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

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?

Shakespeare's Sister

Some people think/insist on saying liberal = socialist.

Sky King

I learned the word clickbait today!


What happened next will shock you though.