The Guardian is the worst "prestigious" newspaper and site there is.

Adamantium

It's completely out of touch with reality.

Somehow and I don't know how they do(I commend them for their temerity) are able to turn every article into some sort of socialist manifesto, even bloody film reviews

MagicIRL

u ok hun? xoxo

Recondite49

Adamantium wrote: »

It's completely out of touch with reality.

Somehow and I don't know how they do(I commend them for their temerity) are able to turn every article into some sort of socialist manifesto, even bloody film reviews

What's wrong with being a Socialist? It's not like there aren't enough right wing papers out there...

Right Turn Clyde

Adamantium wrote: »

It's completely out of touch with reality.

Somehow and I don't know how they do(I commend them for their temerity) are able to turn every article into some sort of socialist manifesto, even bloody film reviews

Every article?

Okay, provide a link to one article that does that.

takamichinoku

Clickbait for their audience, innit?
I've hardly been on the Guardian's site in ages now, honestly haven't been paying too much attention to what kind of agenda they do be going with over there but it just doesn't seem to be that much better than most other newspaper websites. It's gotta be very hard to maintain any kind of prestige when you've such immediate access as to whether your audience is enjoying each individual article. You're going to always wind up prioritising the things that show quick results.



What was the film review you're on about, was it a Ken Loach film by any chance?:D

danniemcq

takamichinoku wrote: »

Clickbait for their audience, innit?
I've hardly been on the Guardian's site in ages now, honestly haven't been paying too much attention to what kind of agenda they do be going with over there but it just doesn't seem to be that much better than most other newspaper websites. It's gotta be very hard to maintain any kind of prestige when you've such immediate access as to whether your audience is enjoying each individual article. You're going to always wind up prioritising the things that show quick results.



What was the film review you're on about, was it a Ken Loach film by any chance?:D

I don't think I have ever heard the guardian referred to as clickbait before

Johnson seeks to stand as MP at 2015 general election
40,000 Iraqis stranded on mountain
Andy Coulson charged with perjury
Historic rendezvous with comet


not really on par with

Is this Britain's most photographed house? The two-bed London home that has featured in hundreds of TV ads and magazines - making its owner £1,200 a DAY
Now Ebola victims are left to rot in the streets: Terrified relatives dump them outside for fear of catching deadly virus
Father beat up his baby son in hospital while child was treated for appalling injuries he inflicted in PREVIOUS attack
'Muslim extremist kept terror tutorials on his MP3 player and made YouTube video warning of attack on William and Kate's wedding'

But then again they are from the Daily Fail.

I respect the guardian for what they do and how they support Snowden and published despite warnings. Their reporting while uppity is usually spot on and their science and tech reports are very good.

Would definitely class them as one of the better choices out there

comongethappy

Rarely visit it now.
It seems to have dropped in quality of late.
The loss of Charlie Brooker hurt.

Its also ground zero for Kremlin-bot trolling nowadays.

conorhal

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Every article?

Okay, provide a link to one article that does that.

This one is an absolute classic which explains to all right thinking parents how Thomas the Tank Engine promotes classism, sexism, anti enviornmentalism and they throw in boarderline racist just for a laugh.
Sometimes reading the Guardian you have to check that it's not a parody from The Onion of some 'navel gazing first wold problems column' ....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

Hotfail.com

danniemcq wrote: »

'Muslim extremist kept terror tutorials on his MP3 player and made YouTube video warning of attack on William and Kate's wedding' e

That's quite an achievement, considering MP3 players can only play sound! :pac:

takamichinoku

danniemcq wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard the guardian referred to as clickbait before

...

I respect the guardian for what they do and how they support Snowden and published despite warnings. Their reporting while uppity is usually spot on and their science and tech reports are very good.

