This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

I am not necessarily talking about the 'quality' of the two publications - the Guardian may outrank the Daily Mail by virtue of not having a huge celebrity gossip section.

But in terms of overt bias, pushing an agenda, always pandering to one side of the debate, and so on - is the Guardian as bad as the Daily Mail?

Reply 1

Hal.E.Lujah

19

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.

Reply 2

Darth Stewie

15

They are two sides of the same coin, the Guardian certainly doesn't have the same level of "tabloid" reporting the Daily Mail does (although the Daily Mail does have 8 times the circulation and much more content especially online) however both are incredibly biased and their stories should be read with caution. They don't tend to lie per se however will manipulate stories and only present one side of an argument if the opposing side goes against their political and social views.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 3

federernadal

3

Some parts of the Guardian, such as the equality or women section (I'm a non-white male btw) are basically the Daily Mail except replace "muh benefits" with "muh not enough *women/minority* in *white collar job*" No intelligent analysis at all, just the same old rubbish everyday

Reply 4

midnightice

13

I tend to stick with the neutral Al-Jazeera for news, and DM for looking at the amusing comments.

Reply 5

GrumpyCat

4

I suspect even hardcore Right wingers would perfer the Guardian to the Daily Mail.

Have you ever read it? It reports absolute bull****. Russel Howards daily mail cancer song sums it up.

Reply 6

419

14

Tbf to the the guardian, it is really hard to not be biased.

I don't get why many want to make it seem as bad as the DM. DM is something else.

Reply 7

Steevee

15

As others said, they don't have the same 'tabloid' rubbish, and that's where you get a lot of the credability claims against the Mail.

But as regards the content? Yes, certainly it is. And the 'opinion' pieces are normally just awful. Don't get me wrong, the Mail is no better, but I do find it funny when you'll have a Guardianista bemoaning how ignorant Mail readers are, and how the Mail just fuels them by printing what they want to read, and how the agenda is so horribly obvious blah blah blah. What is it the pot says to the kettle?

Reply 8

jsmithy11

8

I don't get this issue with bias in the media. All media is biased towards democracy, biased against Hitler, biased against the legalisation of murder.

Reply 9

FrogInABog

11

Of course it is, sometimes it seems more so. Many of the columnists and writers in the 'Comment is Free' section are as loony left as their counterparts in the Mail are raving right. I was reading one piece by Seumas Milne (I think) that referred to tax cuts for high-earners as "handouts", as if the government is somehow being generous in allowing people to keep a little more of their salary. Still, all media outlets have a degree of bias; they're run by humans, and we all have opinions, so it's inevitable.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 10

slickrick666999

Bias seems to be anybody who doesn't pander to Islam.

Reply 11

KingMessi

19

Original post by HouseLannister

I am not necessarily talking about the 'quality' of the two publications - the Guardian may outrank the Daily Mail by virtue of not having a huge celebrity gossip section.

But in terms of overt bias, pushing an agenda, always pandering to one side of the debate, and so on - is the Guardian as bad as the Daily Mail?

Pyongyang isn't as biased and agenda-pushing as the Daily Mail.

Reply 12

anarchism101

17

Original post by HouseLannister

I am not necessarily talking about the 'quality' of the two publications - the Guardian may outrank the Daily Mail by virtue of not having a huge celebrity gossip section.

But in terms of overt bias, pushing an agenda, always pandering to one side of the debate, and so on - is the Guardian as bad as the Daily Mail?

They're both biased, but I'd argue that the Guardian has a more 'overall' tone.

For example, in the Mail you quite often get entire articles about one person or one family doing something they don't like, such as claiming benefits or 'getting off easy' for a crime. In the Guardian that's a lot less common; you'll see articles about how benefits are too low or punishments are too harsh in general but rarely entire rants about specific cases (and when there is discussion of specific cases, they're usually given much less emphasis in the Guardian than in the Mail).

Reply 13

419

14

Original post by KingMessi

Pyongyang isn't as biased and agenda-pushing as the Daily Mail.

Brilliant.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 14

AlexandrTheGreat

Original post by HouseLannister

But in terms of overt bias, pushing an agenda, always pandering to one side of the debate, and so on - is the Guardian as bad as the Daily Mail?

Sure. The only difference would be that the Guardian is biased towards the side of the political spectrum that tends to be more reality-based.

Reply 15

ArcadiaHouse

17

I read a comment on The Guardian once that said "The Guardian is the Daily Mail of the left," and it's looking increasingly more accurate.

What irritates me about The Guardian these days is the ludicrous things they find to be outraged about. They refuse to use the word 'actress' to describe a female actor because it's 'sexist', but they happily use 'tranny' to describe a transsexual and publish articles by Julie Burchill using hate speech against transgender people. They can also relate practically everything back to 'rape culture' (whatever that is) and whenever I read their billionth article about feminism it just reminds me why I no longer identify as such. I mean, by all means fight for women's rights, but taking offence at the most minor things just makes them impossible to take seriously when they have bigger fish to fry.

Having said that, they do have some excellent writers and I wouldn't use the Mail as toilet paper. :colonhash:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 16

ArcadiaHouse

17

Original post by federernadal

Some parts of the Guardian, such as the equality or women section (I'm a non-white male btw) are basically the Daily Mail except replace "muh benefits" with "muh not enough *women/minority* in *white collar job*" No intelligent analysis at all, just the same old rubbish everyday

EXACTLY! The same stuff churned out time and time again.

Also it's impossible to take seriously writers like the smug father who said he'd complained to a department store for having separate 'girls and boys' toy sections because he "didn't want his daughter to fulfil society's gender roles." He'll probably have an aneurysm if she asks to have her room painted pink. What's the difference between The Guardian drumming up outrage at a non-issue like that and the guff the Daily Mail moans about?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

Xotol

14

I'm probably what you would call a 'leftie', but I have noticed more and more of this recently.

Virtually every large news outlet has a bias towards something though, so I'd ultimately say it's more down to the reader separating the garbage from the rest. It's sad that news isn't even about informing readers, it's about making as much money as possible from pandering to a specific group and having the most 'interesting' articles.

Original post by ArcadiaHouse

EXACTLY! The same stuff churned out time and time again.

Also it's impossible to take seriously writers like the smug father who said he'd complained to a department store for having separate 'girls and boys' toy sections because he "didn't want his daughter to fulfil society's gender roles." He'll probably have an aneurysm if she asks to have her room painted pink. What's the difference between The Guardian drumming up outrage at a non-issue like that and the guff the Daily Mail moans about?