Have a Reddit acco?

Have a Reddit acco?
Browse worldnews?
Want to do some good?

Downvote everything from this piece of shit on sight because it's one of the most liberal turbocuck major publications in existence.

I'm pretty sure The Guardian propaganda is alone responsible for about 100 000 rapes and over 10 000 deaths of native Europeans in hands of "vibrant diversity" those assholes so keenly promote 24/7/365.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/croatias-election-warning-nationalism-balkans-eu-government-second-world-war-fascism?CMP=twt_gu
youtube.com/watch?v=FIlLyH84xvE
twitter.com/somuchguardian
heatst.com/life/guardian-didnt-like-being-gloriouslytwitter-trolled-so-heres-some-more/
theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/science-museum-under-fire-exhibit-brains-pink-blue-gender-stereotypes
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/feminist-internet-empowering-online-harassment
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/men-abuse-women-condemn-male-violence-masculine
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/as-lionel-shriver-made-light-of-identity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her
theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/28/wikileaks-julian-assange-alan-rusbridger
wlrn.org/post/chavez-looms-large-south-floridians-prepare-vote-venezuela-election
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/hillary-clinton-pneumonia-prejudices-sexism-women
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

pretty sure they're already in the process of dying

>Publishes an article on Croatian ellections
>New wave of Nationalism as Croatia elects it's new party

Literally the most non nationalistic elections in our 25 year history. The traidtional right wing HDZ doesn't evne mention nationalism but the left wing SDP does they're both center btw. Right and Left wing is just a play...

Anyways
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/croatias-election-warning-nationalism-balkans-eu-government-second-world-war-fascism?CMP=twt_gu

I mean I haven't read an article this uninformed in ages. I don't think they even used wikipedia.

They just saw HDZ and MOST were right on wikipedia and wrote about nationalism in the Balkans.

...

Also I voted SDP so that tells you a lot... when I'm defending HDZ the party that literally drove the country into ruin and sold everything because they got bribed to shit...

>giving Guardian my clicks

I unsubscribe from there youtube yesterday after this video: youtube.com/watch?v=FIlLyH84xvE
I cant wait for the mental breakdown when trump wins.
Read the comment section on one of their stories about Clinton, you wont be disappointed.

*their

Even people who post on The Guardian talk about how they're glad the thing is spiraling down the drain. It's clickbait shit.

They beg me for money. I cannot believe they think anyone will pay, they have turned into a gawker clone.

I still remember when they use to work with wikileaks. Now they hate free speech and accuse everyone they dislike of being russian agents.

>twitter.com/somuchguardian

>heatst.com/life/guardian-didnt-like-being-gloriouslytwitter-trolled-so-heres-some-more/

Reminder that The Guardian used to be a respected and serious broadsheet newspaper.

>Have a Reddit acco?
>Browse worldnews?
>Want to do some good

Go there and don't come back

It's one of the world's most important newspapers.
It employers some excellent writers (Rory Carroll, Gary Younge, and Martin Kettle are among my faves).
It produces long-format reporting, which has died in almost all other places of journalism in the English-speaking world (the NY Times and Washignton Post are other exceptions).
It allows free access, supported by ads and their own foundation, which means that poor fags such as ourselves can get access to good news.
It supports anti-establishment causes, like wikileaks.
It's pretty transparently obvious what is opinion and what is hard news.
We need and rely on this paper.
OP knows nothing about news journalism and is probably a hack ideologue.
OP is a massive faggot and probably a secret stormfag.

>It's one of the world's most important newspapers.

Today, they have an article about secret Republican documents and an advert on the page asking people to donate to their "brave journalism". The Guccifer shit has been out there for weeks (and today!) and they haven't mentioned it. They are spectacularly partisan, to the point their articles are indistinguishable from Clinton propaganda.

They had an article yesterday about mansplaining which shows you where their editorial line is aimed. It's a silly fucking rag now. Some of us can remember when it actually carried some heft.

They openly have a political orientation, but this is simply acknowledging that all papers in the world have a broad editorial position. No problem with this. They're too New Labor for my tastes, but I don't think I can name a better newspaper in the world for the extent to which I'm regularly interested and informed by the articles published. Every now and then they publish something outright silly, but this doesn't make it a bad paper.

Shout out to my two favorite football journalists, Barney Ronay and Sid Lowe. Barry Glendenning is consistently very funny too.

OP is still massively butthurt and impotent.

they don't support wikileaks, they think Assange is a rapist patriarch

They used to like Wikileaks. They don't any longer because they threatened to expose Clinton. This is what 'brave journalism' worth paying for looks like.