Would definitely class them as one of the better choices out there

Very good points... I'm a bit blinded by the day-to-day filler stuff, but they've done a lot of good stuff in recent years with proper news news yeah.

pickarooney

conorhal wrote: »

This one is an absolute classic which explains to all right thinking parents how Thomas the Tank Engine promotes classism, sexism, anti enviornmentalism and they throw in boarderline racist just for a laugh.
Sometimes reading the Guardian you have to check that it's not a parody from The Onion of some 'navel gazing first wold problems column' ....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

Is that craic socialism though?

Zab

conorhal wrote: »

This one is an absolute classic which explains to all right thinking parents how Thomas the Tank Engine promotes classism, sexism, anti enviornmentalism and they throw in boarderline racist just for a laugh.
Sometimes reading the Guardian you have to check that it's not a parody from The Onion of some 'navel gazing first wold problems column' ....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

Make sure you know when you're reading one of their "Comment is Free" articles: http://www.theguardian.com/help/2008/jun/03/1

I've seen plenty of debatable articles in that section. They sometimes (frequently?) seem to use it to publish articles that wouldn't have enough foundation to be put in other sections.

jimgoose

pickarooney wrote: »

Is that craic socialism though?

I don't believe so, no - I think that kind of thing is more your valium-addled Liberalism-gone-haywire! :pac:

Fratton Fred

Best bet is to read both the Guardian and The Telegraph in equal measures. Kind of like mixing acid and alkaline to create a neutral liquid.

abbir

Hotfail.com wrote: »

That's quite an achievement, considering MP3 players can only play sound! :pac:

I regularly used to store other files on my MP3 players as a sort of portable harddrive :P

conorhal

pickarooney wrote: »

Is that craic socialism though?

It's Notting Hill socialism for people that drive Landrovers on the school run and fret about their impact on the enviornment so they go for a fair trade chai latte afterwards.

The Guardian and the Daily Mail are just two sides of the same coin.

Right Turn Clyde

conorhal wrote: »

This one is an absolute classic which explains to all right thinking parents how Thomas the Tank Engine promotes classism, sexism, anti enviornmentalism and they throw in boarderline racist just for a laugh.
Sometimes reading the Guardian you have to check that it's not a parody from The Onion of some 'navel gazing first wold problems column' ....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

What has any of that got to do with socialism?

danniemcq

takamichinoku wrote: »

Very good points... I'm a bit blinded by the day-to-day filler stuff, but they've done a lot of good stuff in recent years with proper news news yeah.

i think you are going to find that a lot these days.

There is only 2 or 3 subjects that people seem to care about

Ukraine
Ebola
Israel/Gaza

with most of their time taken up by these or similar they are forced to limit resources and space to these it can leave other stories lacking in depth perhaps and give the appearence of filler.

Plus I think they promote a lot more editorials that other papers (i see at least 6 on their home page right now) can give a one sided appearence.

The whole thing gets even more annoying if you think you would like to see something other than Israel/Gaza or Ukraine Crisis but constantly see stories plastered everywhere pushing what you actually want to see out of your eye level.

Not saying they are the best thing ever or anything but they are far from the worst (heck even the london independent has started going downhill recently)

c_man

I gave up visiting the site (disagree with buying it in print), found a lot of clickbait in Comment is Free. Lifes too short to be getting pissed off. Anything worth reading will find its way to me in other forms. It's a good institution though imo.

Recondite49

I did enjoy the piece complaining about the rape scenes in Game of Thrones being insulting to women. So insulting that a number of women felt it incumbent upon themselves to watch the rape scenes then recount them in excruciating detail rather than just (duh) not watch them.

On a more serious note it was heartening to see the number of comments by women (my girlfriend included) who told the Feminazis to get over themselves and stop writing rubbish.

fedor.2.

danniemcq wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard the guardian referred to as clickbait before

Johnson seeks to stand as MP at 2015 general election
40,000 Iraqis stranded on mountain
Andy Coulson charged with perjury
Historic rendezvous with comet


not really on par with

Is this Britain's most photographed house? The two-bed London home that has featured in hundreds of TV ads and magazines - making its owner £1,200 a DAY
Now Ebola victims are left to rot in the streets: Terrified relatives dump them outside for fear of catching deadly virus
Father beat up his baby son in hospital while child was treated for appalling injuries he inflicted in PREVIOUS attack
'Muslim extremist kept terror tutorials on his MP3 player and made YouTube video warning of attack on William and Kate's wedding'

But then again they are from the Daily Fail.

