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.

Also since when is the Guardian, which has chanpioned the everyday sexism campaign "misogynist", as well as employing both Laura Bates and Rhiannon Cosslett, and having led the campaign against FGM.

Seems like part of a wider, concerted effort to undermine anything remotely left wing. Just like Jeremy Corbyn being slurred with the "friends with terrorists", "threat to national security" etc. The same things appears to be happening with the Guardian and its supposed non reporting of Cologne.

This is the age of anti intellectual politics so par for the course.

The Cologne thing is post truthism to the hilt, Guardian first reported it 5th of Jan, the same day it was first reported by German newspapers, it took the Mail till the 12th.

But, as we know the facts have never got in the way of what the mob think.

I'm shocked to find the attidude towards the guardian on MN

Yes, all good mumsnetters should offer unquestionable support to the Guardian!

The Guardian when it pulls it's finger out can produce quality journalism but that is often interspersed with some very poor reporting and/or a painful editorial line. For me the tipping point was the Rochdale abuse scandal where the guardian went out of its way to not report what pretty much every other media outlet was publishing which was that Pakistani gangs were grooming and raping white teenagers. It just did not fit with their pc narrative and as the story unfolded we were still being treated to 'it's all an islamophobic smear campaign' comment pieces. Same with the election fraud in tower hamlets where Latfur Rahman was found guilty by a high court. Despite years of stories of his dodgy practices the guardian played the islamophobic card almost up until he was found guilty. Throw into the mix its campaign against tax avoidance while its parent group is registered in the Cayman Islands or its critical reporting of unpaid interns while happily carrying out the same practice it all gets a bit tiresome. Yes other papers have their flaws but it is the guardians moralising, patronising and hectoring tone that grates many people into putting the boot in when they fall well short of the standards it expects others to maintain. For every wikileaks or Edward Snowden scoop there is some awful reporting.

Thanks goodness this place is here. I can rely on MN to link interesting, feminist, varied sources. Including primary sources.

Does that include DM articles because linking the DM seems quite popular with some Mnetters?

I'm selective. Clearly. Or one can install addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kitten-block/ Kitten Block]]...

Link fail. Kitten Block

I believe MN etiqutte is to either jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon and scoff at any suggestion of reading the mail or that any DM limks are posted with an apology and an excuse as to how they stumbled across the article concerned.

Pangalactic.

I think when it comes to journalistic standards the Guardian's is far higher than that of the majority if not all of its competitiors. The Rotherham Scandal was covered, and there are editorials criticising the cover up dating back to the start of the case, easy to find when yo look. I can't find or remember one "its an Islamophobic smear" piece, I'd be grateful if you can link to one.

Do any papers maintain the standards they expect others to? The GMG is based in the Cayman Islands, but as is pointed out having made no profits for decades it's hardly tax avoiding is it?

Lets remember the standards kept by other groups as outlined by Leveson eh?

I can't find or remember one "its an Islamophobic smear" piece, I'd be grateful if you can link to one.]

I suspect that the author would not now write this piece:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/aug/17/race.thefarright

sarcastically attacking "The programme explores the role of social workers in Bradford, but stresses the most shocking of four stories: the claim that Asian men are grooming white girls as young as 11, sexually abusing them and passing them on to their friends." as "hardly ... plausible, given the disproportionate number of young black and Asian men in our prisons, and the fact that they are still more likely to be stopped and searched by police."

2004. Asian men are grooming white girls in Bradford and sexually exploiting them. Investigate or dismiss as "hardly plausible"? They didn't think for long, did they?

The Guardian has been a bit off the boil of late, but we still need it to offset the right wing Murdoch press.

Pangalactic don't forget the Trojan Horse schools scandal which the Guardian denied til the official report. Same shameful story.

Well I'm glad Cuboid that you brought that article to light, and were VERY selective in your reading of it.

For example, your point about "hardly plausible" comes after the sentence: "But the inclusion of this clip, in this context, leaves one with the impression that these men are somehow getting away with it because of their race."

Later in the piece it states that those investigating the case had said that race had not effected the investigations and : " They cite wider issues: the lack of resources; the difficulty of persuading infatuated girls that relationships are abusive, not loving; the fact that child protection is not a target for police, whereas burglary is - a depressing reflection of our priorities."

