←back to thread

126 points giuliomagnifico | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
alexjplant ◴[] No.45158230[source]
This is really rich coming from The Guardian, a publication that, while not nearly on the same level of degeneracy as the usual rags, is hardly a bastion of factual reporting [1] (and, to be clear, I'm talking about factuality, not political bias, but downvote anyhow I guess). The last story I read from them was linked from here on HN and riddled with bad facts in a naked attempt to support the author's narrative. News flash (pun intended): if something is dire enough to be newsworthy then it doesn't need editorial embellishment. It's the metaphorical equivalent of a reporter making airplane noises while zooming a spoon of food around their readership's head like they're a hungry baby.

If you want hard hitting public interest pieces then ProPublica [2] and Democracy Now! [3] are both far better choices. I can't say that they'll make you feel better about the wacky world we live in but at least they treat you like an adult.

[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

[2] https://www.propublica.org/

[3] https://www.democracynow.org/

replies(2): >>45158269 #>>45158362 #
cma ◴[] No.45158269[source]
Mediabiasfactcheck is run by someone on the Council of Foreign Relations, The Guardian is typically left of their worldview FWIW

Mediabiasfactcheck rates Foreign Affairs, a publication of the council on foreign relations, as the least biased, with no mention of their owner's connection.

replies(2): >>45158378 #>>45158428 #
1. mrspuratic ◴[] No.45158428[source]
The Guardian also doesn't double down on factual errors (or mistakes), they correct or retract. I may be biased since that publication is the only news source I voluntarily support.