God I hate the Guardian

[Otta]

I don't really like it either, and tend to agree with

...it's the Daily Mail of the left, vitriol, crap and unquestioning in its smug certainty

I don't really like reading newspapers, because they are just so judgemental, whatever standpoint they're coming from. I like to just get the facts about something, and make my own mind up, without being force fed any opinions.

[david_carnell]

Which media outlet do you use to get your "facts" that doesn't have an agenda, editorial standpoint or bias?

I'd love to see one.

[Loz]

Fox News

[Otta]

I never said there was no agenda, but I prefer to just watch, listen to, or read (on the internet) the news. I just want straight reporting, not one sided debate, which is what I feel like I get when I read a paper.

[david_carnell]

I disagree. I don't think newspapers (at least the broadsheets) are any less accurate with their facts than any other online media. In fact, I would say they are often more so due to their accountability.

And I think "one-sided debate" is harsh. From neither the Guardian or, say, the Telegraph do you get much political comment outside of columnists. Disregard those and the articles are pretty similar. Writing style and presentation differs a little but not much.

You can dislike the readers of a paper (if you want to stereotype on hackneyed cliches) but I think the actual papers themselves are rarely as polemic or extreme as often made out.

I've even been known to take the Telegraph occasionally!

[Otta]

I certainly never said I disliked any readers of anything, just that I prefered something different. I agree that the facts are accurate, but in my opinion, tore facts are usually coloured with a certain stance, depending on which paper.

[david_carnell]

I'm not sure I understand?

Well you said:

I...tend to agree with ..."it's the Daily Mail of the left, vitriol, crap and unquestioning in its smug certainty"

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that passes no judgement on those who do read it.

I get that if you read the Sun, immigrants are "swamping" or "invading" compared to broadsheets using less inflammatory language but comparing one broadsheet to another, I think the reporting of the facts are broadly similar.

The Times tends to have more in depth international coverage and the Guardian and Indy often do more aid/development stuff but I'm struggling to see some vast political agenda outside of the columnists.

Now, granted, in that area there is a chasm between a Polly Toynbee and a Peter Oborne but I'm not convinced that alters the reporting on Syria for e.g.

And I'm happy to be advised on your non-biased online sources too....

[Otta]

That was a quids quote, not my words. I said I tended to agree with it, but I read it as talking about the paper, not it's readers. I cant tell you for sure what quids meant when he typed it. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt though, it's very gracious of you.

[Otta]

Regarding non biased online reporting, I never said that such a thing existed. I just feel that reading the bbc website gives me more straight forward news, and less opinion. Obviously nothing is completely non biased, because it's all reported by a human. I only really posted on this thread to offer an opinion, I never said anything about people's reading choices, or what sort of person that makes them. There really is no need to try and pick everything apart, just accept that it's a different opinion to your own. There is no right or wrong here.

[david_carnell]

I don't think you can slate a publication and somehow not criticise its readers all in one go, but there you go.

And I know it was Quids quote which is why it's in speech marks and why I said that you agreed with it.

I think comparing the Guardian to the Mail is a crass generalisation and a lazy argument that cannot be backed up back any evidence. Prove me wrong.

[Otta]

I've got no interest in trying to prove you wrong. I just voiced an opinion, that I think one paper is as bad as another, and that I don't really like papers anyway. You've chosen to read it as an attack on all readers, thats down to you. I note w8 never jumped on Quids when he made that comment. Lucky I'm not paranoid.

[david_carnell]

Quids hasn't commented on this since it started. Which speaks volumes. A late night stella-fuelled post I suspect. And I'm not picking on you. Just the argument you're siding with.

The idea that all papers are equally bad, I believe, is flawed. Also I think that newspapers continue to provide a quality product and that other media sources contain equal bias.

And of course it is an attack on the readers. If I said that all of a certain make of guitars were crap and sounded awful and you owned said instrument you'd feel affronted because it is an attack on your tastes and choices. It's just petty-minded stereotyping from Quids to try and rile people.

[Otta]

Now, you keep putting words in to my mouth. I never said all newspapers were equally as bad, but all papers come from a standpoint which comes over in the print IMO. And come on, I wouldn't give even the slightest toss if you slated my chosen guitar, or what I chose to read. To each their own I say. If you said "all people who play such and such guitars are wankers" I'd take that personally, but I've never said anything like that. It's a product David, surely you can separate yourself from a brand.

[david_carnell]

Really? You don't care if I criticise your personal choices/purchases? Hmmm....I somehow doubt that.

And it's not about being some corporate spokesperson or buying into the "brand" of being a Guardian reader or a newspaper buyer. It's about saying Quids original post was little better than spittle-flecked ranting and you're now tilting at windmills over media bias and ideology getting in the way of "getting the facts". I just don't buy it.

I mean, if you only bought the Sunday People, then I'd get it. You'd learn feck all about everything except Jordan's tits. But buy any of the 4 quality papers in this country and I think that the news reporting is both of a high standard and low on political spin.

