4 ms·

All this Gaurdian praise neglects the fact that they have had all of their exclusives handed to them over the past few years, from WikiLeaks to Snowden... and

All this Gaurdian praise neglects the fact that they have had all of their exclusives handed to them over the past few years, from WikiLeaks to Snowden... and for no good reason other than that's who it was given to last time. If papers such as the independent, etc. had been given this information, im sure there professionalism would have been the same or higher. Outside of handed-on-a-platter reporting, the Guardian has massively cocked up in the past (leading to the arrest of sources, etc.).

mcv 13y ago
That doesn't change the fact that the Guardian is standing up for press freedom, and they're doing it very well. I'm sure there are other newspapers that would have done the same, but that in no way lessens what the Guardian is doing.
knotty66 13y ago
All the other UK papers (and the BBC) have barely even REPORTED on any of these issues, exclusives or not. To look at those papers you wouldn't suspect something of this magnitude is even going on.
- mjburgess 13y ago
  Does that have more to do with the G. pushing it as a "unique selling point"? I dont know what the press landscape would look like if the indie/etc. had been given the exclusives, but I suspect it would be the same in reverse. Journalists are particularly cynical people constantly chasing after anything that will get their by-lines in front of faces.. i dont think we're looking at a paper which has suddenly found its 21st C. political morals, but rather a paper that has suddenly found whistle-blowers queuing up at their door.
- anon1385 13y ago
  They were 'requested' not to report it by the government: http://order-order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/ http://order-order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    As that rightly states, D-Notices are requests to not publish. They have no legal standing, though they are frequently obeyed. (One relatively reason example was the D-Notice concerning Prince Harry's military deployments — for the sake of his safety and of those serving alongside him.) What's really disconcerting is that the other outlets have decided this isn't sufficiently "in the public interest" as to disobey the notice.
anon1385 13y ago
That is true to some extent, but for UK local news they still do dogged investigating. The biggest example being the phone hacking scandal at Murdoch newspapers[1] . That police investigation would never have been reopened if not for the Guardian's reporting (they did make errors there too, but some of those I'd attribute to the unwise idea of allowing the showbiz gossip columnist to write about politics and police investigations…[2]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_scandal_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hackin... The whole story goes far beyond what is mentioned in that article: huge corruption in the Met, an axe murder in a london car park and of course a government communications director, his prior involvement in the hacking and his affair with a certain newspaper executive [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Hyde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Hyde
jacquesm 13y ago
They get their exclusives handed to them because they are stand-up, they're not stand-up because they get exclusives handed to them.

mcv 13y ago

That doesn't change the fact that the Guardian is standing up for press freedom, and they're doing it very well. I'm sure there are other newspapers that would have done the same, but that in no way lessens what the Guardian is doing.

knotty66 13y ago

All the other UK papers (and the BBC) have barely even REPORTED on any of these issues, exclusives or not. To look at those papers you wouldn't suspect something of this magnitude is even going on.

mjburgess 13y ago
Does that have more to do with the G. pushing it as a "unique selling point"? I dont know what the press landscape would look like if the indie/etc. had been given the exclusives, but I suspect it would be the same in reverse. Journalists are particularly cynical people constantly chasing after anything that will get their by-lines in front of faces.. i dont think we're looking at a paper which has suddenly found its 21st C. political morals, but rather a paper that has suddenly found whistle-blowers queuing up at their door.
anon1385 13y ago
They were 'requested' not to report it by the government: http://order-order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/ http://order-order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/
- gsnedders 13y ago
  As that rightly states, D-Notices are requests to not publish. They have no legal standing, though they are frequently obeyed. (One relatively reason example was the D-Notice concerning Prince Harry's military deployments — for the sake of his safety and of those serving alongside him.) What's really disconcerting is that the other outlets have decided this isn't sufficiently "in the public interest" as to disobey the notice.

anon1385 13y ago

That is true to some extent, but for UK local news they still do dogged investigating. The biggest example being the phone hacking scandal at Murdoch newspapers[1] . That police investigation would never have been reopened if not for the Guardian's reporting (they did make errors there too, but some of those I'd attribute to the unwise idea of allowing the showbiz gossip columnist to write about politics and police investigations…[2]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_scandal_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hackin... The whole story goes far beyond what is mentioned in that article: huge corruption in the Met, an axe murder in a london car park and of course a government communications director, his prior involvement in the hacking and his affair with a certain newspaper executive [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Hyde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Hyde

jacquesm 13y ago

They get their exclusives handed to them because they are stand-up, they're not stand-up because they get exclusives handed to them.