The Guardian comparison to Newscorp is quite invalid.
Newscorp = "right wing party not right-wing enough. Left-wing party should be exterminated".
Guardian = "right wing party should court the centrist vote. Left wing party should court the centrist vote".
Reelya, at least try to understand how those you oppose think; GMG is not an infallible impartial bastion of centrism whilst Newscorp is a monolithic right wing extermination hive mind. One thing to note well is that the left-right dichotomy has not been holding up well at all in the UK or USA
Basically they have very similar articles picking apart both sides of politics, whereas the Newscorp stuff is totally partisan and hostile. For example this Guardian opinion piece "Labour has the stench of death" because they went too far to the left:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour
Is an exact parallel of this Guardian piece which advises that Malcolm Turnbull should court the centrist vote and not be swayed by the far right:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/15/as-turnbull-knuckles-down-for-big-fight-coalition-needs-to-rediscover-its-true-purpose
There's just no comparision. NewsCorp's political coverage can only be described a venomous, and they proudly wear their bias on their sleeve. It's just not good journalism (at all). Whereas the Guardian opinion section makes an effort to cover both parties using basically the same language and rules of engagement. It's the clear difference between muck raking and actual journalism.
When the Times broke the story of the rape gang coverups, they were accused of being venomous racists, yet fittingly, in time were proven to have been the only ones willing to do actual journalism where apparent reasonable journalists were complicit in the coverup. Then Sweden and Germany got their own taste of coverups, but frankly I don't care what they do as their news isn't in English so they get little brand recognition here. They (Times) are owned by NewsCorp, are centre-right and had their own style apart from say, the Sun, and indeed, Fox News.
Distinctions are important. Not all act the same, and if you find Newscorp to be a monolithic right wing viper, you would do better to notice the viper is in fact a hydra, even if you only take note of its differences to better neutralize it. To boot, the guardian is left-wing neoliberalism in direct opposition to the communists who have taken over our most powerful left wing party. It is altogether quite unbelievable that you think the Guardian are centrists when even in your article its wearing its bias on its sleeve, if you wanted a truly centrist paper where Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage could share the same page you'd have picked up the Independent before their takeover and Buzzfeedization, upon which they've now become biased in favour of being clickb8. As it is, a left wing paper complaining about communists ruining their leftism or the centre-right ruining their leftism is very much their own unique diaspora.
Right wing, left wing bias, much more important to see where they stand on liberalism, conservatism, progressivism, marxism and so on.
The Guardian and MSNBC are not the same, but if you really want some hilarity, hit up the
Off Guardian to see what it looks like for disillusioned journalists to come together in being salty that the Guardian no longer caters to their particular leftism. Confusingly enough the OffGuardian accuses the Guardian of abandoning centre-leftism, but the OffGuardian seems to tend more leftwards than the Guardian.
OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis. Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.
Ha, I've only known one Guardian journalist in my life and based off his words, I don't think it's as bad as the Off Guardian suggests (though the pay is horrendous, you truly only would ever do it because you love your job and believe what you say). One does wonder if they're considering social or economic leftism to be the most important issue to be centrist on. Every media outlet is a bastion of impartiality and truth, except of course they're not. To Russians, Russia Today is true, to centrists the BBC is true/biased as fuck e.t.c.
To that end it doesn't matter where you stand or who you support or who your newspaper broadly supports, each paper can rarely boast ideological uniformity and the great corporate families cannot at all. Moreover there is a surprising level of cross pollination, with executives, journalists and columnists swapping between media branches and families you would not expect at all, such as from the Guardian to the Telegraph, from the Daily Mail to Independent and so on. Daily Mail ones are quite notable in that because it is written as its style (one of the pioneers in doom bait), well educated urban workers assume the writers are idiots pandering to idiots. Whether this prejudice is justified or not, the writers themselves know exactly what they are doing, and often are the same who write for their favoured prints - which further highlights how curious it is that cross pollination so to speak, does not result in all papers hovering in the centre. Not too unsurprising that they remain in their own general (and they are general) spheres, as in order to capture separate demographics they end up tailored to their readership - if you did the Guardian survey a while back on how often you bought their papers or viewed their website, it included such questions as age, gender, self-described political affiliations, trust and perception of bias in the Guardian (on the left-right political axis) in order to research their audience.
That's not even including where the ground level journalists are sourced from, so WSJ is speaking from New York and the Times from London (except of course where they're not, but I don't mean literally speaking out of NY/L)
Author
Topic: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread! (Read 227489 times)