannyobrien 2y ago

(Disclosure: I used to work at the Guardian, a million years ago, and helped with their early entry onto the web, including decisions about not having a paywall.) What the Guardian has, throughout its editorial, is a political position. This is something that UK national newspapers naturally evolved over time as a differentiator, and is common (but not universal) in many countries. There are various political stable-ish ecological niches -- left, center-left, center-right, upper class, business, popularist right, and various news media that have staked out their territory. That means that they can attract with "ragebait", and also build a reasonably consistent (or self-consistent, at least) factual reportage. Someone who leans right-wing but wishes to be informed might buy the Guardian regardless, because they can disregard and triangulate. You have a core audience, and as long as that audience is loyal -- and needs some connection to reality, you can fund greater than just ragebait. Ragebait isn't the only business model for supporting honest journalism, and one of the lessons I learned at the Guardian is that the actual business models can be surprising and frequently unrelated to news reporting. For many years, the Guardian was kept solvent through used car sales via Autocar, the most profitable asset in the Scott Trust. (One of the reasons why the Guardian was so early going online is that its editors, in particular Alan Rusbridger, recognised presciently that the Web was going to absolutely gut Autocar's profits, and so they needed to get ahead of the game.) You will be surprised about how many booms and busts in UK media industry have been determined by audience-pullers like crosswords, bingo, photos of naked models, and sudoku.

blisterpeanuts 2y ago
Pre-Trump, I had a paid online subscription to Guardian for a time, because it was so well written and informative. After 2016, however, they seemed to adopt a firm anti-MAGA stance which I found to be biased and off-putting. Their highly critical stance against Israel after the Hamas attacks of October 2023 was the last straw. Then, they withdrew from the X platform and now they might as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. I think that was a mistake, given their significant following on X, but I guess they felt they don't need it.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Their stance regarding Israel and Palestine is well within the mainstream in Europe, including the UK. How has the NY Times reported this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/israel-killed-15-palestinian-paramedics-and-rescue-workers-one-by-one-says-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/israel-killed-...

nickpsecurity 2y ago

I was a fan of the Guardian back during the Snowden leaks. Ive had to dodge them in recent months for what you described. Since people are doubting you, let's look at the headlines on the front page of a newspaper they is mostly factual despite having some bias. Here we go: Musk is evil, most scientists warning about Trump, Trump takes over Chips Act, and Trump is a "dictator." Then, Trump cuts Planned Parenthood, Trump reviews Harvard for antisemitism claims, and Trump pardons "Jan 6 loyalist." Also, Israel are killers and woke people were right per someone on TV. Then, a few, normal pieces of news if the articles themselves had no slant. Most of the front page would make those considering source integrity wonder if the paper was funded by a top opponent of Trump or Musk specifically to attack them. I'm not saying there's any data for that. I'm saying that, as a former liberal who used to want high-quality news with a range of views, I'd have thought the Guardian today was as extremely polarized as CNN or Fox. Then, a popup that billionaires control the media with only two, right-wing ones mentioned. No mention that richest oligarchs funding or controlling education, media, and political campaigns are leftist: https://youtu.be/fwZPrgcSRaw https://youtu.be/fwZPrgcSRaw Such papers are highly misleading with much drama following the games they play. It's unfortunate given that the Guardian's ownership model might let it be a politically neutral paper with a range of views. They could be independent with quality, non-extreme writing from many sides. We could see a range of views. If one side, reporting with data representing many perspectives where we know they aren't cherry picking. I want more news like that. Even the reliable sources that write in endless attacks or pour gas on the fire are draining to read. I'd rather it just be a little work or even pleasant. I dread reading the news these days.

Nursie 2y ago
Sometimes things are just bad, reporting on them at that point is a duty. Do you dispute that Trump has started talking about a third term? Or that those other actions are actually taking place? > was as extremely polarized as CNN or Fox. The guardian is an openly left-leaning publication, that's what it is, that's more or less what it's for. If you're in the US I understand that you may not understand such a thing, or it may seem extreme to you because there is effectively no political left wing in America, and news is generally captured by oligarchs with a right-leaning slant. In the other geographies where the Guardian has a presence (UK, Australia) its reporting doesn't feel particularly extreme, probably because the ideas and viewpoints of the moderate left are a normal part of our political landscape, and we also have national broadcasters that are (generally, in intent) pretty neutral. They're not in any way a Fox equivalent - the Guardian doesn't just make shit up or shit-stir for the sake of it, or try to pass itself off as an 'entertainment network' rather than news...

Nursie 2y ago

> The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. Errr, nah. It's mostly very high quality, sober and honest journalism. Yes, a lot of the opinion and editorial is very obviously politically biased, and they do publish some absolute lefty tripe occasionally, but the news coverage is generally high quality and the longer form stuff thought provoking. For ragebait in a British publication see "The Daily Mail".

analog31 2y ago

At one point I began to suspect that, but realized it was just the events themselves, reported in a straightforward fashion, were making me outraged. Since then, I have a personal filter that I apply to all journalism, which is to avoid articles of the form: "X is outraged by Y" (or horrified, shocked, etc). I don't need meta-outrage. With my filter turned on, I'm quite satisfied with the G's journalism.

wqaatwt 2y ago

> extremely-polarized ragebait What’s not then? I’m genuinely curious since Guardian seems to be one of the most balanced major newspapers in their reporting that there is. Sure it’s slightly left leaning overall and there are some quite unhinged editorials now and then but they are mostly isolated from the rest of the paper. > sober and honest journalism Well again.. can you give examples of more sober and honest journalism (besides just fact reporting news services like Reuters)

smackeyacky 2y ago

No, it isn’t. Compared to any of the Murdoch news sources it’s even handed and thorough. If anybody feels rage reading it perhaps some introspection is required.

xkbarkar 2y ago

I agree, don’t really see as much quality journalism on the guardian as the thread implies. I donated for the longest time until they succumbed to rage bait journalism. For a while I started avoiding it entirely, especially during the worst of the Trump and C19 years sanity and objective information seemed to have left everyone. Also HN remember this is NOT reddit, downvote only if the comment brings nothing to the discussion. The above comment is simply disgreeing with the current blind guardian admiration. They do not deserve all that praise, and those who point it out are not breaking HN rules and thus should not be removed from the discussion with mindless downvotes. Read the rules ppl !!! ( wish reddit users could just stay in their own ruined toxic echo chamber and leave the still relatively healthy forums alone. Dont you people have a Tesla somewhere to scratch??)