Is the Guardian as biased and agenda-pushing as the Daily Mail?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Huskaris

Without a doubt, the only difference is that readers of the Guardian believe they are superior to everyone else.

Reply 21

dgeorge

I'm also a "leftie" who's willing to admit that the big media organisations usually have some level of bias.

For example, watching MSNBC is numbing sometimes

Reply 22

chris000

I couldn't agree more. This is especially noticeable in the comments section of various articles on the website. Every single dissenting voice is deleted whilst crass and rude comments of their supporters are allowed. The Guardian is an embarrassment to freedom of expression, scientific discourse, rationale and intelligence, and is basically, as you say, simply a dogma-pushing rag at heart. And, by the way, my stance is very much to the left, which says it all really!

Yes.

Nerco threading but I just realised this. Entire comments section comparing Duncan Smith to Hitler (now don't get me wrong IDS is a right ****)

Reply 25

somemightsay888

Original post by Huskaris

Without a doubt, the only difference is that readers of the Guardian believe they are superior to everyone else.

This. There's a horrible sense of entitlement when reading the Guardian emphasised when looking at the "holier than though" attitude the commenters take.

Reply 26

RF_PineMarten

They're both biased, which is not unusual for a newspaper. But the DM is much much worse than the Guardian. The DM has a history of selectively reporting crime, publishing inaccurate or misleading articles, exaggerating stuff and misrepresenting scientific evidence like they did with MMR and what they are now doing with climate change, etc. The Guardian, on the other hand, hasn't, and is much more reliable for accuracy.

All newspapers are biased to some extent. Even the "unbiased" ones will have a little bit because it was written by a human, who has to decide what to include and what not to include.

Remember the horrific Jan Moir article about Stephen Gately that was published in the DM? Remember the transgender teacher who killed herself after being "exposed" by the Mail? Yeah, the Guardian is much better than the Daily Mail.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 27

caravaggio2

Original post by RFowler

My edit

While the rest of the media held its hand in the hours after the Tolouse massacre, until the police had a better handle on who did it, the Guardian rushed out a piece blaming the French right wing. As soon as we saw it was Jewish people being murdered most people suspected radical islam was behind it but held their hands until more was known.
Needless to say it was a muslim behind it.
The Guardian was so desperate to deflect blame from islam that it printed a speculative crock of ****.
Afaik to this day they have never acknowledged this or corrected it.
I have read the Guardian for many years. It is a shadow of its former self and the most antisemitic mainstream paper in the uk.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 28

Mackay

Original post by Hal.E.Lujah

As someone who's often called a 'cliché lefty' on these forums, I'm just going to come out and admit it. Sometimes I read an article in the Guardian that's so obviously a load of biased rubbish that I just bury my face in my hands and cry.

Every word of this could have been typed by me. Completely agree.

Reply 29

Optimistictom

I stand by the concept of reading the side you disagree, with in terms of publications, to gain a well rounded opinion on a subject. But the guardian is just so pessimistic I can't face it. They're ashamed of everything British, whether it's the premier league, the London financial sector or British history. Stick to the BBC, ft or telegraph to avoid such strong agenda