I agree - that's fair enough, mark. If they made mistakes in that article then they should correct them. Maybe they did, I don't know. Problem is papers often print retractions and apologies a week later on page 17! I'm not a Guardian share-holder (you can't be one - it's a Trust), but on balance I get a better quality of coverage, and importantly 'critical' thinking, from The Guardian than most other papers. It doesn't have a 'proprietor' so it can't be influenced internally. In election day editorials it wavers between advising readers to vote Lib Dem or Blairite Labour. A very centrist/centre-left stance. And it still offers web access without a paywall and has probably the best managed 'Comment is Free' comment facility - where you often find good input from experts and international perspectives. The Independent and Observer have a good go too, on the whole. Otherwise the UK press is either tabloid trash not worth the time of day or highly partisan right wing mouthpieces for the tory party. We all know this - it's not contentious - but sadly it is true. Personally I think it's other media (eg facebook, twitter) that has more impact and influence these days. The vast majority of brexiteers, trumpists, climate change deniers, covid sceptics etc will never ever read a copy of The Guardian anyway!mark vb wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:42 pmJust remember, all news articles should be taken with a pinch of salt, and the Guardian is no exception. I've no axe to grind, but it was interesting to read the Guardian article you posted a short while ago concerning the new lorry park proposed on the outskirts of Dover - it was factually incorrect in a number of respects and, in my view, sought to sensationalize the matter and paint it in as bad a light as possible. How can I say this?.... well, it's a few miles down the road from me and I'm paying attention to the facts alone, not the rhetoric.daveuprite wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:10 pm https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... est-abroad
Warning. Do not read this article if you only want to see 'optimistic' news. There are ostrich head burial sites elsewhere with the news you're looking for.
Part of the problem is that newspapers are having to maintain readership levels by mixing reportage with opinion pieces. It makes them more entertaining. But when taken away from the overall context of the whole paper, a very opinionated op-ed piece can give the mistaken impression that it is the official 'view' of the paper. Just as Boris Johnson's writing in the Spectator did not reflect the paper's overall world view, the political sketches of John Crace do not typify The Guardian's position on everything. Papers changed many years ago from full-time staffers towing the line to commissioned work from freelancers. It does bring variety though.
The bigger concern IMO is what now happens to broadcast media, i.e. TV. Does it start to follow the American model? Andrew Neil has just been appointed the head of a new 'news channel' (yet to go on air) which will apparently bring a Fox News type of coverage to british TV. That is worrying.
(It's still inexcusable to print material which is supposed to be factual reporting if it's not checked thoroughly first.)