No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?
I suspect not enough time has passed for them to see the period in living memory clearly.
What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
61–70 of 87 posts
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#62Ah, the eternal question. How do you respond to this? Applaud and encourage even more thorough self-reflection, or criticize because the self-reflection was not thorough enough?
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
> It merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong".
True. There appears to be no self-reflection that in the future, today's political and moral fashions will be seen as bad, in much the same way that the political/moral fashions of the past are seen as bad now.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#63No 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.
at which point do you think it would be more clear what the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have been? Someone born on the day of that invasion would be an adult by now so it should be possible to come to at least a few conclusions about all that death and destruction.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
When, exactly, was this period of unbiased/opinion-free event coverage in UK journalism you apparently long for? You rail against “modern journalism” like it’s some kind of recent downhill slide, a by-product of modern political biases, but when was this not the case?
Prior to modern journalism, newspapers were directly funded by political interests. Now that advertising dollars no longer provide a somewhat unbiassed source of income, publications like the guardian are relying on direct donations from their readers and I suspect that introduces some bias as well.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#65In my view, it was only one.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
Reminds me of the BBC news headline this morning: "The Conservatives have inflicted a _crushing_ defeat on Labour...". The BBC shouldn't be dramatising the news, they should just be reporting it factually.
That was a direct quote about the labour party by a member of the labour party, so that is factual reporting.
> Diane Abbott, an ally of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, tweeted: "Crushing defeat for Labour in Hartlepool. Not possible to blame Jeremy Corbyn for this result. Labour won the seat twice under his leadership. Keir Starmer must think again about his strategy."
Granted though they've toned down the headline of the article to "Elections 2021: Conservatives hail historic Labour defeat in Hartlepool by-election"
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care for Glenn too much but he's better than a lot of the other crappy grifters out there like the tool in the thread you linked to.
but he's better than a lot of the other crappy grifters A journalist should neither accuse, without evidence, someone else of being a 'DNC operative', nor claim, without verifying, that that person opposes a particular political candidate. The gravity of slandering someone that way, to me, is self-evident. It doesn't matter if the person he slanders is a saint or a piece of garbage. If the person whose tweet I linked…
I agree and disagree. He definitely wasn't very professional in his remarks and could have toned it down but in that clip Glenn said exactly why he thinks that way. And this was on a podcast (i.e. his personal opinion), not an article posted to a news outlet.
The 'tool' even did exactly what Glenn accused him of on that thread, taking short clips of people he doesn't like out of context and disparaging them. Seems to be his MO. Again, I don't love Glenn but overall I feel he's decent and usually does actual journalism instead of playing silly games most of the time.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
When, exactly, was this period of unbiased/opinion-free event coverage in UK journalism you apparently long for? You rail against “modern journalism” like it’s some kind of recent downhill slide, a by-product of modern political biases, but when was this not the case?
You're choosing to fixate on a characterization of the past you believe I implied - which isn't an important aspect of my comment.
Being unbiased, and offering multiple points of views is something mature readers value - both in the past and today. It is something a journalist's should aspire to as a matter of professionalism.
Can you make the honest argument that you want a news outlet to not even try to be unbiased when reporting to YOU? My experience with people who advocate biased journalism is that they want others to consume biased journalism that they agree with - because they believe they are immune to the bias.
If you are not paying for news, you are the product and not the consumer. And I specifically choose my news outlets based upon my perception of their quality of journalism, which heavily includes their degree of bias and the depth of their coverage.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
When, exactly, was this period of unbiased/opinion-free event coverage in UK journalism you apparently long for? You rail against “modern journalism” like it’s some kind of recent downhill slide, a by-product of modern political biases, but when was this not the case?
You're choosing to fixate on a characterization of the past you believe I implied - which isn't an important aspect of my comment. Being unbiased, and offering multiple points of views is something mature readers value - both in the past and today. It is something a journalist's should aspire to as a matter of professionalism. Can you make the honest argument that you want a news outlet to not even try to be unbiased…
I'd like to hear what publications are less biased (I won't write not biased because I don't believe in magic or miracles). Can you name just one?
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
Then pay for it.
I do. I pay for the WSJ, the Economist, and a hand full of others.