You have read this and then represented this piece in a highly selective way, the author goes on to point out that we must "point blank" say that adults must not be allowed to exploit children and finishes with:

"Bradford's grooming problem is not an issue of race, but of the abusers' misogyny - and our complacency."

As we know that this complacency has also led to the many cases associated with operation Yew Tree and other cases regarding large scale child abuse by lots of (mainly) men over decades it can be concluded that this complacency has been ongoing and to do with those covering the ethnic mix.

Your choice to highlight, and misrepresent this piece (which isn't to do with Rotherham either and from 2004) demonstrates your determination to make it about race, where as the author made it about deploring child abuse in all its forms, and states that making it about race is a misreading of the situation.

Your attempt to do so is mendacious.

Oh the Trojan horse schools? The Guardian didn't report it?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/07/alleged-plot-birmingham-schools-islamic-principles

From the day the story broke, you lot really aren't a challenge on this are you.

Yanbu

Guardian has been a simpering pseudo intellectual shit rag for a long time.

About time it folded.

Its still a lot better than the Sun, Mail, and Express, far better at broad reporting than the Times.

Remind me who the papers criticised by Leveson were? Remind me who gave us Wikileaks, Snowdon and many others.

Lets be honest, you just don't like it cause it challenges your prejudices.

You forgot the many op ed pieces about how it was fuelled by "Islamophobia" and attempts to deflect from its seriousness

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/michael-gove-assault-on-schools-naked-discrimination

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/08/trojan-horse-extremism-political-storm-michael-gove-ofsted

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/23/war-islamism-hatred-violence-blair-cameron-toxic

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/10/michael-gove-british-values-schools-trojan-horse

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/24/scapegoating-muslims-cameron-radicalisation-terror-wars-liberties-british-values

Too many to even count if you start looking

And "you lot" -I've read the Guardian for 25 years and am a left wing feminist. I'm not glad it's failing, it just makes me sad because it used to actually be left wing.

I used to love buying The Graun of a saturday but have stopped because I started feeling relentlessly lectured to. Such a shame, it used to be so great.

Its perfectly fine to debate it, those are Op ed pieces.

Shall I draw your attention to those OP ed pieces that appear in the mail? Katie Hopkins for example.

Some of the articles you link to aren't even directly involved with the Trojan horse piece, one is about the introduction of British Values, which was a Gove attempt to distract from the fact that OFSTED had awarded these schools good or outstanding ratings not long before it came to light.. Another is to do with the "war on islamism" just causing more radicalisation. Another takes the DofE to task because it allows religious schools, just as long as they are Christian, even those that teach creationism etc.

Its fine to question and critique anyway, the Guardian's broad range of writers for Op Ed pieces is great.

Shall I draw your attention to those OP ed pieces that appear in the mail?

Why? Do you think it's relevant?

Anyway, we get you: it's all fine. It's better than the Mail, and that's the height of aspiration for a newspaper.

I think the Guardian is still left wing, it just isn't a great fan of Corbyn, seeing how much of a let down he has been, I'd quite frankly agree with them.

I'd prefer it if you responded to my critique of your use of that article, but then you can't can you?

Its not all fine.

The Guardian's major problem that the majority of its users now access it for free online, it isn't a lack of popularity. All newspaper sales are falling, the Guardian didn't have the largest circulation even in the heyday of newspapers.

I'd prefer it if you responded to my critique of your use of that article, but then you can't can you?

You appear to read it entirely differently to how I read it, and as it dates to 2004 and the Guardian did nothing about the story for six years, my reading of it as a dismissal fits the facts. I read it as a sarcastic putdown of a proposition that the author has dismissed out of hand.

The Guardian's major problem that the majority of its users now access it for free online

I have it delivered, rather out of habit, every time, and have both a paper and an online subscription. I trust you do likewise.

Um, the story you referred to was a piece about a documentary about Bradford in 2004. It isn't that the Guardian didn't do anything about it for 6 years, its two different cases. It certainly wasn't a dismissal of the "facts" it was how the fact were presented, and as we know that there has been systematic child abuse by organised groups of many different ethnicities across decades, that have been dismissed by the police or been covered up I would say it was a pertinent point. You know that it isn't race that is the issue, but the approach to child abuse. The only way you could read that as a sarcastic put down of the "facts" is if you were looking for bias in a rather direct piece.

I subscribe and buy on a Saturday when I have time to read the full thing.