The Guardian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It speaks volumes that those damning the Grauniad from the other side of the Atlantic are picking out, as examples of "biased journalism", quotes from the joke TV reviews out of the funnies section of the entertainment magazine.

They'll be reading Maoist propaganda into the "Personals" ads next.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by 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.

Krum wrote a column. A column is an opinion piece, not a news story. Columnists are hired to voice opinions, whether they're hired by the Guardian, the Globe or the Post.

Simple really.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


They'll be reading Maoist propaganda into the "Personals" ads next.

It's where I get all my secret messages from SMERSH, Spectre, Thrush and Rosa Klebb's billets doux.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GePap
There are two types of bias a paper can exhibit, thought of course it can exhibit both at the same time.

1. How it analyzes stories- ie, what spin is given to the facts in order to fit the given facts into a pre-existing view.
2. How it reports stories- chosing which facts to put in based on a decision of what should be included or not.

...

To me the second is far more dangerous than the first.

I agree completely.

Reporters make decisions about what is newsworthy and those decisions are subject to bias, particularly in the question asked during an interview. The Washington press corp tends to treat all presidents with kid's gloves, something that doesn't happen in Canada or Britain.

That's different from copy editors who often have to make quick decisions on what to cut out of a story in order to make it fit. They often have to chop things out of a story simply based on how many lines of copy needs to be cut. They consider how the cut affects the story flow. They don't chop stuff out because They disagree with something and most usually wish they had more space so they wouldn't have to chop out good stuff.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
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.

You may recall I listed several different things the Guardian did wrong and then I listed five different links which displayed the various forms of bias I spoke about. You then started laughing at one because it was an editorial. I was not aware that every signal one of the five had to show every single form of bias I had listed. But please laugh any way. I want you to put yourself out.

No one is seeing a massive conspiracy by the Guardian but several people have noticed a marked bias. Mike took the time to read everyone's posts and he came up with a pretty good hypothesis (namely, posters here pick and choice Guardian articles to give the appearance of bias by taking a nonsatistical sampling) and I have already admited that is a reasonable explination.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Reporters make decisions about what is newsworthy and those decisions are subject to bias, particularly in the question asked during an interview. The Washington press corp tends to treat all presidents with kid's gloves, something that doesn't happen in Canada or Britain.

I think you are right. The administration can refuse to grant a reporter access to interviews and Q&A sessions so the press core tends to softball alot of stuff so they can curry favor with the administration.

What we need is some sort of independent process that takes press core decisions out of the Administration's hands.

[Dinner]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,15139,1314558,00.html

Can somebody please tell me if this is an editorial or not? I honestly can't tell because all it says at the top is "Guardian Unlimited: Elections 2004" which leads me to believe it is a backgrounder or in any event it is how a backgrounder would appear on our side of hte Atlantic.

I truly hope it is an opinion piece because it is horribly biased and I found it because I knew Markos Moulitsas (who writes the extremely biased Daily Kos) was a hack/reporter I could count on to deliver far left views.

Here's the last sentence of the fist paragraph to show you what the article is like and the rest follows this same note.

It was a race that should have been won by their candidate, Al Gore. In fact, it was won by Al Gore, but the Rightwing Noise Machine kept it close enough to be stolen by the Republicans and their allies at the supreme court.

I hope it is an opinion piece.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I think you are right. The administration can refuse to grant a reporter access to interviews and Q&A sessions so the press core tends to softball alot of stuff so they can curry favor with the administration.

What we need is some sort of independent process that takes press core decisions out of the Administration's hands.

What we need is smarter Americans. The Press gives us what we watch.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,15139,1314558,00.html

Can somebody please tell me if this is an editorial or not? I honestly can't tell because all it says at the top is "Guardian Unlimited: Elections 2004" which leads me to believe it is a backgrounder or in any event it is how a backgrounder would appear on our side of hte Atlantic.

I truly hope it is an opinion piece because it is horribly biased and I found it because I knew Markos Moulitsas (who writes the extremely biased Daily Kos) was a hack/reporter I could count on to deliver far left views.

Here's the last sentence of the fist paragraph to show you what the article is like and the rest follows this same note.

It was a race that should have been won by their candidate, Al Gore. In fact, it was won by Al Gore, but the Rightwing Noise Machine kept it close enough to be stolen by the Republicans and their allies at the supreme court.

I hope it is an opinion piece.

It's a weekly column. I assume that means it's an opinion piece.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,15139,1314558,00.html

Can somebody please tell me if this is an editorial or not? I honestly can't tell because all it says at the top is "Guardian Unlimited: Elections 2004" which leads me to believe it is a backgrounder or in any event it is how a backgrounder would appear on our side of hte Atlantic.

I truly hope it is an opinion piece because it is horribly biased and I found it because I knew Markos Moulitsas (who writes the extremely biased Daily Kos) was a hack/reporter I could count on to deliver far left views.

Here's the last sentence of the fist paragraph to show you what the article is like and the rest follows this same note.

It was a race that should have been won by their candidate, Al Gore. In fact, it was won by Al Gore, but the Rightwing Noise Machine kept it close enough to be stolen by the Republicans and their allies at the supreme court.

I hope it is an opinion piece.

You don't honestly need an answer to that, do you? Of course it's an opinon piece, just as the Charlie Brooker "assassination plea" was obviously a bad-taste humour skit.

Reassure me you aren't actually confused by this, please.