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.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/men-hostages-french-church-police-normandy-saint-etienne-du-rouvray

The version of the Guardian I can see says that the attackers claimed to be from ISIS and that the priest had his throat slit.

The Independent refers to the priest having his throat slit.

The Telegraph says that the attackers shouted Daesh and slit the priest's throat.

Similar wording is used in the non-English language European papers I read.

I think you are exaggerating the differences between the reporting.

Updated then it read differently earlier perhaps they are following this thread

Then the site has been updated after more than lagging behind other news agencies

I expect the story to be updated throughout the day, across all outlets, with different outlets leapfrogging each other according to what time changes go in.

But Yuck! that there are posters whose first reaction to this news, in the middle of emerging, is to use it as fodder for their attack on a paper.

Really? That's what mattered to you?

How pathetic. All newspapers are updating as and when they're receiving their news from their correspondents and verifying sources.

*But Yuck! that there are posters whose first reaction to this news, in the middle of emerging, is to use it as fodder for their attack on a paper.angry

Really? That's what mattered to you?*

Of course that's not what mattered. What an utterly ridiculous statement. However information and truth - no sugar coating to suit agendas, is what most people want.

What's utterly ridiculous (and in this instance revolting) is to seize a story in the middle of emerging as proof that a newspaper has an editorial policy of not running certain stories.

It hardly serves your vaunted desire for "truth" and "information" when your own statements are given the lie seconds after you've written them.

I usually go to the Guardian for news updates. I find them quite on time.
The last one I followed was the attack in Munich where they posted various updates, mostly by the German police (not random idiotic and largely speculative comments).

"revolting"? really? you need to get a grip. In this instance the Guardian caught up, eventually, rather a long time after most other news agencies. This does not excuse their lack of reporting and whitewashing of other tragedies, that don't fit the agenda, mentioned further up the thread.

In this instance the Guardian caught up, eventually, rather a long time after most other news agencies.

There was not much time delay.

During the Greek crisis last year there were the best and most accurate source of news, next to the FT. They were running ahead of almost all other media, including that in Greece.

It's roughly inline with the decline seen for RW newspapers aiming at a similar market. So broadly speaking a decline which is probably influenced by changes in consumption habits rather than by editorial policy or movements in political opinion in the general populace

Sorry - I wasn't clear, I was talking about the 10-year shift which is a better indicator of long-term trends, and where the Mirror (and other centre-lefts) have taken a bigger hit.

I'm not saying it reflects political opinion - and it's interesting to consider the factors at play. There has definitely been a centre/left shift to online, whether that's good or bad is up for discussion.

But I'm not sure that saying that the Mirror readership has held up is sustainable when you look medium-term.

The thing is, from the articles linked to about Cologne (I have not looked at the date on each one), the reporting as it is available to us today seems factually very similar to that available elsewhere, in terms of the numbers affected, who was arrested etc.

Was that a similar case, in which the issue was one of time lag (perhaps longer than the period of minutes evidences by recent posts on this thread!), rather than content?

I'm off to subscribe now - what a Twatish view OP.

Indeed, Bag. Liberation, hardly the most right-wing source (it's often said to be France's Guardian) reports Hollande thus: "Devant la presse, François Hollande affirme que les preneurs d'otages se réclamaient de Daech."

Could it possibly, just possibly be that Liberation had someone at the press conference and the Guardian got the information second hand and were checking sources?

The Guardian, of course, won't print this. It was probably Frenchmen, in striped sweaters with strings of onions on their bikes, who did it. "The motivations for the hostage-taking were not yet clear".

The Guardian updated with the Isis line before the Telegraph did. What's the Telegraph's 'agenda', then?

Unsurprisingly, even some of the details you repeated now seem untrue.

This is just what happens with emerging news. Outlets can be first, or they can be accurate.

People with agendas tend to leap on stuff as fodder; those of us who do actually want the truth are prepared to wait a little longer for accuracy.

Anyway, I'm absolutely horrified by this attack. And revolted at your haste to exploit it for your own pet hate in the short time between updates - and continuing to do so when you knew you were wrong at 13:13.

Ugh.

Well I'd say this is the very definition of a goady thread from one of Mumsnet's prize goady fuckers. I don't know why people indulge it.

Anyway, I'm absolutely horrified by this attack. And revolted at your haste to exploit it for your own pet hate in the short time between updates - and continuing to do so when you knew you were wrong at 13:13.
Ugh.