[mockney piers]

I agree spin is low but I do think editorial political bias is quite strong in the graudian and torygraph toward their natural political leanings and in the Times to Rupert Murdoch's interests.

All 3 do provide decent nwes coverage however.

The independent is the least identifiabley politically (with a capital p) biased of the three, though it has a strongly left leaning/liberal sensibility. it also has the most balanced range of commentators, but it was almost unreadable during it's holier than thou campaigning period.

[Otta]

[quote name=Really? You don't care if I criticise your personal choices/purchases? Hmmm....I somehow doubt that.]

Okay, you clearly know me better than I know myself. But am I really that shallow?

you're now tilting at windmills over media bias and ideology getting in the way of "getting the facts". I just don't buy it.

Fine, we'll draw a line under this then.

I mean, if you only bought the Sunday People, then I'd get it. You'd learn feck all about everything except Jordan's tits. But buy any of the 4 quality papers in this country and I think that the news reporting is both of a high standard and low on political spin.

Never have bought the Sunday People as it goes. We are in fact a guardian household, as my wife reads it (and believe it or not, I don't hate her... most of the time). I just don't agree with you about the spin. But that's fine, we can disagree.

[david_carnell]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> I agree spin is low but I do think editorial

> political bias is quite strong in the graudian and

> torygraph toward their natural political leanings

> and in the Times to Rupert Murdoch's interests.

Which I've mentioned all along. Editorials/columnists = obviously political

> All 3 do provide decent nwes coverage however.

Which has been my point all along. Although there are 4.

> The independent is the least identifiabley

> politically (with a capital p) biased of the

> three, though it has a strongly left

> leaning/liberal sensibility. it also has the most

> balanced range of commentators, but it was almost

> unreadable during it's holier than thou

> campaigning period.

I still find it fairly unreadable based on its design. It hurts my eyes to look at it most days. Endless front pages of nothing but a giant picture and an ambiguous question to which John Rentoul should have already told them the answer to.

[mockney piers]

You misunderstand me, editorial as in an overall decision about content and presentation, not the 'editorial' per se.

i.e. a cameron u-turn presented as flexibility or relegated to page 9 in one paper and presented as weak leadership in another. It happens most days, just pick up a grauniad and a torygraph and see.

But I still agree that given half a brain its very easy to extract the news from the noise.

[Otta]

But I still agree that given half a brain its very easy to extract the news from the noise.

Absolutely. I'd just rather avoid the noise all together.

[mockney piers]

Mind you you only need to read any of AllForNun or any of his alteregos (TT3rd anyone?) to see that not everyone agrees with you that the BBC online news is free of it. For one I gather it's plotting the destruction of Israel no less!!

[Otta]

Ha ha, fair point.

Seriously though, I know the BBC, like anyone else, has it's own agenda, but I personally prefer to get my news that way.

To be honest, most of my news comes from the radio (still BBC though), rather than reading it.

[Huguenot]

The beeb's pretty leftie in an inoffensive way.

Generally I agree with Carnell, albeit with the Mockney caveat on how stories are presented.

To imgaine that the internet confers respectability seems insane: we've just had two major newsgathering 'lesbian campaigner' fraudsters exposed as a forty year old Edinburgh student and a rather sad twat from somewhere in the US sadlands.

The internet reduces the cost of exposure, and that's more likely to appeal to bullshitters rather than honest players.

[Undisputedtruth]

What I find disturbing is when people defined themselves by what newspapers they choose to buy. As if it would make them more intelligent or socially acceptable in hierarchy organisations. The Sun has more Oxbridge journalists than any other newspapers. Yet Sun readers are likely to despise Oxbridge graduates for not being working class.

During an investment seminar someone said that if you followed FT's finance advice you would lose money and if you did the opposite you'd gain money. So what is the point of newspapers these days when they cannot advise or inform? In the age of the internet I can surf for news all over the world and make my own informed decisions.

UDT

[Jeremy]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> To imgaine that the internet confers

> respectability seems insane: we've just had two

> major newsgathering 'lesbian campaigner'

> fraudsters exposed as a forty year old Edinburgh

> student and a rather sad @#$%& from somewhere in

> the US sadlands.

Yes, but there's a world of difference between bloggers, and established sources such as the BBC. It's like comparing The Times with a leaflet dropped through the door.

Anyway, yeah... news reports in the broadsheets are generally free of spin, but the opinion pieces are still part of the paper, so surely it's reasonable to form an opinion of the paper partly based on those?

[david_carnell]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> What I find disturbing is when people defined

> themselves by what newspapers they choose to buy.

> As if it would make them more intelligent or

> socially acceptable in hierarchy organisations.

> The Sun has more Oxbridge journalists than any

> other newspapers. Yet Sun readers are likely to

> despise Oxbridge graduates for not being working

> class.

People, or at least I, don't define themselves soley by this marker but your media choices undoubtably part of how you see yourself in the world. And I'd also doubt your stat about the Sun. I can't find any figures to suggest that and even if it were true I'd suggest that the Sun employs more journos than many other papers and is therefore likely to be over represented. You probably need a degree in Creative Writing to invent the crap they do anyway.