They had an article last week or the week before about - for the umpteenth time - the gender pay gap. Every single time, contributors in the comments have pointed out, often with academic references, that The Guardian's use of statistics when it comes to this particular subject is completely fucking wrong and yet they still run with it, still they repeat the same errors. They have a PhD-level educated data scientist on staff and yet they still run with it. None of it is journalism. Perhaps you only read their American version but their treatment of Jeremy Corbyn has been scandalous for months now, even crowbarring little hit pieces on him into articles about completely different subjects. When it comes to their pet subjects, there's never any balance. It's fucking rag.

Please neck yourself, the guardian is the UK Huffingtonpost.

Toilet-paper tier

God I hope so, this rag is worse than Gawker.

There's a difference between having a perspective on things and just blatantly ignoring stories for as long as you possibly can because they don't reflect too well on your worldview

Check this clickbait shit. And this is only from the last week.

>theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/science-museum-under-fire-exhibit-brains-pink-blue-gender-stereotypes

>theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/feminist-internet-empowering-online-harassment

>theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/men-abuse-women-condemn-male-violence-masculine

>theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/as-lionel-shriver-made-light-of-identity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her

No.
"In Britain the Guardian was, for many months, the only paper to write about WikiLeaks or to use any of the documents they were unearthing. In August 2007, for instance, we splashed on a remarkable secret Kroll report which claimed to show that former Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi had been siphoning off hundreds of millions of pounds and hiding them away in foreign bank accounts in more than 30 different countries. It was, by any standards, a stonking story. This Assange, whoever he was, was one to watch."

Alan Rusbridger, "WikiLeaks: The Guardian's role in the biggest leak in the history of the world" theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/28/wikileaks-julian-assange-alan-rusbridger

I know they publish the occasional article that's crap, but I'm a long-time reader without being affiliated to the publication in any way. I used to subscribe to the Guardian Weekly (hard copy) when living in Australia, bought it daily when working in London, and now in NYC I read it online regularly.

Can you fill out the story with more detail, naming specific journalists and what their position has been over time and why you disagree. I'm happy to say that I rarely agree with Jessica Valenti or Brigid Delaney, but that the classical music section is still excellent (Andrew Clements is reliably engaging). More detail and you'll convince me that you're attentive readers who have a thoughtful critique, rather than poltards who are seeking an easy, shallow dismissal.

>2011
they've certainly changed their minds

They are unbelievably biased. Problem is unlike other mainstream rags they don't employ dumb people. That makes it even worse. They clearly have ideological agenda, and I caught them outright lying about subject, in a situation where it was absolutely impossible for them to not be aware of facts and they went through with it. Problem is they do it in smart way.

The immigrant crisis was a big eye opener for many people, and the Guardians reporting on it was very dishonest, for example they say that there is 50% men, 29% of women and 21% of children amongst Syrian refugees and they use valid Eurostat data. Problem is that of those who arrived, only 25% were Syrian refugees. To spin it like that you have to understand the data and try to do it on purpose.

Two other instances were Paris attacks - the attack was still ongoing and Guardian already released 'not all muslims' 1 000 word article. I swear to god that woman had to have pre writen article where she just filled out the blanks, otherwise there is no way she would write it so fast, in the middle of the night.

The other one was Cologne. They constantly waffle about rape culture, three attack articles a day, but when Cologne happened there was absolute silence. Absolute. For eight days there was nothing and when they finally released a piece it started and I quote " 1st of January during the NYE happened something that I really don't want to talk"

Utterly bloodboiling. Fortunately, their readers are turning against them.

Funny thing is that I forwarded that first one to a friend this morning. It's not clickbait. It's quoting a serious scientist who is calling out a public science exhibition for presenting "junk science" that is wrong, misleading, and politically partisan. This is the kind of science reporting we need in newspapers more often. Unfortunately, the science section is usually the worst section of most newspapers, with effectively just an intern or two badly summarizing a few studies that are reported on in Psychology Today or similar. I'm wondering if you're just mad at reporting that presents a position that disagrees with your own, rather than targeting bad journalistic practice (which is definitely not the case in the first example you give), i.e. I'm wondering if you're an ideologue fraud and charlatan and not a person able to make informed, independent decisions.

>having a reddit account

ISHYGDDT

The football (soccer) section is good but that's because it's isolated from the rest of the paper (i.e. there isn't really scope to crowbar in 'progressive' bollocks). The rest of the paper is almost uniformly directed at being a sop to the worst far-left nonsense and I can't help but believe that this shift has been an attempt to increase their footprint in America (by publishing more clickbait drivel).