I respect the guardian for what they do and how they support Snowden and published despite warnings. Their reporting while uppity is usually spot on and their science and tech reports are very good.

Would definitely class them as one of the better choices out there

Got any links? I want to see if I recognise that house

Adamantium

The reason that I posted this thread was because I was looking what the state of Formula One was was these days and why people still enjoy it (as a kid in the 90's I used to be hugely into it, but until last week practically forgotten it existed) I was looking for something like " 10 reasons why people like it"

I saw a Guardian article and It was basically about terrible that she can't enjoy Formula One as much as she wants and the cross this author had to bear was so heavy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/27/why-i-love-formula-one

In fact, the only time I'd ever come across Ferrari was in the late 90s, when I briefly dated a bloke who drove a Testarossa – and a great disappointment he turned out to be. Back in 2002, the overriding impression I had of Formula One was of boys zooming around in big, shiny, ludicrously expensive toys beating their chests while leggy, glossy-haired beauties cooed vacantly. I scornfully dismissed motor racing as dull, mindless and – the most heinous crime of all – utterly sexist.

But fast-forward eight years and I have become an ardent Formula One fan. If truth be told, it is not really something to shout (or blog) about: here I am, an out-and-out feminist, fixated by a sport where Neanderthal attitudes ("I man, I drive car very fast; you woman, you pop cleavage") run rife. It upsets me greatly that, in one of the few sports where women compete directly alongside men, there are no female drivers in Formula One (the last woman on the grid was way back in 1992 and only five women have ever raced since the championship began in 1950); I am offended by the scantily clad "grid girls" who reinforce motor sport's sexist image at every turn; I get extremely irritated when people assume I must be more interested in the drivers than the racing (sure I lust over Jenson Button and Mark Webber as much as the next girl, but what really fixates me is their driving ability).

Read that last line, shamefully admits that she lusts over men, but men ogling, lusting, objectiving women, no that's different.......no

The day when a feminist can proclaim unashamedly from the rooftops that she is a fan of Formula One is long overdue.

Wouldn't women already be in the sport if they want to be there and enjoyed it to begin with? ARRRRRGGGHHH

super_furry

conorhal wrote: »

The Guardian and the Daily Mail are just two sides of the same coin.

Nope, they're actually newspapers. Although they can be purchased with coins.

So how's your day going?

Adamantium

OSI wrote: »

I don't think you understand what socialism is OP.

I understand it's not a meritocracy, unlike motorsport and just about every other aspect of human life which is.

Grayson

comongethappy wrote: »

Rarely visit it now.
It seems to have dropped in quality of late.
The loss of Charlie Brooker hurt.

Its also ground zero for Kremlin-bot trolling nowadays.

they really have gone downhill since brooker stopped writing...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/28/ukip-merchandise-other-parties-charlie-brooker

......last week.

I will agree that their discussion section is about 50% Kremlin bot.

Benny_Cake

It's decent enough, although the Comment is Free writers can be hilariously bad, with a few exceptions.

Socialist though? Not really - it's no Morning Star!

Jester252

The guardian has the same credibility level as Joe.ie

Grayson

conorhal wrote: »

This one is an absolute classic which explains to all right thinking parents how Thomas the Tank Engine promotes classism, sexism, anti enviornmentalism and they throw in boarderline racist just for a laugh.
Sometimes reading the Guardian you have to check that it's not a parody from The Onion of some 'navel gazing first wold problems column' ....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents

That's the comment section. During the crises with crimea they had Sergei Lavrov write a piece along with plenty of pro western stuff. They will allow anyone to write for comment is free and they have a huge range of people. In the religion section there's CoI pastors and atheists. If you want to show a left wing slant you'll have to do it with the news section because picking any article from CiF will make it seem like a nazi/communist/religious/atheist/etc... newspaper.

