Tweet
OK, at another forum we're having a lively discussion about the British Newspaper The Guardian. Some people are holding it up as being the paragon of journalistic impartiality while others are contending it is highly biased and mixes editorial and news content. Who's right? Anyone know anything about the Guardian which might spread light no this matter?
-
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate. -
Why can't it be both? The truth very often tends to be biased one way or another. It's very rarely in the middle.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... -
WAR IS PEACE!To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
It's not impartial. It's a left-wing new source, just like, say, the Economist is a right-wing news source. That doesn't make it Indymedia or Fox News."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
It's spelled "Grauniad" thank you very much.
It is a liberal left leaning paper that also prints stuff from the right. It's about as close as you will get in Britain to being impartial.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
In journalism school good journalists are taught to keep facts seporate from opinions. The Guardian doesn't do that so, in my and many other peoples' opinions, it is not a good source of reliable journalism. Please notice how that is unrealated to the message the Guardian is sending out. Instead it has everything to do with the manner in which the Guardian says (or doesn't say) things.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why can't it be both? The truth very often tends to be biased one way or another. It's very rarely in the middle.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
The Economist seems to be very impartial about delivering the news and they clearly deliniate what is editorial (I.E. opinion) from news facts.Originally posted by Agathon
It's spelled "Grauniad" thank you very much.
It is a liberal left leaning paper that also prints stuff from the right. It's about as close as you will get in Britain to being impartial.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Ironically, it was before there was ever such a thing as a journalism degree that we had all the best journalists. There is no such thing as objectivity, and all journalists make certain unstated assumptions. I much perfer a journalist who wears his heart on his sleve, so you know what bias your source actually has, as opposed to those who have them but keep them hidden.Originally posted by Oerdin
In journalism school good journalists are taught to keep facts seporate from opinions.
My point as to the truth not being in the middle remains. Moderation rarely leads one to the truth of the matter, or all you would need to do is split opinions down the middle. Generally speaking, one side is correct, the other side is wrong, and moderating your view only leads you to being half wrong.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
You don't know when to let it lie - you're now trying to spread this argument somewhere else because you got your arse so badly kicked at CG
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda SmithComment
-
I would disagree with Aggie that it's a right wing magazine. Then again, from my American perspective, even true conservatives are left-wing.Originally posted by Oerdin
The Economist seems to be very impartial about delivering the news and they clearly deliniate what is editorial (I.E. opinion) from news facts.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
The Economist is one of my favorite magazines... but it has it's biases as well... However, they can tell both sides of a story. When it comes to opinions, they are as biased as any other news source.Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
The Economist is probably the best right wing publication. All of Murdoch's papers and the Mail are beyond the pale.
It's weird, but virtually all the papers back in NZ (except things like The National Business Review)have no political agenda at all. I suppose I could call the NZ Herald "boring", but people wouldn't buy a biased paper.
It's one reason I find buying papers in Canada so offensive. They can't just report the damn news, they have to pontificate about it.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
The FT is the best Brit news source -- it seems to be one of the only Brit publications that tries to be objective (I don't put The Guardian in that category).I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
The Economist seems to be very impartial about delivering the news and they clearly deliniate what is editorial (I.E. opinion) from news facts.
Not really. Its news is pretty biased, particularly on economic issues. There's a strong neo-liberal sentiment evident in its news.
Which, again, is not necessarily a bad thing, as it's not unreasonable or deliberately deceptive (unlike some news sources). Objectivity is an unrealistic conceit."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
The FT is the best Brit news source -- it seems to be one of the only Brit publications that tries to be objective.
Do you deliberately say stupid things to provoke ridicule?
Only feebs vote.Comment
Comment