To dislike The Guardian almost as much as the Mail at the moment

[fiveacres]

Perhaps I am BU as I rarely read it these days so feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

The Independent was always the newspaper of choice in our house growing up, but when I started buying newspapers myself I read the Guardian and also many books by some of its prominent writers.

I honestly can't work out if it's that I've changed and grown older and shifting into my mid thirties cynicism after the ideals of my youth, but it just seems so incredibly sullen, complaining and despairing yet without presenting any salient solutions. It also appears very patronising against those it seeks to defend.

As a result, I've started reading The Independent.

Has anyone else stopped reading it of late? I'm genuinely interested as to whether this is my state of mind or not - in other words, has it got worse or have I become more jaded? And AIBU to place it in the same category as The Mail?!

Yes that's the Jack Monroe 'problem' in a nutshell.

Journalism used to be a trade for people who didn't go to university. Now it is. I doubt very much whether you would find that the ranks of the tabloids are filled with people who left school at 16.

A lot of very bright people with good writing skills (perhaps more likely to be gained at a good private school than at a comp?) go to Oxbridge. While there, there are many opportunities for practising journalism at university level, and for networking among other up and coming student journalists, politicians, etc. Oxbridge also has a "you can do anything you set your mind to" ethos, which encourages ambition and success.

Oxbridge graduates are bright and also often well-networked. However, if most of the journalists come from that background they will have a limited range of perspectives and understanding of others. It encourages group think; they back each other up and reassure themselves that their opinions are correct when they are not. It means their understanding of 'normal' is different from everyone else's. Ultimately, this must lead to poor journalism. This is the same criticism levelled at politicians.

Agreed. Though I think it is even worse for politicians, as at least the journalists have to get out there and do research and talk to people.

Polly Toynbee did provide some useful opposition to the last Tory led government She recognises cruelty when she sees it.

The Bedroom Tax is said to have lostMs Mcvey her seat. Anyone from Liverpool know her?

The treatment she received in the run up to the election was shocking from what I have read.

Agree Polly is very patronising. Very.

I like to read the Telegraph ir the Guardian, I like to mix it up a bit. Sometimes tge Times or even the Mail (though the Mail is awful mostly)

I think I read the Independent on the day the princess was born, as I was looking for a paper that did NOT have Kate on the front page but found it dull

MorrisZapp

I have no doubt that they are all very bright, that is not the issue. The problem is that the Guardian's editorial line for years has been flagging up the lack of equal opportunities for those from less privileged backgrounds, highlighting the disproportionate number of public school educated MPs and government ministers, pointing out the general nepotism and abuse of old boy networks in the city and much more. All very worthy but given that they are guilty of exactly the same practices it makes them look a bit hypocritical and daft.

Hard Work is a fab book. I'm not sure PT is patronising so much as remote. She sometimes sounds like an intrepid anthropologist when describing elements of low-paid or WC life. She tries really hard, but sometimes there is a bum note. TBF, Badminton to a Lambeth school kitchen is a long way, however much she bigs up her state sixth form. I think it's mainly stylistic though and not really her fault.

She is a cheerleader for the left, singing to the choir every week, she has over the years shown a shocking bias and deliberate manipulation of facts/data to suit her narrative. While she is not unique amongst journalists (both left and right) in terms of nailing her colours to a political party her unflinching inability to see any news item in terms other than Labour = Good, Tories = Bad gets incredibly wearisome.

'Conservatives Find Cure for Cancer'

Polly: 'What took them so long, if Labour were in office they would have found it earlier and the scientist responsible would have come from a comprehensive'

What I see with a lot of news and discussion in newspapers is the absence of other news, it's the same stories and themes talked about by the same people.
For example, The bedroom "tax" is often pounced upon as an awful thing but there is little actual REAL debate around equality with private tenants, the discretionary aspect paid by councils to disabled people or the need to release larger homes. The actual problems that councils face. It is very black and white, simplistic journalism based on really poor research by people who just read other people's opinions rather than having any depth of knowledge about a subject. You do get better debates here by people who sometimes know more.