Philo Beddoe

Adamantium wrote: »

Read that last line, shamefully admits that she lusts over men, but men ogling, lusting, objectiving women, no that's different.......no

She's not complaining about men lusting over women, she's complaining about the objectification involved with the pit girls, women who are paid to stand there purely to show off cleavage etc. Surely you can see the difference here?

catallus

Today's F1 is a sorry shadow of a once-great sport.

It is just too safe now, as crass as it is to say. There is no risk involved for the drivers, so it is no longer interesting as a spectator sport. Even the crashes are safe.

And the no-overtaking rules and speed-limiters are a disgusting abomination.

As the late great Ayrton Senna said: "If you can see an overtaking opportunity and you don't go for it then you are no longer motor-racing, I don't know what you are doing but you are not racing cars."

comongethappy

Grayson wrote: »

they really have gone downhill since brooker stopped writing...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/28/ukip-merchandise-other-parties-charlie-brooker

......last week.

I will agree that their discussion section is about 50% Kremlin bot.

Aah.... I had no idea!

I thought he had left a while ago?

kunst nugget

Grayson wrote: »

That's the comment section. During the crises with crimes they had Sergei Lavrov write a piece along with plenty of pro western stuff. They will allow anyone to write for comment is free and they have a huge range of people. In the religion section there's CoI pastors and atheists. If you want to show a left wing slant you'll have to do it with the news section because picking any article from CiF will make it seem like a nazi/communist/religious/atheist/etc... newspaper.

90% of commentisfree seems to be clickbait articles for facebook on gender politics and they are almost always moronic. Tbf, Irish Times with the likes of Una Mullaley are terrible scourges for the nonsensical clickbait opinion pieces as well. I know the Daily Mail is ten times as bad but Jesus, some of the muck I've read on the Guardian and Irish Times websites is bafflingly bad.

RayM

I like the Guardian. For all the criticism it gets for being left-leaning, it tends to give a far broader range of opinions than any other paper. Also, like the Irish Times, it's owned by a trust, so it isn't beholden to the whims of some dodgy billionaire. It's generally a lot more honest and trustworthy than most other papers - especially when reporting on issues like the Middle East or Climate Change, so I can kind of understand why conservative types don't like it.

Philo Beddoe

In fairness, when I read left-wing/liberal pieces that are completely over the top in papers like the Guardian I usually just shake my head at how out of touch the writer is. When I read similarly over the top right-wing/conservative pieces in places like the Daily Mail I shudder that such people exist.

kunst nugget

catallus wrote: »

As the late great Ayrton Senna said: "If you can see an overtaking opportunity and you don't go for it then you are no longer motor-racing, I don't know what you are doing but you are not racing cars."

That worked out well for him…

Davarus Walrus

It isn't really a socialist paper. It's the bible though for modern European liberalism. All self-loathing, hand-winging, preening and isms. Commentators feeding their ego by trying to out do each other in the self righteous liberal stakes.

kunst nugget

Adamantium wrote: »

Read that last line, shamefully admits that she lusts over men, but men ogling, lusting, objectiving women, no that's different.......no

Hardly shamefully admitting it, she says that sure she finds those fellahs attractive but she's more interested in their driving ability. The grid girls don't actually do anything and add nothing to the sport except TITS! I can't really see what's wrong with what she's seeing there.

Tarzana

danniemcq wrote: »

I don't think I have ever heard the guardian referred to as clickbait before

They frequently have misleading, provocative headlines - blatant clickbait.

Birneybau

Jester252 wrote: »

The guardian has the same credibility level as Joe.ie

Woah woah woah!

