The Guardian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

To put Oerdin's disgruntlement in context, let's look at the offender.

Charlie Brooker wrote- "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Over the past 3 years, Charlie Brooker has also done the following-

1- Suggested that respected chat show host Michael Aspel is so sycophantic that he might as well fellate his guests.

2- Claimed that Tony Blair has a severe medical impairment of the rectum and wrestles naked in front of a fireplace.

3- Requested that Jim Davidson be replaced by a rag on a stick, before fantasising at great length about sawing him open for fun.

4- Accused John Leslie of attacking his guests with a broom while attempting to conceal an erection.

...and that's just from a quick flick through his work. It's a bad-taste humour page in the entertainment section of the paper. To hold it up as symptomatic of poor journalism is the reason we were laughing at Oerdin.

Plus the fact he banged on about deceitfully mixing opinion and news when a piece he cited had "Comment" at the top in a big font, denoting it as an opinion piece. Yep- we laughed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Objective fact: A dog was run over by a car today.

From the dogs POV maybe. Maybe from the drivers POV the dog ran in front of someone's car.

[Zulu Elephant]

From the dogs POV maybe. Maybe from the drivers POV the dog ran in front of someone's car.

Exactly. Pure fact is useless without context

[Zulu Elephant]

For instance...Lets say fat people commit more crimes (I dont think this is true, but go with me)

This would be a 'pure' fact, based on statistics, but could mean one of three things.

1. There is something inherent in fat people that make them commit more crimes

2. There is something inherent in criminals that make them more likely to be fat

3. Something independent of both variables. For instance, poor people are more likely to commit crimes and are also more likely to be fat.

[Sava]

I'm with you Oerdin... I don't put any stock into the Guardian because of their bias. It's interesting reading at times, but they have little or no credibility, and I would never use a Guardian article to support any of my points.

Having said that, though, they aren't as biased as FoxNews is. Foxnews is directly related to the Republican Party. AFAIK, the Guardian isn't directly linked to any political party. THey have their bias, but it's the bias of individuals who work at the paper, not the bias of a corrupt junta hell-bent on shaping public opinion in their favor.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm with you Oerdin... I don't put any stock into the Guardian because of their bias. It's interesting reading at times, but they have little or no credibility, and I would never use a Guardian article to support any of my points.

Having said that, though, they aren't as biased as FoxNews is. Foxnews is directly related to the Republican Party. AFAIK, the Guardian isn't directly linked to any political party. THey have their bias, but it's the bias of individuals who work at the paper, not the bias of a corrupt junta hell-bent on shaping public opinion in their favor.

Examples of bias?

[Sava]

I can't be arsed to provide examples... it's just my perception based upon my experience with their work.

[Dauphin]

I may be stating the obvious, but any person who only gets (or champions) information from one paper or one news channel is in serious trouble. Its why I have about 10 different news sources on my favourites browser, and watch 5 different TV channels news.

If you vary your media diet it makes these discussions a bit pointless from my POV.

And Apolyton is more than a bit biased as a news source too, but I still like to hear/read the editorialised news that this place gives me.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by St Leo
In terms of impartiality, newspapers available in Toronto go as follows:

1. Globe and Mail (right-wing)
2. Toronto Star (left-wing)
3. Toronto Metro (left-wing)
4. 24 Hours (right-wing)
5. Toronto Sun (right-wing)
6. National Post (right-wing)

I read the Guardian online, and I find that it has the same excellently objective reporting of events as the Globe & Mail, except that its opinion pieces lean to the left rather than the right.

I agree with the ordering based on impartiality, but the Globe used to be far to the right of where it is now. The Post was the best thing that ever happened to the Globe, since it forced the latter towards the centre and made it an actually readable paper.

The National Post can only be described as far right, as can the Sun. The Globe is centre right and the left wing papers are centre left. About the most lefty columnist in the Star is Linda McQuaig and she's just an old fashioned liberal really.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


Examples of bias?

Guardian bias? Ask the residents of Clarke County Ohio.

[notyoueither]

This isn't labelled as comment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1394150,00.html

America's mom

Today Laura Bush starts her second term as first lady with astonishingly high popularity ratings among both Republicans and Democrats. What does this say about the US, asks Sharon Krum

...she has (courtesy of her spin-meisters in the White House) framed her husband's disastrous invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq...

A NATO sanctioned operation to remove a renegade regime in Kabul was disastrous?

Do tell.

[Zulu Elephant]

If you go back to the web page. It has a "G2" logo next to the peice. "G2" is an article/editorial pull out section that comes with the paper

[notyoueither]

Oh. Other articles I've seen say 'comment'.

That article, most of which is quite good, btw, looks a lot like a backgrounder. A backgrounder is facts presented for the reader to gain a greater understanding of a topic.

It sure doesn't read like an editorial, either.

Is that mixing news/facts and opinions?

[Zulu Elephant]

In fact the link is a sub page (is that the right term) that comes off the main G2 Page of the website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2)

Yes, if you link direct to the piece, it doesnt say editorial. BUT if you reached the said piece through the main g2 page (address above) the story would have appeared under a the title "Columns" or something.

Check out the address above and you'll see what i mean

[notyoueither]

So what?

The best parts that ever graced the Sun papers for many moons were pieces by Eric Margolis that were background.

His was a column, that would fill a full page with facts and background on governments and politics around the globe.

It was better than the news for meaningful information, since he gave the facts and explained what they meant (from his perspective, and he was pretty sharp).

How is this a lot different from some yahoo on Fox screaming an editorial during the news?