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.

No one has a right to a newspaper that shares all their values or opinions. In a world where free access to a wide range of different printed-word media is literally at our fingertips, we are uniquely fortunate in being able to pick and choose what we read.

Having a different opinion, and publishing it, isn't a crime. There is nothing to stop any of us from seeking to work as a journalist, or from publishing our own opinions on a blog. As a strong believer in free speech I think that it's very important to have your opinions challenged, even if people seem to find this more and more uncomfortable.

Yes, exactly. And the reason I and many others have got fed up with the guardian is its refusal to write about stories that don't fit it's worldview, and the deleting of polite comments that challenge that worldview.

The Guardian is the left wing version of the Daily Mail in terms of political coverage. In fact, these days the Daily Mail might even be a bit more objective, at least they don't censor comments that don't follow the party line, unlike The Guardian.

evil I'm ill in bed so not up to a fight but you have just really made me -
The Guardian is the left wing version of the Daily Mail in terms of political coverage. In fact, these days the Daily Mail might even be a bit more objective,.
I have read DC's latest article on Hillsborough this morning ( on how the legal system failed the families) - there is no way an article of this depth and integrity would ever grace the pages of the DF ( plus his earlier articles)

they don't censor comments that don't follow the party line, unlike The Guardian

Have you visited the Guardian comment section recently? It's overrun with comments that don't support the editorial line, especially on articles about Europe or refugees.

There was an interesting article recently which included a quiz about moderator decisions - you had to say whether you would delete or retain comments, and it then compared your decisions to those of the moderators. I found it interesting that while I agreed with most, there was one comment I'd had left that was deleted, and another where the opposite was true. In neither case was the "right" decision ("right" with reference to the Guardian's stated policy - not "right" in absolute terms) obvious.

And the reason I and many others have got fed up with the guardian is its refusal to write about stories that don't fit it's worldview

Well, the obvious thing to do here is to exercise your basic human right to not visit the Guardian website.

But it's certainly not true that the Guardian doesn't write stories that don't fit its "worldview" - assuming it's worldview is a broadly centre left, secular one (which I think is a fair description). Regular contributors include Matthew D'Ancona and Giles Fraser - neither of whom can be described as secular, centre left writers.

It seems de rigueur to criticize the Guardian at the moment. Lots of faux outrage when they amended their CIF section. The Telegraph has removed all BTL comments but this has been met with silence.

I also chuckle at the amount of political debates on MN in which posters provide links to the tabloids as if this somehow academically validates an argument, usually with the disclaimer "I know its the DM but I'll link it anyway".

Lots of faux outrage when they amended their CIF section. The Telegraph has removed all BTL comments but this has been met with silence.

There is some sort of organised political agenda here, I think.

I would support the Guardian imposing a membership charge for those wishing to participate BTL. It would certainly reduce the volume of paid-for single-issue posts by people who certainly do not visit the Guardian website because they want to read a centre left newspaper. (Note: I do realise that this isn't going to happen, it's almosr certainly more profitable to harvest the clicks of posters who would otherwise never dream of visiting the guardian website).

What's BTL?

The problem with a membership fee is that it denies a voice to the people who can't afford it

The Guardian is a commercial newspaper with a balance sheet, not a public service

I doubt introducing a subscription would do much to narrow the commenters to those with the 'right' kind of views though.

I cannot believe anybody could seriously compare the guardian to the daily mail. YABU

What's BTL?

Below the line (comments section)

I cannot believe anybody could seriously compare the guardian to the daily mail.

Neither can I. The Guardian is much less successful and I prefer the Mail's TV guide.

Long-term Guardian reader.

They have some fantastic writers and columnists:

Simon Hattenstone
Decca Aitkenhead
Zoe Williams
Tim Dowling

are my favourites. Their coverage of environmental issues is far better than any other paper.

And here's an example of great, in-depth journalism about the sad death of Prince: www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/29/prince-final-days-death-percocet

I'm a Prince fan and that is just boring wank. I like Simon Hattenstone though.

The problem with a membership fee is that it denies a voice to the people who can't afford it.

This is true. But at the moment parts of CIF are not fit for purpose, they are infested with shills. (Unless you assume that the purpose of CIF is to harvest clicks which may be a fair, if cynical, assumption). I'm not sure what you do about that without putting enormous resources into moderation.

The Guardian's moderation is pretty harsh across the board.

I think it's more that it's a bit random and under-staffed. I suspect that 90% or more of what is deleted is zapped following a complaint. Some of the articles attract several thousand comments; it would astonish me if all those comments are read by a mod. In fact I am certain that they are not, because I have sometimes seen comments that obviously break the rules get left up for hours, only to disappear after I've clicked the "report" button.

The Guardian's TV coverage is also shit with the notable exception of Sarah Hughes. Sam Wollaston makes me laugh, but not in the way he'd like. I'd speed read Danielle Henderson's appalling stuff on The Walking Dead straight to the comments for the funny comments on her reviews.

The Prince piece is also filled with speculation and snippets. Everyone does this. Including the Guardian.

Charlie Brooker is brilliant.

Check out this article:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/30/muslim-teenagers-extremism-integration-zayn-malik

It's from today's paper.

Here is just one quote from it: "Working class, second generation Muslim kids are aspirational. They’ve seen how hard their parents have tried to integrate and want to make them proud, yet at the same time want to carve out their own identity"

Do I even need to tell you what's wrong with that?

I was once with you Ghost, but no longer. You can't criticise TV while making it.

I generally love the guardian
Some of the opinion pieces are quite painful as they don't use a very factual arguement which disappoints me.
The science used to be great.
It certainly has taken a more opinion than fact stance recently.
Still the best UK paper though.

Larry it uses the word kaffir too. Unreal.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the Zayn article... Urmee Khan is, presumably, speaking as a second- (or third-) generation British Pakistani, and feels that Zayn Malik represents the aspirations and goals of that generation. Is that problematic, somehow?