No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?
And no mention of their endless attacks on Jeremy Corbyn based wholly on lies fed to them by the Blue Labour crowd.
What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
81–87 of 87 posts
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#82No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?
Media Lens have done great work analysing the Guardian's output over the years, particularly their support for wars: https://www.medialens.org/?s=guardian I think anyone really interested in the Guardian's failings will learn more from Media Lens than any self-critical piece published by the paper itself. Their books Guardians of Power and Propaganda Blitz examine the Guardian's output too. (Disclosure: I'm currently…
Media Lens' reporting on The Guardian's Corbyn smear campaign was exceptional.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Media Lens have done great work analysing the Guardian's output over the years, particularly their support for wars: https://www.medialens.org/?s=guardian I think anyone really interested in the Guardian's failings will learn more from Media Lens than any self-critical piece published by the paper itself. Their books Guardians of Power and Propaganda Blitz examine the Guardian's output too. (Disclosure: I'm currently…
You might possibly be interested in newssniffer which tracks changes to articles.
Thanks, it's a great site!
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the impression you want me to name a specific publication so you can argue that it is just as biased as The Guardian. ...which isn't the point of this conversation. Can we simply agree that being less biased is better than being more biased, as a fundamental principle? Or are you honestly making the argument that you prefer more bias in news you read?
I'm arguing that you can't name something like what you described.
Can we agree that being less biased is better than being more biased?
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#85Did they ever get anything right?
I can't recall single instance.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 49 years It seems that it took humans landing on a Moon to make them realize rockets can actually work in space.
There's realising a mistake, and there's finding an appropriate moment to make an unambiguous and highly-visible mea culpa.
It seems far more probable that this is a case of the latter, not the former.
Re: What we got wrong: the Guardian’s worst errors of judgment over 200 years
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still possible the Iraq war could turn out to have been the right course of action. Probably not, but unclear at this point.
Our wars in the middle east over the last 3 decades are objectively catastrophic failures. The liberties we have ceded, the lives lost and displaced, the destabilization of an entire region, the resources spent on the military industrial complex.... I could go on but it's abundantly clear that the negatives far outweigh any marginal benefits that may have occurred.
Yes. But we kept getting the oil. And that was the whole point, wasn't it?