Joe.ie and Her.ie are far worse than the Guardian, they're even worse than the Star.

Annasopra

Adamantium wrote: »

It's completely out of touch with reality.

Somehow and I don't know how they do(I commend them for their temerity) are able to turn every article into some sort of socialist manifesto, even bloody film reviews

Ah here have you never looked at the Hate Mail

Adamantium

kunst nugget wrote: »

Hardly shamefully admitting it, she says that sure she finds those fellahs attractive but she's more interested in their driving ability. The grid girls don't actually do anything and add nothing to the sport except TITS! I can't really see what's wrong with what she's seeing there.

Yeah, but it's hypocritical in that she'll shame people for liking what they like, if she doesn't like it.
Men like fit young women, that are only window dressing for the sport, but certainly liven it up....the horror.

RayM

Adamantium wrote: »

Yeah, but it's hypocritical in that she'll shame people for liking what they like, if she doesn't like it.
Men like fit young women, that are only window dressing for the sport, but certainly liven it up....the horror.

They don't liven it up at all. Their presence in modern-day F1 is baffling, and a symptom of a sport run by a very elderly man.

Although if they weren't around, this never would have happened.

BikeQueery

The weekly feminist articles from upper middle class white girls makes me cringe really hard. Absolute naval gazing, and aimed at creating division, looking to stir up something, anything - pure **** stirring.

Almost all of the comment articles are brain dead stupid and detached from reality. You can only imagine the bubbles some of these people inhabit.

For all of that the guardian has been at the forefront of investigative journalism over the last few years, I wouldn't disparage them overly.

catallus

Glenn Greenwald, in his book "No Place to Hide" is actually pretty explicit in his criticism of the Guardian for making him wait so long to clear the NSA leaks for publication and it was only fear of being scooped by Greenwald going elsewhere that made them print in the first place.

Da Shins Kelly

Even if The Guardian is left-leaning, I'd much prefer to read that than the alternative hate and fear mongering that goes with a lot of right-wing publications. Some articles in The Guardian might make you roll your eyes, but articles that some right-wing papers/websites publish are just downright scary.

fr336

comongethappy wrote: »

Rarely visit it now.
It seems to have dropped in quality of late.
The loss of Charlie Brooker hurt.

Its also ground zero for Kremlin-bot trolling nowadays.

Irony, surely

fr336

conorhal wrote: »

It's Notting Hill socialism for people that drive Landrovers on the school run and fret about their impact on the enviornment so they go for a fair trade chai latte afterwards.

The Guardian and the Daily Mail are just two sides of the same coin.

Probably true, however the actions of those behind something doesn't mean the messages aren't right.

marienbad

Great paper , independent and free , what more could you ask.

PopePalpatine

OSI wrote: »

Much of motorsport, F1 especially, is more about the money you can bring to the team than your merit.

I really don't see how the author is pushing a socialist agenda in that article. She's merely pointing out her lament at a lack of a female influence in the sport that she enjoys and that this puts her at odds with her own feminist ideals. You can hardly say F1 isn't very much male leaning.

She even states she's the wife of a Tory MP. About as far as you could get from a socialist.

Case in point: Pastor Maldonado and his Venezuelan petrodollars. If you want to see more drivers with more money than driving skills, F1Rejects is a good site.

Personally, I don't read the Guardian, I prefer the i myself. But I appreciate the work the Guardian and its journalists have done in uncovering the extent of snooping programmes by the NSA and GCHQ. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, would be firm proponents of the fallacy of "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear". They'd only uncover GCHQ if it had heavy left-wing involvement.

bnt

I find that certain Guardian columnists are as predictable as the (red) tide, but I don't discount the whole newspaper on that basis. Comments from the Editors are less problematic, and I don't get all my news from one site.

Karl Stein

1. What do you mean by 'socialist manifesto'? Every country on Earth employs socialism to one degree or another.

2. Do you believe that The Guardian are involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the public opinion?