Quote Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew View Post
Let’s cut to the chase here. What you’re talking about - this frustration with how the media, including outlets like The Guardian, spin stories with flashy headlines and sometimes shaky grounds in reality - isn’t just a one-off thing. It’s the norm, not the exception, and it’s everywhere. From left to right, online or print, every publication out there is playing the same game. They’ve got space to fill, ads to sell, and clicks to get. Truth? Balance? That often takes a backseat to whatever gets people fired up enough to share an article.

Hoping for academic-level neutrality from these guys is like expecting a shark not to bite; it’s just not in their nature. They’re not in the business of giving you a well-rounded lecture; they’re in the business of keeping your eyes glued to their page at any cost. Sensationalism sells, and subtlety doesn’t pay the bills.

Your points on bias, selective storytelling, and playing favorites with facts are spot-on. If a story only tells one side or hypes up certain examples while ignoring others, it’s not just bending the truth - it’s warping it. And yeah, every example they use might be legit, but when they cherry-pick only the bits that suit their angle, we’re getting a distorted picture of reality.

The problem I have with your reply is calling out one publication for this kind of thing. It’s like yelling at a single raindrop for getting you wet in a storm. This is a widespread problem. It’s about the entire system that prioritises scandal over substance and outrage over accuracy.

I'd argue that media like The Daily Mail, The Sun, and The Express are much worse at doing this. Some of the material published in those 'news' outlets constitutes hate speech IMO. So, The Guardian, by no means exempt from the issues you mention, is far more readable IMO than the other media I've mentioned. Though, I acknowledge, it's getting harder and harder to find reliable sources.

What you're asking for is academic writing. But you also acknowledge that it's not going to happen. So, in summary, what you also seem to be acknowledging is that none of us should read any news outlet and cite it in any thread unless it is of the academic standard you're expecting.

Bottom line: You’re right to be f*cked off about the lack of balance and the blatant bias. But let’s not kid ourselves that this is a problem with just one article or one outlet. It’s the whole media landscape that’s skewed.
I largely agree with you too. I probably could express it more evenly, but on CCMB at least we really don't see many 'right wing' threads really, and I just don't engage on some of the more conspiratorial ones.

I think our issues are things as we've discussed, poor news values, people getting their news from twitter and phones which can never properly portray issues, political intolerance, some issues on free speech, a lack of understanding of different views etc. It's got worse in the last 15 years or so, perhaps since the global financial crisis but I blame social media more than anything.

I really don't like political pigeon holes, I really think there is good and bad across the spectrum and we should question and listen to everything. When I hear differently I tend to push against it and as I say on CCMB I generally see the issues come more from a left wing perspective, but I entirely agree it's across the spectrum. That, deep down is what I am usually trying to say, not always worded as well as I would like.