To think that the Guardian's standards have really dropped lately

[paintandbrush]

like within the last 5 years or so. Once you look past the unbearably condescending tone and amount of PC bollocks, the quality of the writing is so poor! ie. mix-ups between to/too, stuff you would expect an intelligent 12 year old to be capable of.

I appreciate it's hard for papers to survive these days but seriously, it might help if they employed someone literate. Hate to admit it, but I've really enjoyed the Spectator's free trial thingy lately despite not being that much of a Tory. It's nice reading the scribblings of witty, educated journalists who've actually been paid.

It used to be Guardian vs. Times, now it's just sunk into Guardian vs. Daily Fail. Caitlin Moran had the right idea jumping ship.

YABVVVU - perhaps you could point me in the direction of which paper today for example had better coverage of Hillsborough?

The Grauniad have always had a reputation for being poor on proof reading. They are however NOT a Murdoch title and still do investigative journalism (though maybe less than before).

I don't think it's fair to compare them with the Spectator. A weekly magazine is entirely different to a daily newspaper.

As for claiming they operate at the same level as the Daily Mail, you're just wrong.

I hate the Guardian. It's just the same as the Mail but with a different agenda and has a condescending lofty attitude that puts my teeth on edge.

As for claiming they operate at the same level as the Daily Mail, you're just wrong.

I take it you didn't see the clickbait 'how to have an affair and get away with it' article at the weekend. I said as much in the comments and got mod-ed...

It's just the same as the Mail

How? Is it obsessed with celebs? Does it fill half its website with images of women in bikinis? Does it claim everything causes cancer?

The Guardian may not be perfect, but it is much better than the Daily Mail.

I take it you didn't see the clickbait 'how to have an affair and get away with it' article at the weekend.

I did see it, I read it and I thought it was a poor article. To put it into some context though, it was included in a supplement dealing with families and relationships where I would expect there to be discussions of all aspects of married/co-habiting life.

I read almost all the national press and try to keep an open view on them, the Guardian is not perfect, but they do a lot better than many of their competitors.

I've seen some horrifically misogynistic writing in the Guardian. Just awful. The journalism is better than some others, but the opinion pieces can be shocking.

Not one paper is without bias. They all have a line...

this for example, has something of the Mail about it. Ooh er, that apricot could've killed me...
www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/27/apricot-kernels-could-be-hidden-health-hazard

Well, now. Let's hear it, OP?

or any of the clickbaity
"(Someone-you've-never-heard-of's) open letter to: why I chose to the _ "

The Gruan has always made mistakes with proof reading

It's a helluva lot better than the rest but the excessive modding on the boards drives me mad - if you don't expressly agree with the author your comment is deleted

There is a lot of crappy faux agenda articles but there always have been

to be honest, it's just the general pretentious how-middle-class-am-i attitude that annoys me most. And on the app at least, the substitution of waffly, weak 'opinion' pieces in place of real grassroots journalism.
Independence from Murdoch is a rare thing and I think it should be used wisely.
RIP media plurality.

YABU

It is physically impossible for the standards of The Guardian to drop, much like the Daily Mail.

I think the finances of papers are such that the choice was between a Times style paywall or attracting lots of people to click on free articles with advertising. I think this has advantages and disadvantages. I would agree that there has been a rise in rather superficial or sensational 'click bait' articles. On the plus side they have really increased there reporting of political issues in places like the US and Australia to appeal to those markets. For example I have read several interesting articles on the way Australia treats people trying to enter the country on boats - a human rights issue barely touched by other media.

The Guardian has it's faults (spelling was never strong) but comparisons to the mail are unfair. There is no equivalent to the side bar of shame and there isn't the regular leering/ shaming discussions of women's bodies that you get in The Mail. The Times hasn't covered itself in glory this week. It took a revolt by its own sports page journalists on Twitter for them to bump the Hillsbrough verdict to the front page.

The Guardian is abysmal. Any intelligent person who can see victim hierarchy at work when they read horse shit like this would buy a different paper.

I actually think this is a bit goady.

Post criticism of Guardian to deflect attention away from the appalling editorial decisions the Murdoch press have made over the past couple of days.

I've also noticed The Graun coming in for some disingenuous criticism for posting 'lifestyle' articles. All broadsheets have a daily 'magazine' section and the reason we don't see The Times' 'fluff' articles is because they're behind a paywall. Check out the supplements in The Sunday Times and then tell me that The Guardian is full of clickbait.

Caitlin Moran has written for the Times for nearly 20 years, not sure what you mean by "jumped ship"?

The Guardian has got really bad under Katherine Viner but it was heading that way. Still some decent writers but the goady clickbait CIF pieces and lifestyle poo are barely literate at times.

The Murdoch owned titles ignoring stories which make them look bad is far far worse. Imagine how much we wouldn't know about if The Guardian didn't exist?

Look at their treatment of the Cologne attacks though. If they'd had their way the story would never have seen the light of day. They also tried to deny the Trojan horse schools scandal and smear those investigating it as racists.

In a week when the SUN aka Murdoch's cesspit of a newspaper refused to acknowledge the hillsbourgh story and instead featured Dave Cameron's text habits on it's front page am not concerned about a few spelling errors in the Guardian.

I also can't imagine this story being written in any other British paper..
www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough

I really dislike the Guardian but I wouldn't compare it to the Daily Mail. The standards of responsible journalism at the Mail are SO low they are, imo,without peer in the British press.

Having said all that, I do think the Guardian haven't shone lately, particularly with they way they seem to moderate away any comment that does not fit with their agenda, even when those comments are reasonable criticism rather than anything outrageous.

I too was outraged by the SUn's decision not to put the Hillsborough story on the front page, but it should be noted that they did cover it in detail, with an editorial apology inside. Not the same as ignoring it.

Link fail will try again hope this one works...example of story that needs to be told and can't imagine another British paper printing this type of journalism

www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades