to be glad that the Guardian is making enormous losses

[longfingernails]

www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-losses-reported-to-have-escalated-by-a-further-10m-to-68-7m-for-the-last-financial-year/

Great stuff. Their chatterati condescension, Islington moral vacuum and politically correct echo chamber has been a malignant blot upon our society for decades.

Let it wither upon the Viner.

It wasn't just inaccurately reported though, it was wilfully suppressed because it did not fit in with the Guardian's narrative or agenda then deliberately minimised. It wasn't an error or an oversight, it was a deliberate editorial decision to suppress and censor in order to mislead.

I'll be glad when the Guardian's gone. Their coverage of Brexit was so condescending and alarmist. Journalists like Marina Hyde are dreadful as is that awful PC idiot Owen Jones. Marina Hyde actually openly sneers in her picture byline . And that is the tone of nearly all their journalists - sneering, hysterical and superior. The only journalists I ever had time for was Suzanne Moore (sometimes) and John Harris. The Independant is just as bad. I guess the liberal left has lost nearly all coherence and has just become a self-righteous, sneering rump. Which is sad.

Toynbee is another one who used to be good but now writes like a disdainful Marie-Antoinette e.g. about the working class voting to Leave. I honestly don't know what planet these people live on. I recommend the Spectator these days. Cuts through politics like a knife through butter, and actually takes a week to read and assimilate .

I don't wish it was gone. I wish it was better.

OP You sound like a very unpleasant person.

I like the economist to balance the guardian a bit, although i disagree with its free trade is wonderful, the best way to make Britain rich is to give big business free reign philosophy it covers many issues in depth. It is also very biased though. It was very anti Scottish independence and very anti Brexit with opposing viewpoints glossed over.

user You're right about Marina Hyde. Their Opinion pages really have become a race to the bottom - if the bottom is a pool of condescending finger waving trite.
That said, I do still read it - as was pointed out upthread it'd be very naive to get news from only one source.

Agree, MrsTP.

Voyage are you a man? Because it may be easier to understand the recent contempt for the Guardian if you were a women.

hollyisalovelyname

You can find out how the British papers lean by doing a Google search. Here's a sketch about them, but it's a bit dated:

Because it may be easier to understand the recent contempt for the Guardian if you were a women.

I am a woman. I am not a fan of the Guardian, but I genuinely struggle to understand why a feminist upthread would stop reading the Guardian and subscribe to the Telegraph instead. Yes, the Guardian has editorial bias and has covered some important stories poorly (while covering many others pretty well) but the Telegraph isn't exactly renowned for its lack of bias, its liberalism or its support of women's rights. The Telegraph is also clearly ignoring important stories where they don't agree with its own narrative.

It really isn't pro woman at all

It pays lip service on the surface and appears all right on, but there's a deep current of misogyny. One of the op-Eds after cologne basically ran 'well what do you expect, these poor boys from war torn areas seeing a girl in a short skirt?' Transsexual rights are put over womens safety, with any reasoned discussion shut right down. Religious men's right to oppress isn't questioned because of fear of being racist or islamophobic.
Yes they do some good work - their anti fgm campaign for example, but again and again men's point of view is bolstered and women's shut down.

It's a disturbingly misogynistic by stealth approach, and it comes down to a toxic combination of virtue signalling and fear. Fear of being seen as islamophobic cleRly outweighs their fear of offending/repressing women's voices.

Not since January of this year, it hasn't.

The most 'pro women' papers have been the Telegraph, DM, Washington Post and Sydney MHerald.

A lot of the European ones still have little games and horoscopes in the women's section.

No, the Guardian will champion women if they're being opressed or marginalised or indeed digitally raped by the vilified white working class man, but anyone else and they probably asked for it. Or made it up. Or deserved it because they have some obscure privilege that means they shouldn't complain. Or forgot to book the table at Ottolenghi.

Forgive me if I think I am better placed to decide whether a news outlet is 'pro-women' than you Voyage, what with being one and everything.

In the age of anti intellectual, fact free politics I guess there is no place for a newspaper focusing on real issues, engaging in investigative journalism and critical thinking.

The right wing comics with their empty slogans (liberal lefties, remoaners, cultural marxists, bleeding heart liberals, London centric etc) keep the "silent majority" happy. Some pap shots of female celebs on the beach helps to. We love jeering at their stretch marks .

Fill your souls with hate!

'It wasn't just inaccurately reported though, it was wilfully suppressed because it did not fit in with the Guardian's narrative or agenda then deliberately minimised. It wasn't an error or an oversight, it was a deliberate editorial decision to suppress and censor in order to mislead.'

Agree Bill. It's like a kind of Karma. Can't tell you how disappointed I was with the Guardian throughout January/February after Cologne. The details of this outrageous attack on these women were completely blanked. In some ways it was useful to know what they are truly about.

Are you for real, Voyage?

Are you actually suggesting that a woman is not best placed to decide which media outlet best represents her particular needs?

Do you make the same pronouncements on behalf of other groups, too?

For years the Guardian was supported by the profits of the Manchester Evening News. The writing was on the wall for the Guardian when they sold the MEN in 2010. It needed to boost its readership big time to make good the loss of income, and preaching to the metropolitan liberal elite was never going to do it.

It does give me lived experience and a critical eye. Every single thing I read is read with a lens of living as a woman. Knowing what I know. Which is the opposite of objectivity.

So many women, particularly feminists who used to be the Guardian's bread and butter, are furious with the recent reporting and bias. Do you think we are all wrong?

Of course the right wing press didn't use Cologne as an opportunity to press their own agenda did they? Y'know confirmation bias?

Agendas are only bad should the Guardian have one. Papers like the DM are all virtue and integrity.

Being a woman doesn't give you some magical power of objectivity.

It's made this left wing, staunch feminist, pit village child deeply uneasy. If you want my leftie credentials I believe I e actually been in the graun in a miners strike picket line as a child 😎
I used to think the guardian was the best paper out there. Their squirming and denial and silence and refuse to come out and say 'it is not ok to repress/beat/assault women regardless of your race, colour, or creed' have killed any affection I once had for it.
It's a shame. The Trust must hold some responsibility for selling the MEN and going down the path of aggressive expansion.

Maybe some journos or whoever can do an in depth report on the social malignae caused by the mass redundancy of the Guardian Community?

Of course, social concerns about the travails of the Guardian Community will prevail over any economic concerns and the reporters will work for free.

Sorry, just made a mistake - I thought Guardian staff worked for free given their outward concern for others - I've just been advised that they got paid (lots more than NMW apparently!) for writing about their ideas on social ills.

Maybe after a few years of real sustained hardship the Guardian Community can return with a bit more oomph to their cannon.