God I hate the Guardian

[david_carnell]

Would all those Guardian hating/baiting posters from earlier in this thread now like to express their disgust at the actions of the NOTW and praise the Guardian for breaking the story?

Anyone? ????? No?

[Marmora Man]

As an occasional Guardian reader (always good to know what the opposition is thinking) I applaud thoroughly the Guardian's research and exposure of the NOTW.

However, I don't think I've posted an anti Guardian post so don't D-C meet your criteria.

[Undisputedtruth]

I have done so already

[paphio]

I have to say, that apart from the deluded dogooding drivel that spews from this rag,

the smugness of its tittle itself is nauseating. Do I need to thank the Guardian?... for guarding or me from... WHAT??

[maxxi]

Quite right papio - I don't need a Mirror to see my face cause i don't shave.. I don't need a Telegraph cause I have a phone.. stuff your Times I've got a watch.. Observer? I can see!.. Independent? I AM independent.. NOTW? Who gives a shit about the world?.. Mail? it's mostly junk..

Come on man you can do better than that!

If you want to insult the name at least insult its original title, The Manchester Guardian, and take the time to wiki enough information to realise that back in 1821 there WAS a need for a Guardian to "zealously enforce the principles of civil and religious Liberty ... warmly advocate the cause of Reform ... endeavour to assist in the diffusion of just principles of Political Economy and ... support, without reference to the party from which they emanate, all serviceable measures".

ETA: I used to love the Sketch cause I'm uselsss at drawing stuff!

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would all those Guardian hating/baiting posters

> from earlier in this thread now like to express

> their disgust at the actions of the NOTW and

> praise the Guardian for breaking the story?

>

> Anyone? ????? No?

And dislike of the Guardian makes you a News of the World fan? How are these linked? One of the reasons I dislike The Guardian is the pious, sactomonious tone of some of its readers and journalists whos seem to think they are the only cowboys with white hats in Dodge City. Everyone else is baddy boo hiss.

I thought the NOTW was a horrible paper long before this story and am delighted the Guardian exposed this and quite happy to praise them for it...as I was the Telegraph on MPs expenses. Don't like either papers though.

[david_carnell]

Heehee - how does that humble pie taste?

I never suggested that the two were linked. I'm merely pointing out that no other paper has come close in exposing this scandal other than the Guardian.

Smug, sanctimonious.....perhaps. Right....absolutely.

[Otta]

How has he eaten humble pie? He's congratulated the paper for it's work on this story. That doesn't mean that everything else he said is suddenly untrue.

Edit due to stupid predictive text

[Marmora Man]

david_carnell Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------

> Smug, sanctimonious.....perhaps. Right....absolutely.

But also, so often wrong, wrong and wrong again,

[david_carnell]

Otta - I'm suggesting that the "no better than a tabloid" smear that ???? and others have used in the past has, in this instance, been proved incorrect. Personally I think it's incorrect full stop but I know I'm banging my head against a brick wall on that one.

Mamora Man - I would suggest errors in the Guardian are no higher than any other paper....do you have info to suggest otherwise?

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mamora Man - I would suggest errors in the

> Guardian are no higher than any other paper....do

> you have info to suggest otherwise?

You don't read the Comment is Free section (though that is website rather than the paper).

[david_carnell]

Well if you're just highlighting columnists/commetariat you disagree with we might as well shoot fish in a barrel.

[????]

...this sums up the situation nicely

[taper]

The Farringdon bog roll has many faults. But occasionally it is magnificent. This is one such occasion.

[Loz]

I think the Gruniad is the best paper in the UK, even if it does spend a lot of its time wallowing in its own bizarre moral indignation. The bigoted nature of some of their columnists (sometimes offensively so) is thankfully more than balanced by their news coverage and they high quality of the less indulgent columnists.

[Otta]

For me, it's the columnists that give a paper it's voice and personality, which is why I find pretty much every newspaper just makes me angry.

[taper]

Seamus Milne has particularly loathsome views.

[StraferJack]

has he? I don't always agree with him (by which I sometimes violently disagree with him) but particularly loathesome?

found this on his wiki page

"Milne was singled out by Tony Blair in a December 2001 dossier as one of ten media critics of the war in Afghanistan and the US-British response to the 9/11 attacks whose views he claimed had "proved to be wrong".[46] He was described by the novelist Robert Harris as "a Stalinist Rip van Winkle" in a September 2001 article supporting the war on terrorism.[47] The journalist Melanie Phillips portrayed Milne as a "Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas mouthpiece".["

I'd say if you were pissing off those three people you were doing something right

[petersen]

i think most papers have good columnists and ones you just want to..well..get violent with.

I only read the Guardian for Charlie Brooker, even though he is a bit of a nobhead sometimes, taking the piss out of everybody he will occasionally target someone worthwhile!

but the ones i find most soul destroying are the columists (usually in Sunday papers) who just seem to tell you of their own uninteresting lives. seems like a piss easy job if thats what they get paid for! I do think that the Guardian does seem to get exclusives though,even though I do read the occasional Telegraph article.

But at the end of the day I think the choice of paper you read is totally personal decision for wahtever reason you choose!

[citizenED]

For one reason or another, I managed to miss last Saturday's Guardian, but there I was again down at Red Apple this morning picking up this week's Saturday edition. And there is Suzanne Moore, Polly Toynbee, Marina Hyde, and Simon Hoggart giving me their take on the week and I'm generally agreeing with their gist. And I've still got the wonderful Family section and the Magazine to go through. Go I love the Guardian.

[Otta]

I agree with either Steve Punt, or Hugh Dennis from The Now Show (can't remember which one) last week.

All papers are a waste of time. Use that hour or 2 to read a good book instead.

[El Pibe]

Oh well, all those sickened by the namby pamby bleeding herart liberal left leaning guardian need worry no more apparently thanks to its pursuit of the greenback (not the baron sadly)

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281814239801229.html

[StraferJack]

lots of afters on this one as well

http://cifwatch.com/2012/08/19/has-the-guardian-backtracked-on-josh-trevino/

not good, not good.

Even Trigger but his name to a letter condemning the appointment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/19/dismay-joshua-trevino-guardian?newsfeed=true

[????]

Although they may have chosen the wrong one, certainly by the massive 'outrage' (although isn't that x-bbc muslim moderat an eoccasional Guardain columnist,, name escapes me, on record as supporting terroruism and calling non-belivers pigs, although he puts this down to youthful exuberience now naturally) it's perhaps encouraging that the Guardian seems for once to have perhaps realised that the lefty rote Israel=bad, Palestinains=Good is a bit simplistic? Not by the reaction clearly. *sighs*

[justsaying2]

totally agree