4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
        gamegod 2y ago
        [flagged]
        arp242 2y ago
        "Quite disenchanted with the Liberal Party" is a completely different thing than being "anti-Trump". They're entirely compatible.
    - nisa 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        wqaatwt 2y ago
        > fact-free, ad hominem rejoinder At a certain point it becomes irrational to do anything else. When you know that the other side will entirely ignore all the facts that don’t fit their narrative and is inherently dishonest and hypocritical. Well.. it becomes a waste of time. Also “fact-free, ad hominem” pretty much describes 95% of what is coming from a certain person’s mouth. Why would you have significantly higher standards for some random internet person?
- simonw 2y ago
  Relevant paragraph from the linked story: > Despite The Guardian’s strident anti-Trump fundraising pushes, its broader audience is less partisan, as is the tone of its news coverage. It’s a weird line to straddle. “The appeals that you see at the bottom of articles are really framed around issues of press freedom and our identity and our structure of ownership,” Reed said. “They are not appeals that say, ‘Trump is bad, you need to support The Guardian, we are against Trump.’” Maybe not explicitly. But they are clearly benefitting from this moment and using the new money to hire, with expectations to continue growing its staff in the U.S. this year.
  - brigandish 2y ago
    > as is the tone of its news coverage I read the Guardian for 20 years, it's not less partisan in its output, it's incredibly partisan - just like all the other big papers. Thinking a news source doesn't have a slant is incredibly naive, in my view, but since this is coming from another newspaper or journalist with their own biases and slant, it's at best false and at worst a lie.
    - YZF 2y ago
      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        I'm not sure that site is fair. The Guardian has some statistical errors (600 vs 30), a couple serious and the others less serious (9% vs 3%). It seems to be being held to a higher standard than media known to be less trustworthy.
        Nursie 2y ago
        Does seem odd to have Fox News, which they describe as exhibiting "promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks", ranked above the guardian for factual reporting, when it describes the guardian as having "numerous failed fact checks over the last five years." Neither is desirable, but one seems quite definitely worse than the other, and I wouldn't say the one making mistakes is worse than the one they call out as "PANTS ON FIRE"...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kergonath 2y ago
  > the donation nag at the end of every article is always specifically anti-Trump It’s not really surprising, or even controversial, for a European newspaper to be mostly anti-Trump. They are also anti-fascism and pro-democracy. All perfectly logical.
  - chgs 2y ago
    The Daily Mail was very pro Hitler in the 1930s Even they, and the rest of the right wing press in the U.K, seem to at most indifferent to Trump at the moment. Quite odd really. Hitler in the 30s was threatening to invade neighbouring countries, saying Germany needed places like Austria, Czechoslovakia, for national security reasons
    - kergonath 2y ago
      > Even they, and the rest of the right wing press in the U.K, seem to at most indifferent to Trump at the moment. I must admit that I don’t go out of my way to read the Daily Mail. Maybe I should. I wonder which way they are going now, with the conservatives missing in action, Reform intent on sabotaging itself and Trump quite hostile and not very sensitive to the “special relationship” argument. Same for the Telegraph, actually. > Hitler in the 30s was threatening to invade neighbouring countries, saying Germany needed places like Austria, Czechoslovakia, for national security reasons The history of British international policies is fascinating. It has always been a combination of splendid isolation and playing continental countries against each other. I can see how there could be a tendency to support anybody just to annoy the French, or to have a strong right-wing government to eliminate the Communists. There is some kind of internal consistency, if you assume that no problem will cross the Channel.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > always specifically anti-Trump A lot of newspapers in Europe are also explicitly pro-Ukraine for instance. How is that different? And politically being anti Trump is an extremely moderate position.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Disliking Trump isn’t really a polarising issue in the UK.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  The ones I see aren't explicitly anti-Trump, but rather pro-press freedom. The one I just saw said "It’s clear that in 2025 rigorously fact-checked journalism will be more vital than ever". That said, being anti-Trump is not a partisan position for a UK newspaper. Since the Zelenskyy/Oval Office events, he's unpopular even among much of the right. Nowhere near as unpopular as Vance and Musk though.

