The Guardian

[Zulu Elephant]

Im not familiar with the term backgrounder, but i think i know what you mean and i think thats what it is.

Its certainly not an editorial but neither is it presented as 'news'

The article seems to be a few interviews with a bit of context thrown in. Interesting read though.

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

This bit of the article that you quoted however is clearly attributed to someone other than the author - its not a direct quote but then interview write-ups are hardly ever he-said, i-said, he-said, i-said.

[notyoueither]

I don't agree. It's even worse since those look to be the writers words that use someone else's name and words as bookends.

[notyoueither]

Maybe I have that wrong, but it's still very curious copy to make it past the editors.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, columns are edited.

My grievance with the Guardian is more with their editors, and therefore the publishers, than with any individual writer.

Their editorial policy, or there position IOW, is that of a rag. They publish 'jokes' about political assassination, and then make excuses when they are criticised.

Therefore I call it a rag.

Mike dislikes this standard, although he likes to criticise Fox for the opinions they air. What's the difference?

[Zulu Elephant]

Jeez. That's it. Im quitting this thread. I've argued my point, but now Im just bored. Here the summing up of the (in my opinion) facts about the supposed bias of Guardian...

Actual news reporting

The Guardian is one of the three truly unbiased British national newspapers: The Guardian, The Financial Times and the Times. Anyone who thinks there is a major bias in the Guardians news reporting is, in my opinion, suffering from clouded judgement due to their own ideological leanings. I know plenty of moderate left-wingers who think that the news reporting in the Times and Financial Times is biased...they are equally as wrong.

Editorials

A huge range of opinions are expressed in the Guardian editorial pages, covering a larger ideological spectrum than any other UK paper. Because the paper is traditionally editorially left-leaning, the majority of contributors tend to be of the left. These range from Blairites such as Polly Toynbee, to Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians of varying ideological persuasion, to hard left socialists such as the recently deceased Paul Foot. Conservative politicians also contribute reasonably often - Malcolm Rifkind wrote and interesting article not that long ago. The only people that dont tend to contribute are those to the right of the Conservatives (ideologically BNP or UKIP) but, on the whole, the far-right hate the Guardian with such a passion that they would rather join the Euro than write for them

A final comment about the editorial section - I feel that people at Poly have got the wrong end of the stick with regards to paper because of articles by the hard-left wing contributors have been posted here. Let me make it clear...most comment in the Guardian is much more moderate (although even if it wasn't, its the comment section and so shouldn't be used as a benchmark to judge the Guardians news reporting/journalistic integrity)

G2 / What has been described here as "Background"

The Guardian is a very different kind of newspaper to any other I've ever read. Many who read it like to think of it as the "intellectual's" paper and, to some extent, it is (although not to the degree that many think). For that reason, G2 is difficult to describe without making it sound pretentious. There tends to be a lot of Social commentary in it. The best way I can describe G2 articles is that they occupy an area where editorial and academia collide - but written in a pretty casual style.

Apart from that G2 contains lifestyle sections on food, health and other stuff, including light-hearted things.




Anyway. To sum up. If you want a paper with editorials that espouse a only one ideological or party viewpoint then dont buy/read the Guardian. If you find reading well researched, intelligent editorials that you may or may not disagree with interesting then you'll like it. And if you can't handle that facts and opinion are mixed together in the NON-NEWS section (G2) I suggest you don't visit the thread about the merits of “The Di Vinci Code” The Guardian is not a kid's newspaper and it is assumed that it's readers don't need teacher to hold their hand and explain the blindingly obvious.

[notyoueither]

No, I want news sources that can edit themselves responsibly.

That includes not printing tripe about 'disasters' in Afghanistan or 'jokes' about political violence.

[notyoueither]

And we won't even mention equating Israel to the Boers and Apartheid.

Oops, I just did.

[child of Thor]

Well i don't buy papers often, but i would say that people that i've known, and who would call themselves left-wing tended to be guardian readers.
I think in the uk if you wanted a healthy mix of papers, go for the guardian,the times,the sun and read the bbc website. This kind of gives you a nice overall picture of whats happening, especially if you can also read between the lines .

[MikeH]

Originally posted by notyoueither
This isn't labelled as comment.

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

The G2 section is the little pullout section for columnists etc. That's an article about how someone's view of how American Women see Laura Bush. Even unlabeled on the web no-one could mistake that for a news article.

[notyoueither]

I know it's not news, but why doesn't it get the nifty label as comment that some other bits get?

Because it's not?

[duke o' york]

Are you suggesting that it's news?

[notyoueither]

No. It's background. I don't give a fig what you Brits call it, but it clearly is not 'comment' although it manages to make some.

[notyoueither]

And WTF does it matter if it's 'comment' or news or not?

It's a pretty farsical statement for any paper outside of the OBL Gazette to print.

There are editors for a reason.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Maybe the editors credit their readers with intelligence?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sava

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.

Hilarious, Sava criticises the Guardian's credibility.

Physician, heal thyself.