Such a lot of tortuous navel gazing over the Labour leadership on the website today. I still can't get over PanGalatic's list.

I have always disliked the Guardian as much as the Mail. To me they are flip sides of the same histrionic, manipulative, scaremongering, tub thumping coin and they both make my eyes roll in equal measure.

YANBU OP, both rags of the highest order. Sensationalist headlines with nothing of substance in the articles.

YABU

Dont see it at whingy.

Love the arts and food coverage. Love Polly Toynbee.

Can't stand all the bollocks on mumsnet about 'Champagne socialists'. The Labour Party aren't proposing a cap on earnings and it's completely reasonable for people on high salaries to be left leaning. Not that guardian journos are particularly well paid. They certainly don't have job security....

Pan your post of 13.55 absolutely encapsulates what I detest about the Guardian.

That's what I used to say to my Dad, Mini :)

It isn't the fact that they earn a lot, however. What I find irritating is the high handed and sometimes overtly sentimental tone which presents problems to us in a self righteous and head shaking manner but notably fails to present solutions, other than in a Rocking Horse Winner style of 'there must be more money, there must be more money!'

I really noticed it whenever someone linked to the Guardian in the run up to and immediately after the election this year. I found myself inwardly rolling my eyes as I was seeing "guardian" and "biased" as synonymous - which is the same as the Mail, really!

£141 per night IS budget in Tokyo.

Trip advisor has places to stay coming up for £19 per night. Now that is budget. Or £42 pn for city centre.

YANBU

Sometimes I have found it unbelievable the amount of facts removed from and article, to give it the best slant.
Yet I could read the same subject /issue in what maybe classed as a 'tory' paper and they have left more of the facts in , making it more informative.

I get the Times and FT delivered every day (and also the Telegraph at weekends). I also read the Guardian when we get a free paper at Waitrose on some Saturdays. The Guardian is not bad in places. I was surprised when went back to it after a 20 year break how much it has at the weekends about things like make up and boring woman stuff rather than enough feminism. I think it is appealing to some kind of looks obsessed London middle class type of woman at times.

It is sa good idea to read different political views. My father always got the Observer and the Sunday Times when we were children (no Independent in those days) and the Times every day (except during the period of the famous Times strike). I also subscribe to the Times on line.

For world news reporting I was pleasantly surprised by the economist. It has a Tory slant to it and supported the Tories in the recent election and the no campaign in the Scottish independence one but does cover world activities very thoroughly and is quite liberal in many ways. I ended up subscribing as it was hard to find in local shops.

IIRC it supported the war in Iraq. Not so liberal.

Liked the guardian as a student; must Google jack monroe

I've only read the economist for a couple of years so didn't know about Iraq. Labour supported the Iraq war though so the guardian may have as well

It seems to me that people seek out the columnists they dislike on the Guardian. Everyone is mentioning Polly Toynbee and Jack Monroe. But the Guardian also has Ian Jack - always interesting, always with something new to say - and very funny writers like Tim Dowling and Sophie Heawood.

They have an excellent Review section on Saturdays, some very good interviewers like Simon Hattenstone (see his interview with David Hockney: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/09/david-hockney-interview-cheeky-serious) and in-depth features of the kind you're unlikely to find elsewhere. Take this article about migrants crossing the Mediterranean:

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/16/id-rather-die-at-sea-than-stay-there-migrants-on-crossing-the-med

Or Nathan Foley's article about a month in A&E:

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/month-a-and-e-life-on-the-nhs-frontline

And that's before you mention the Guardian's online comments section, which has a vast range of commenters of differing political shades, including Conservative ones.

You don't have to read the Guardian if you don't like it. But picking on one element, such as Polly Toynbee, or the fact that it sometimes features expensive consumer goods, and then whining about that aspect is just childish.