For almost all of last year (and even now but to a lesser extent) they've been pro-immigration to the point where their reportage on what happened in Cologne (after a week of silence) came to small number of perfunctory articles and a grand pathetic total of two opinion pieces.

They employ two women who make living from the continued existence of sexism as their main go-to 'sexism' reporters and their political commentators (especially so on the American side) are laughably partisan with no balance ever offered. I can recall Richard Wolffe on the live blog for the debates making fun of Sanders' hair while at the same time talking about Clinton's 'wonderful smile'. Anything Jill Abramson or Lucia Graves writes is worthless. I still don't think they've published the video of Clinton collapsing and as of a few days ago, were still calling it a 'stumble'.

That's just off the top of my head. They're obsessed with sexism, with feminism, with race and - more sinisterly - with using these subjects to constantly push a 'battle of the sexes/races' narrative. Even their own readers call them on it and still they persist.

They British side of things is far too long to get into given Brexit, Corbyn etc. but it's weird watching what was once a traditional 'left' newspaper (politically) come out with such vehemence against a guy who would ordinarily be someone they would laud.

And yet the 'two brains' thing is a constant thread every time The Guardian have an article about trans people.

See, this is why the left is in such a fucking state right now - there's no coherence to any of it. Mad at male and female brains being different in one article, using male and female brains being different as a hook for another (when talking about trans people or implying that women are better suited to management positions).

Thanks for elaboration. Much appreciated. I agree that the opinion pages have gone to crap recently with an obsession with identity politics. I mostly find Richard Wolffe illuminating on right-wing politics in the US. I think I agree with most of your observations, though I don't have such a negative assessment. They've definitely been making a drive into the US market, underwritten by the Scott Trust and using some slightly clickbaiting tactics at time, but I also think they're gambling on a model of open journalism for the future, as opposed to the subscription-only model favored by the Murdoch broadsheets. I hope their effort works and that they win, because in the most serious stories they're usually the more reliable news outlet. Agreed on the football section, which really is consistently excellent (and Sid Lowe has a PhD in Spanish Civil War history, for instance, and it shows -- in a good way). I've been dismissing most of the reporting on British politics in the past year or two because British politics has completely gone to shit with incredibly low-grade candidates on both the left and right of politics -- and embarrassment of failures.
Thanks again for elaborating.

Just need to add "why": you go to new section and vigorously downboat all their shit. It doesn't take much effort to knock new submission into trash so it never shows up on top posts which is default. That alone can potentially remove thousands of readers from one article.

weak b8 m8 but kek'd

I'm not sure you should link anything there without archive breh.

They made profit last year after many 0loss years due staff axing and changes in pricing/ads. Make them axe more.

It's way, way worse than just clickbait shit. They as late as 2013 had internal discussions about how to keep promoting Chavez just because he is star of socialism while even rest of the liberal publications had silently acknowledged their mistake years ago and stopped hyping Venezuelan revolution. The Guardian board is insane and isn't afraid to ignore reality to push agenda.
wlrn.org/post/chavez-looms-large-south-floridians-prepare-vote-venezuela-election
> I, in my own reporting, became very critical, just reflecting what I saw on the ground. And this prompted quite a debate, internal debate, in my newspaper, because a lot of editors then and to this day feel and felt that we should have supported Hugo Chavez because he was a standard-bearer for the left

They have banned me, several times, and in the end they even IP banned me. I didn't came there to shitpost, I wasn't rude, I just threw their non-sense out of the windows, with good sources, data and stats. I think having good, non-twisted datas with as much unbiased facts as possible is important, not to convince the person arguing against me, but to sway the people who happen to see the arguement and Guardian really, really didn't like that.

...

They are capable of some really good stuff, though, which is what irks; the Panama Papers thing, the week-long report they did on the NHS a while back and the current Republican documents thing is a scoop (even if they're unwilling to balance it with the DNC leaks). It's just that every time I read something like that and think it's worth paying for, a voice in the back of my head reminds me that I'd also be paying Lindy West's wage

This was uploaded in the last hour and it's the perfect example of the type of shit I'm talking about, the implication that to worry about Clinton's health is to be a sexist:

>theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/hillary-clinton-pneumonia-prejudices-sexism-women

It's fucking annoying and I refuse to pay for it, even though I bought the newspaper for nearly twenty years.

You think if Le Guardian didn't exist Snowden records and other good stuff hadn't been published by someone else? Snowden revelations collaboration gave them sudden prestige and now they are back to steadily proving to be complete agenda pushing bullshit all day every day. Get a grip. I know old habits die hard but seriously get a grip goddamn.

The comments are usually pretty reasonable.