As a practicing Roman Catholic I too am horrified, saddened and disgusted about that has happened this morning. So lets all (me included!) drop the supercilious attitudes and stop calling each other out for whether we like or read the Guardian or not.

There was certainly coverage of the cologne attacks, Charlie hebdo etc.
Then on the same page there would be several op-Ed type pieces which were very, very apologist. I remember commenting on one which had the gall to claim the Charlie hebdo killers were just disenfranchised and that if we insult religion then what do we expect.. Very, very worrying content.
The graun used to be my paper of choice. It still sometimes delivers (that boots article above is a great example) but there's too much filler, too little real reportage, and a very nasty anti female streak and a very narrow social view. I consider myself left wing but the 'all tidies are evil' line the guardian runs with is one that turns me right off. A healthy democracy needs diverse political viewpoints and respect for those who hold them.
I don't find any of the broadsheets are exactly what I want - the times probably comes closest in terms of quality of writing and overseas coverage but it definitely has a strong bias.
I suppose for that very reason it's important to keep a diversity of news sources. I tend to read private eye, new statesman, new scientist, FT etc as well. The loss of an independent news source is not to be celebrated.

Tories not tidies... And here's me bashing their sub editors... 😜

On the Cologne reporting - I didn't see it myself but on the general point: how much should poor reporting of a single event dominate one's whole view of a media source? Does it, all by itself, invalidate all good reporting by the same paper? I had been pretty repulsed by the Guardian's take on women's issues recently. The fragrant Owen Jones being the worst offender; throwing women under the bus.

But when Cologne happened and I was looking for 'news' (you know, when it's new) The Guardian wasn't where I found it. A large scale, hateful attack on women and there was tumbleweed. They may have a couple of feminist-lite opinion pieces from a few days later but if they can't report actual news factually (because of an anti-women bias) they are of no use to me.

I consider myself left wing but the 'all Tories are evil' line the guardian runs with is one that turns me right off.

It's a problem of the left. We all too often start from the premise that Tories are evil, and do what they do solely for the purpose of enjoying the suffering of others. But they regard us as well-intentioned naifs who are wrong even if our hearts are in the wrong places.

If you follow that through to a campaign position, it results in yelling at people who we want to vote for us that unless they repent from the evil (as opposed to the mistake, or the misapprehension, or carelessness) of previously voting Tory they can just fuck off. We don't just want swing voters' votes, we first want them to apologise. And people won't do that. They will say "I voted for Thatcher in 1983 because I wanted to stay in the EEC and NATO, but I voted for Blair in 1997 because I wanted a fairer society, because when the facts change, I change my opinion". Of course, in the new 2016 world, quite a lot of Labour's young support now want an apology for voting for Blair as well, thus yet further reducing the pool of people pure enough to be allowed to vote for Labour.

It's like going to a Bruce Springsteen concert and being quizzed by the bloke you're stood next to about your opinion of obscure outtakes from bootlegs, when all you want to do is hear what Dancing in the Dark sounds like and then Springsteen starts playing obscure outtakes from bootlegs anyway

So the Tories are happy to hoover up Labour votes: "of course you voted Labour in the past, that's fine, but we have a much worse better offer you might like to consider". While Labour start from "REPENT NOW! PLEAD FOR FORGIVENESS! SACKCLOTH AND ASHES! Now you can vote for us". And people don't do that. And if you assume your political opponents are pure evil, you assume anyone who supports them is also evil, and that the only reason for their manifesto is the promulgation of evil; that prevents any sort of rational debate about policy. Labour's last couple of campaigns have been bereft of positive proposals, they have just started from the opening position that the Tories are self-evidently wrong about everything, and once people are told that they will instantly realise the error of their ways.

And then we get beaten. Heavily. Again.

This is a horrible thread

Cheering one mass media voice is like cheering a dictator

It's like fucking 1984

The fragrant Owen Jones being the worst offender; throwing women under the bus.

www.allmotherswork.co.uk/?p=223

well-intentioned naifs who are wrong even if our hearts are in the wrong places.

right places, of course.

I'm not in the UK so forgive my ignorance...
I know the Telegraph is Tory and the Daily Mail is more downmarket Tory ( I think).
What are The Guardian, The Observer,the Daily Express and The Independent?