Without a doubt, the only difference is that readers of the Guardian believe they are superior to everyone else.
Is the Guardian as biased and agenda-pushing as the Daily Mail? Watch
- 18-04-2013 21:01
- 18-04-2013 23:18
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
- 09-06-2013 11:42
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!
- 11-06-2013 17:14
- 13-11-2014 22:54
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 ****)
- 13-11-2014 22:58
- 14-11-2014 09:39
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.Last edited by RF_PineMarten; 14-11-2014 at 09:44.
(Original post by RFowler)
- 14-11-2014 10:30
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. Yeah, the Guardian is much better than the Daily Mail.
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.Last edited by caravaggio2; 14-11-2014 at 10:33.
- Community Assistant
(Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
- 14-11-2014 21:52
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.