Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#21

Post by matthewmorgan »

gizmo wrote: post #12

The Guardian has in 200 years only won one Pulitzer, for Glenn Greenwald's reporting on intelligence agency wiretapping and other malfeasance. And what does the Guardian do? They repeatedly malign Greenwald and publish falsehoods about him. See this thread for a typical example: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1388826988736126976 The problem isn't just that the Guardian gets major stuff wrong, and that they don…

How absurd, a 200 year old British paper only winning one American award that was only founded in the 20th century.

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#22

Post by rjzzleep »

dazc wrote: post #3

No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?

What do you mean? Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia were mistakes? I thought the only mistakes were that the public found out what human rights abuses happened and that the facts were made up. /s

These publications all have blood on their hands. "We made a mistake" that isn't even honest doesn't cut it. The only real unfortunate thing here is that people like Trump get to use these peoples lies to push even greater lies.

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#23

Post by polskibus »

gizmo wrote: post #12

The Guardian has in 200 years only won one Pulitzer, for Glenn Greenwald's reporting on intelligence agency wiretapping and other malfeasance. And what does the Guardian do? They repeatedly malign Greenwald and publish falsehoods about him. See this thread for a typical example: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1388826988736126976 The problem isn't just that the Guardian gets major stuff wrong, and that they don…

Who does real journalism in your opinion? BBC ? NYT ? What's focused on facts these days and not on opinions anc clickbait ?

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#24

Post by thomond »

nindalf wrote: post #14
tsegratis wrote: post #4

Can we have all newspapers do this? I imagine few would be as honest as this

I imagine many would be, so long as sufficient time had passed. If you’re apologising for a 20 year old mistake, the person who made that mistake probably left the newspaper a while ago. You don’t have to interact awkwardly with them. Nor are they in a position of power from where they can prevent the apology from being printed. The NYT once published a hilarious apology 49 years after they made a mistake. The origin…

> Iraq, in other words, is doing well. Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere.

That's not an apology, that's disclosure. If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people saying "which you supported" everytime they talk about the war.

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#25

Post by GlennS »

gizmo wrote: post #12

The Guardian has in 200 years only won one Pulitzer, for Glenn Greenwald's reporting on intelligence agency wiretapping and other malfeasance. And what does the Guardian do? They repeatedly malign Greenwald and publish falsehoods about him. See this thread for a typical example: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1388826988736126976 The problem isn't just that the Guardian gets major stuff wrong, and that they don…

This is interesting. I would have said the opposite.

My opinion was that the Guardian is only worthwhile because it occasionally does some very good journalism, and that just about outweighs the pointless bullshit.

I don't really have anything to back that up though, just a general impression from reading it. So it's interesting to hear some evidence to the contrary. I have no idea if the Pulitzer is actually a good measure though.

A point of comparison: look at the Economist, which does basically no investigative journalism, but does produce fairly sensible opinion pieces (of course from a particular viewpoint, often a bit limited in their vision).

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#27

Post by hntroll888 »

tsegratis wrote: post #4

Can we have all newspapers do this? I imagine few would be as honest as this

This is not honesty, it's just being delusional. They're not capable of assessing their own blind spots. It's like the guy who shot Lennon writing a memoir in which he reflects sadly that he made a mistake, that he really should have shot Ringo instead, and people applauding his honesty. It's not useful to hear assessments from delusional people about their delusions.

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#28

Post by boomboomsubban »

GlennS wrote: post #26
dazc wrote: post #3

No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?

Still possible the Iraq war could turn out to have been the right course of action. Probably not, but unclear at this point.

It's possible that invading Canada today would turn out to be the "right course of action" but that doesn't mean we should kill a million Canadians to find out.

That said, even if you believe that removing Hussein was a worthy goal, the Iraq War was a colossal shit show.

Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years

#30

Post by boomboomsubban »

vinsci wrote: post #16

Guardian's "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" Documentary: Guardian hacks continue PR war against WikiLeaks wikileaks.org/Guardian-s-WikiLeaks-Secrets-and.html

That doesn't even include their recent ridiculous phony Assange Manafort meeting they still haven't retracted.
Post reply on HN