I will stop reading the Guardian now - anyone else like to join me?

[carlajean]

This is a spin off from the previous thread about Cologne. What has made me most angry (and many others, I believe) is the refusal of the Guardian and the BBC to deal with it adequately. I can't change the BBC, but I can, and have, stopped reading the Guardian. Perhaps if enough of is said they would do this it might damage their already poor selling figures, and make them listen to ordinary women.
Would anyone else like to join me in saying this?

I agree with a lot of what people are saying here, but reading the Guardian is in my blood. I started reading it when I went to Uni in the mid-80s; I can't give up on it now. I have been pretty appalled by the comments section recently, though, and what's allowed to stand.

Am fed up with the navel gazing especially the flipping family section

oh I LOVE the family section- it's my weekend Twenty Minute Hate

it makes me so angry, by the time I get to Tim Lott and his shitty offhand misogynist 'will this do' polly filler bit on the back page, the whole lot spontaneously combusts between my clenched fists

Their drivelling navel gazing columnists. Their trivial shite masquerading as feminism. Their tolerance of appalling bigotry and sexism and sectarian hatred. The family section. Owen Jones. The demented Pravda-like moderation in CIF where they appear to be at war with their entire readership. The Cologne debacle. Today's toe-curling "My pet Syrian" article. Being pre-moderated today. I'm done.

I stopped reading it a couple of years ago and had read it since about 1990. They lost their way. I like your description Shins.

I too am what should be their core readership (left-leaning, republican, feminist, single mother, in the public sector) and I'm disgusted. It's the blatant censorship over this issue that has got to me. While I am infuriated by the selective disabling of CIF on almost all the articles on Cologne, actually for me the really really dangerous bit is the delay in reporting followed by the slanted version of events, downplaying or even omitting important details. And it is dangerous, because without a free and honest press, democracy cannot function. And if the press doesn't do its job of investigative journalism and publishing the truth properly, it creates an information vacuum which the far right can exploit.

It reminds me of the old Soviet joke: "There is no news in Pravda (lit The Truth) and no truth in Izvestiya (lit The News)". The Guardian is currently about as reputable a source of news as Pravda or Izvestiya.

Me too Lurcio, I tick a lot of what should be their boxes including a manual working class background and a dad who was involved in a union in the 70s/80s. Ironically I think it's that very aspect of my background that began to alienate me from them a few years ago; they seemed to feature this incredibly narrow perspective from wealthy sheltered people and when they covered poverty or housing issues they always focused on very dysfunctional "Shameless" kind of characters they could patronise rather than actually engaging with them. They have no right to call themselves left-wing; nothing they stand for has anything to do with equal rights, protection of workers or social democracy.

off-guardian.org/

This is an interesting site of ex Guardian readers. Probably has its fair share of loonies but comment is actually free! We should submit something about Cologne.

I read a variety of news sources. I like the Huffington post also.

I find longform.org is a good way of sampling a lot of publications.

I would never advise giving up on any paper actually. I think to get any rounded view we must read as much as we can.

However you can read with more cynicism and wisdom and not be so brain washed.

:o at the Tim Lott description. He winds me right up. "I'm a man and I have daughters who are, like, female and my wife is female as well so I think that justifies a column a week, don't you?". Twat.

WillBeatJanuary is quite right - for people of my demographic, the Guardian usually suits. And when it doesn't - well you read around the subject, you look elsewhere, you just keep reading stuff. Very few people rely entirely on one source of information.

Oh no Hassled you should never ever EVER rely on one source for your information EVER.

How can you ever say it does a story well if you never compare it

I totally agree that one should read around - we have all the broadsheets in work, and I usually read a couple at lunchtime. And of course all newspapers put a spin on things (the first thing I do when someone points me at an online source is to check out where it's coming from on the political spectrum). But the point is that thanks to these event the Guardian has dropped off my reading list because I don't trust it to report accurately. There's a difference between putting an editorial spin on things and getting to the stage where the actual information is untrue, whether by distortion or omission of crucial details, and the Guardian has crossed that line for me.

I have to admit I am heartened at how many pp are opening their eyes to the Guardian.

I used to read the Guardian avidly many moons ago, these days I look at it online, no way would I pay money for it. Shallow drivel most of the time, the only things which offer any insight and good writing are the nature/environmental pieces. The rest is often humdrum mindless tosh.
Poorly researched with naive writers spouting someone else's hearsay. I'm thinking of a piece about harassment of a religious group, which it was claimed, have increased since events in Paris. Writer of article spoke to someone who heard someone say someone had had something said to them in the street, kind of thing.
Tweet your pictures of Ramadam was a new low. A surreal concept in itself. What about tweet your pictures of Easter, your secular dog walk, etc?

I ditched the Guardian years ago. I loathe its shrillness, it's metropolitan myopia and its appalling one-sidedness. It is every bit as biased as the Daily Mail, with a side order of censoriousness and revolting virtue-signalling.

^^ As Manatee says - plus a massive dose of intolerance, ignorance and patronisation (as opposed to patronage - though I'm not sure this is actually a word!) in its foreign news coverage.

I occasionally read the Guardian, always have, but I'm no left wing, liberal, naive, guilt ridden do gooder. DH asks me why I read it when I'm obviously not a typical "Guardian reader" as such, and reading it obviously annoys me. It's just for balance, I read it knowing it is left wing and on the occasions that I do it literally makes my blood boil. That time when the 3 school girls travelled to Syria and it was siding with the family to basically say that it was the school and the police's fault was the last straw for me...and that was the only/first/last time ever made a comment on the Guardian, and it was deleted...and I was perfectly polite and grammatically correct as well (I think) which pissed me right off!

I'll read bits of Guardian online and roll my eyes at the very predictable coverage (or lack of) and predictable slant on many issues, but I would never ever pay to actually buy a copy of the Guardian.

Same here WillBeat

My work gets The Guardian delivered so I find it unavoidable.

It's liberal clap-trap. I absolutely hate it.

It is so hand-wringing and right-on. It's as predictable as the Daily Mail in its own way. They just sneer at different folk.

I like the agony aunts Annalisa Barbieri and Mariella Frostrup though!

Why are pps specifying Owen Jones? What is particularly irksome about him?

You can't disagree with its point of view sensibly because it believes it has the moral high ground.

Collectively we don't seem to have the language or intellect to challenge this naive moral high ground which does not take into account of the realities and complexities of human nature.

It's like shitty top trumps. Refugees can be vulnerable, women can be vulnerable. But when it comes to the crunch, women must move over.

Once again women are pushed to the bottom and expected to lump it and no one will let us talk about it. Comment is Free my arse.

When it comes to pushing women down Owen Jones is at the front with a pointy stick.

The Irksome thing about Owen Jones, while I admire his books "The Establishment, and how they get away with it" (Very good) and "Chavs, The Demonisation of The Working Class" (very good),

When it comes to his Guardian Column, Owen Jones positions as a "feminist" (impossible). As a male gay, trans ally, who believes things like "lesbians should be attracted to transwomen because TW have breasts", and "lesbians hate men, otherwise they would have sex with men who wear lipstick", he believes men know more about the opression of women than wimmen do.

So he is grating. Although on some issues he is brilliant.

He represents the metropolitan "Liberal" while simultaneously bigoted and misogynistic. Perfect for the Guardian!

Chavs is very patronising against the working classes.