has the guardian gone bonkers?

[egb_hibs]

I have a love / hate thing with said organ at the best of times.

however lately it's got a bit out of hand. i don't know how representative the guardian bloggers are of it's wider readership, but i've read more than one recently say that they've stopped taking the paper because of the paper's incredibly unbalanced take on the tensions with fundamentalist islam. these people claim to be liberals unable to tolerate the space given to fundamentalist voices without being balanced by the other side of the argument.

this week for example, every day there's been a new diatribe about the pope's speech, including some spectacularly myopic and one-sided argument that glosses over all islam's issues while slaughtering the pope. this is all fair enough of course, if it were balanced with alternative views. instead as people on the blogs have pointed out, it's getting to the point where the guardian is coming close to inciting tensions.

i think this seems to be too much for some people following on from the excessive platform given to separatists and militants over recent months.

any other guardianistas got a view - has the paper chucked it, by responding to the extremist siren call that is always a temptation to sections of the left?

or is it just balancing out the propaganda of da man?


ps - i have to say, it's blogs are top notch though. some of the reader posts in response to some of the pope articles would be worthy of these hallowed halls. there's lots of bams, polemicists and rightwing trolls of course, but some fascinating discourse on islamic history, crusades, enlightenment etc this week.

it's often best to skip the columnists and just read the response.

[snoots]

Never read it, seems like a load of pish.

[Hibbie0762]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have a love / hate thing with said organ at the best of times.

however lately it's got a bit out of hand. i don't know how representative the guardian bloggers are of it's wider readership, but i've read more than one recently say that they've stopped taking the paper because of the paper's incredibly unbalanced take on the tensions with fundamentalist islam. these people claim to be liberals unable to tolerate the space given to fundamentalist voices without being balanced by the other side of the argument.

this week for example, every day there's been a new diatribe about the pope's speech, including some spectacularly myopic and one-sided argument that glosses over all islam's issues while slaughtering the pope. this is all fair enough of course, if it were balanced with alternative views. instead as people on the blogs have pointed out, it's getting to the point where the guardian is coming close to inciting tensions.

i think this seems to be too much for some people following on from the excessive platform given to separatists and militants over recent months.

any other guardianistas got a view - has the paper chucked it, by responding to the extremist siren call that is always a temptation to sections of the left?

or is it just balancing out the propaganda of da man?


ps - i have to say, it's blogs are top notch though. some of the reader posts in response to some of the pope articles would be worthy of these hallowed halls. there's lots of bams, polemicists and rightwing trolls of course, but some fascinating discourse on islamic history, crusades, enlightenment etc this week.

it's often best to skip the columnists and just read the response.

I still read the paper daily - though I have never bothered with the blogs, maybe I should - and its Lentilista lack of balance still drives me nuts. I also dislike its assumed role as the unofficial House Journal of the Fib Dems. But I have never really found an acceptable alternative.

I really miss David Aaronovitch as well.

[superbam]

Originally Posted by snoots
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Never read it, seems like a load of pish.

I used to read it a lot and still pick it up occassionally, sometimes has a cracking essay or two in the opinion+analysis bit but got tired of the annoying tone of it and focus on certain narrow consumer issues which i couldnt relate to. Also some of its contributors favour a wierd hypocritical moral relativist argument with regards to human rights which i cant understand. Dont miss Aaranovitch though he is a wank. I find it annoying to read often but still regard it as a more balanced paper than its supposed right wing equivalents like The Telegraph. Guardian Weekly is better, if they still do it, with Le Monde and the Washington Post, less wanky lifestyle self-indulgent pish.

[Smurf]

Only bought a copy once. Liberal nonsense..
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Bartok]

I don't read it, though a long time ago I used to enjoy its coverage of world news as it was mainly bought in from a variety of excellent agencies. As noted by others above, it is too predictably biased to be either informative or amusing any more.