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?!

"I am just very aware of its shortcomings and there are times when it is beyond parody, however, on a more serious note, its recent coverage (or lack of) of the Rotherham child abuse scandals"

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-sexual-abuse-children

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/23/national-crime-agency-south-yorkshire-police-failings-rotherham-sex-abuse

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/27/education-officials-appointment-after-rotherham-role-appropriate-review-finds

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/26/rotherham-investigation-42-police-named-abuse-allegations

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/10/prevent-child-sex-abuse-victims-not-morally-inferior-oxfordshire

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/03/child-abuse-theresa-may-vows-to-end-culture-of-inaction-and-denial

These are just a tiny fraction of the articles about Rotherham sex abuse, which are on the Guardian website for the past few months.

Are you making a case that they haven't covered this topic?

"'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."

I live in a very poor community (although my own family is comfortable) and I don't find her patronising or remote.

But the OP is asking if the Graun is in the same category as The Daily hate Mail. I can't see how anyone who feels themselves informed could come to that conclusion really.

I disagree. I don't think it's self-evident that the superiority of the Graun to the Mail is clear to anyone who is 'informed'. Unlike the Mail it is a liberal paper, and so (by dint of circular argument) its superiority is self-evident to anyone who is a social liberal. But despite what the Graun would have you think being a social liberal is not synonymous with being 'informed'. Liberalism is a set of values, not the possession of certain facts.

If you see social liberalism and social conservatism in equal terms as contrasting value systems, and assess the Mail and the Graun in terms of political bias, emotive writing, selective reporting and rampant hypocrisy, I would say they are absolutely comparable.

The sticking point comes because Guardian readers explicitly (and in contradiction of their own professions of tolerance and diversity) view their value system as morally superior to that of Mail readers.

I dislike any paper that has a overt political bias hence why social media and the internet is so popular.

They are both on the same spectrum just at opposite ends.

"The sticking point comes because Guardian readers explicitly (and in contradiction of their own professions of tolerance and diversity) view their value system as morally superior to that of Mail readers."

Possibly because it appears that Guardian readers don't on the whole vote on the basis of financial and social self-interest, whereas Mail readers do.

There is that inherent hypocrisy and patronising tone I can't bear Minifingers.

Oh my. I've just twigged that that's why it's called the Grauniad!!

Sorry, but I have to laugh at someone thinking that an appropriate response to accusations Guardian readers think they're morally superior with:

ssibly because it appears that Guardian readers don't on the whole vote on the basis of financial and social self-interest, whereas Mail readers do.

Apparently with no sense of irony.

Many Guardian readers vote for exactly the same self-interested reasons. Because they're employed in the public sector and want to keep their jobs and have more chance of a pay rise; because they're employed in a sector which depends on public funding; because they like the cheap plumbers, nannies and cleaners which are a legacy of the Labour years.

If you're employed in the private sector voting for a party which you know is probably going to send the economy down the toilet and cost you your job you're not going to vote for that any more than a public sector voter and Guardian reader would vote for a party which would put them out of work.

If you feel anything about me based on what I read you are making assumptions; I read neither of the papers being discussed. But I think the moral shrillness of the Mail and the Guardian - on behalf of their respective value systems - is absolutely comparable.

"The sticking point comes because Guardian readers explicitly (and in contradiction of their own professions of tolerance and diversity) view their value system as morally superior to that of Mail readers."

Possibly because it appears that Guardian readers don't on the whole vote on the basis of financial and social self-interest, whereas Mail readers do.

I rest my case

Mini,

No I am not making a case that they did not cover it, they did cover it, albeit through their PC ideological lens. Despite mounting evidence that for years Pakistani men had been left to rape and abuse white girls while child services did nothing the Guardian continued to run a slew of comment pieces alluding to the fact that that the allegations were a racist witch hunt and a deliberate smear campaign against Pakistani community. When the sordid tale was confirmed as true and finally went mainstream was there any kind of mea culpa from the Guardian that they has been wrong in their defense all along. Of course not, they changed tack overnight and joined the rest of the media in the something must be done handwringing editorial line but even then they seemed incapable of using the words Pakistani, instead, settling for the rather more ambiguous men of Asian origin. They concentrated on the failure of the system while again ignoring the rather large elephant in the room and deep rooted problem that certain members of a certain community specifically targeted these girls as their culture deemed them worthless in their eyes. The Labour Party, ably supported by the Guardian for years helped create the climate where police officers, social workers and councilors were too afraid to speak up out of fear of being labelled racist, there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, aka lose Labour votes, even if meant children continued to be abused. You must have read the CIF pages during this period? The Guardian was crucified over its reporting.

I am a labour voter and I hate the stand the Indo took at the election.

guardian all the way.

I think the Times standard of journalism is excellent but I can't support Murdoch so I can't buy it.

I do admit PT is a nightmare.

Actually Voyage you make a fair point. It's not completely true that I never look at either the Graun or the Mail; I read them both, as you put it, for lolz

Isn't the point of grammar school that we can all go there so long as we are clever enough?

What happens to us once we get there is the difference - as I found with my fellow clever working class friends whose parents weren't encouraged to value education and relied on a teenager bringing in a wage.

They left in droves at 16. It's got worse since then because they won't even get in.

I am constantly amazed that the people most supportive of grammar school education are the people who failed the 11+.

They are often the people who sneer at Champagne Socialists.

Talk about doing yourself down to save other people the trouble.

I came from a council estate, passed the 11+ and went all the way.

I've earned the right to continue to be left wing and drink Champagne.

I want others to have that right.

The Labour Party, ably supported by the Guardian for years helped create the climate where police officers, social workers and councilors were too afraid to speak up out of fear of being labelled racist, there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, aka lose Labour votes, even if meant children continued to be abused. You must have read the CIF pages during this period? The Guardian was crucified over its reporting

agree with every single word. awful climate where no one could speak out, being straight jacketed.