upvote

points

by echelon_musk9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby cryo329 hours ago|
next
[-]
I'm not sure that the Grauniad has a particularly good global reputation for independent and critical journalism. It publishes the same mix of disguised opinion pieces and rather biased junk articles as the other side of the political spectrum.

There isn't a single news source that you can trust as such. You have to compile a lot of them, remove the unverified information and see what is left. Usually not a lot.

reply
upvoteby zipy1249 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Whilst not commenting on that, a fascinating quote from the article you are replying to is:

"Viner also oversaw the breakup of The Guardian’s celebrated investigative team, whose muck-racking journalists were told to apply for other jobs outside of investigations."

This tells you something about why you might feel that way.

reply
upvoteby cryo329 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's what happens when you employ someone on their political stance (CND poster girl) rather than their editorial integrity...
reply
upvoteby piltdownman9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I mean they operate as a trust and wear their journalistic bias proudly on their sleeve; in terms of intent their altruism is self-evident.

That said, no British media is exempt from adherence to D Notices and tenets of their legal system like the concept of a super-injuction, whereby a court order prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...

That the term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump scandal should be context enough as to their motives and constraints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_...

reply
upvoteby cryo329 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Fair points.

The reformed DSMA notice system which replaced the D notice system in 2015 is somewhat more specific on what should not be reported. I think that's fit for purpose now. And it's still not legally binding. It's an agreement. Thus it does not break press freedom should the notice be found unethical or covering something up.

reply
upvoteby daveshistory9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I sort of disagree with this. I bet if you asked liberals and progressives in a country like America for a foreign newspaper they read -- if they do read one -- in most cases it is probably the Guardian. So it may be only the best of a bad bunch but it does have that reputation.
reply
upvoteby cryo329 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Never thought of it from that perspective. They should read multiple sources too. BBC as well, which once the articles have settled, are quite good. (just ignore the breaking stuff which is dubious sometimes)
reply
upvoteby JdeBP7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's an interesting fact. I have been surprised at how often The Guardian sneaks in to stuff that is otherwise overwhelmingly North American sources only. The Legal Eagle channel on YouTube has cited The Guardian a few times that I have seen, for example. And they even present it seemingly on the assumption that they don't have to explain to their viewership what The Guardian is. They just slap it on screen the same as they do the Washington Post or Politico or some such.
reply
upvoteby daveshistory4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Don't know if it's just my settings (spoiler: I read the Guardian) or it's by tracking IP addresses, but at least for me, when I go to the Guardian, it defaults me to a US-specific home page. I assume British people see a different page, with more coverage of their government.
reply
upvoteby daveshistory5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Well sure, of course they should. I'm just telling you how it is. All anecdotal, but in my experience, if you ask a liberal or progressive American for a foreign newspaper they sometimes read, at least four times in five, they will tell you the Guardian. They don't see that as "only getting their news from one source." They see the Guardian AS one of their "multiple sources," because at least it's "not from here."

Edited to caveat: of course, if you ask an American what foreign newspaper they read, most of the time we will say none. But if we do, it's probably the Guardian.

reply
upvoteby iso16317 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Breaking News Broke News

The BBC used to deride Sky for being "never wrong for long", but the race to "break the news" changed that. If the news is about something that happened today it's barely worth looking at.

Personally I get my general news from "The Week" magazine each week, which occupies half an hour on a Saturday morning. It has a selection of articles from across the UK and international press, cut down to give an idea. This week I see ones from The Observer, the Financial Times, The Sunday Times and the Spectator. There's a coverage of america, with input from the NYT, Washington Post, National Review, New Republic, Bulwark and Politico. Elsewhere coverage of Cuba includes stuff from Global and Mail in Toronto, Diaro de Cuba and El Salto in Madrid and 14YMedio in Havana.

reply
upvoteby cryo327 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I have actually worked for the BBC. It all went downhill when they moved to media city in Manc. Bit of a disaster for staffing.
reply
upvoteby SanjayMehta7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The bbc never reported on the pedophiles in their midst and they are the good ones.
reply
upvoteby cryo327 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah that is totally unforgivable.
reply
upvoteby Devasta6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The Guardians role in modern UK society is to launder right wing talking points through a few layers of progressive sounding rhetoric so that the average person on the street can say "Well if even The Guardian agrees, maybe there is something to it."

A worthless rag of a paper.

reply
upvoteby zipy1249 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
fascinating article thank you for posting. Everyone should read this!
reply