by nisa 2y ago

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.
      - gamegod 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - arp242 2y ago
        "Quite disenchanted with the Liberal Party" is a completely different thing than being "anti-Trump". They're entirely compatible.
  - nisa 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        > fact-free, ad hominem rejoinder At a certain point it becomes irrational to do anything else. When you know that the other side will entirely ignore all the facts that don’t fit their narrative and is inherently dishonest and hypocritical. Well.. it becomes a waste of time. Also “fact-free, ad hominem” pretty much describes 95% of what is coming from a certain person’s mouth. Why would you have significantly higher standards for some random internet person?
simonw 2y ago
Relevant paragraph from the linked story: > Despite The Guardian’s strident anti-Trump fundraising pushes, its broader audience is less partisan, as is the tone of its news coverage. It’s a weird line to straddle. “The appeals that you see at the bottom of articles are really framed around issues of press freedom and our identity and our structure of ownership,” Reed said. “They are not appeals that say, ‘Trump is bad, you need to support The Guardian, we are against Trump.’” Maybe not explicitly. But they are clearly benefitting from this moment and using the new money to hire, with expectations to continue growing its staff in the U.S. this year.
- brigandish 2y ago
  > as is the tone of its news coverage I read the Guardian for 20 years, it's not less partisan in its output, it's incredibly partisan - just like all the other big papers. Thinking a news source doesn't have a slant is incredibly naive, in my view, but since this is coming from another newspaper or journalist with their own biases and slant, it's at best false and at worst a lie.
  - YZF 2y ago
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      I'm not sure that site is fair. The Guardian has some statistical errors (600 vs 30), a couple serious and the others less serious (9% vs 3%). It seems to be being held to a higher standard than media known to be less trustworthy.
      - Nursie 2y ago
        Does seem odd to have Fox News, which they describe as exhibiting "promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks", ranked above the guardian for factual reporting, when it describes the guardian as having "numerous failed fact checks over the last five years." Neither is desirable, but one seems quite definitely worse than the other, and I wouldn't say the one making mistakes is worse than the one they call out as "PANTS ON FIRE"...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 2y ago
> the donation nag at the end of every article is always specifically anti-Trump It’s not really surprising, or even controversial, for a European newspaper to be mostly anti-Trump. They are also anti-fascism and pro-democracy. All perfectly logical.
- chgs 2y ago
  The Daily Mail was very pro Hitler in the 1930s Even they, and the rest of the right wing press in the U.K, seem to at most indifferent to Trump at the moment. Quite odd really. Hitler in the 30s was threatening to invade neighbouring countries, saying Germany needed places like Austria, Czechoslovakia, for national security reasons
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > Even they, and the rest of the right wing press in the U.K, seem to at most indifferent to Trump at the moment. I must admit that I don’t go out of my way to read the Daily Mail. Maybe I should. I wonder which way they are going now, with the conservatives missing in action, Reform intent on sabotaging itself and Trump quite hostile and not very sensitive to the “special relationship” argument. Same for the Telegraph, actually. > Hitler in the 30s was threatening to invade neighbouring countries, saying Germany needed places like Austria, Czechoslovakia, for national security reasons The history of British international policies is fascinating. It has always been a combination of splendid isolation and playing continental countries against each other. I can see how there could be a tendency to support anybody just to annoy the French, or to have a strong right-wing government to eliminate the Communists. There is some kind of internal consistency, if you assume that no problem will cross the Channel.
wqaatwt 2y ago
> always specifically anti-Trump A lot of newspapers in Europe are also explicitly pro-Ukraine for instance. How is that different? And politically being anti Trump is an extremely moderate position.
rsynnott 2y ago
Disliking Trump isn’t really a polarising issue in the UK.
ascorbic 2y ago
The ones I see aren't explicitly anti-Trump, but rather pro-press freedom. The one I just saw said "It’s clear that in 2025 rigorously fact-checked journalism will be more vital than ever". That said, being anti-Trump is not a partisan position for a UK newspaper. Since the Zelenskyy/Oval Office events, he's unpopular even among much of the right. Nowhere near as unpopular as Vance and Musk though.