In reality, the left is the target of political violence

[JamesWales]

It's pointless Jon. Just seeing his response to Bob suggests that. I didn't even get a response even though I quoted an example of what 'should' be a compelling argument. Conveniently swerved that one.

So, my issue with the article, is that I don't think it's based in reality. They have a website to fill, some advertising to sell and they need articles shared. That's not just a guardian thing of course, but I do think it means that many (now primarily online) articles are less balanced than they may be; they'll come up with a rather jazzy headline and construct a not entirely truthful reality around that.

In this case, do we have some protesters being oppressed? I'm sure there's examples of it. Do left-wingers get abused online? Of course some do. Are left-wing protesters smeared as an angry mob? I don't actually think they are, but no doubt some people will do so, citing some protests or online behaviour etc.

But just like an article that talks about crime and illustrated it only with crimes committed by (for example) immigrants and tries to say that there is a link between the two is disengenuous, so too is this. article. Every example given may be true, but if you fail to mention that it happens across the spectrum then the analysis is fundamentally flawed, just like ignoring crimes committed by 'non immigrants' means you would have a false interpretation of the links between immigration and crime.

In this particular article, I'm not even sure how accurate the examples are.

It starts with some stuff about Tony Benn from 40 years ago, saying prominent British socialists have always received death threats. Unfortunately I suspect that is true, but haven't all MPs? I'm pretty sure there were attempts on many MPs lives in the 80s, the most famous being the Brighton bomb.

It then talks about the Tory doners awful comments. But it fails to reference that the recent shadow chancellor proclaimed in a speech that an MP should be lynched. Lynched! Again, when you look in the whole, then the headline and thrust of the argument gets weaker.

It talks about MPs being physically assaulted, citing egg throwing etc. Now I don't think that's on. I remember calling it out when Farage and others had milkshake poured on them (at a time of prominent acid attacks btw). Let's see how the guardian talked about that:

When it's Corbyn and an egg:

"In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn had an egg smashed on his head by a Brexit supporter. Such incidents have generally been treated by the media as minor, almost meaningless. Yet they form part of an ominous pattern"

When it's Farage and milkshake:

"This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tommy-robinson

I could conclude the Left have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but I won't, as I know it's not like that, just as I suspect the author here knows the reality is quite different to what he's presented.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

So, my issue with the article, is that I don't think it's based in reality. They have a website to fill, some advertising to sell and they need articles shared. That's not just a guardian thing of course, but I do think it means that many (now primarily online) articles are less balanced than they may be; they'll come up with a rather jazzy headline and construct a not entirely truthful reality around that.

In this case, do we have some protesters being oppressed? I'm sure there's examples of it. Do left-wingers get abused online? Of course some do. Are left-wing protesters smeared as an angry mob? I don't actually think they are, but no doubt some people will do so, citing some protests or online behaviour etc.

But just like an article that talks about crime and illustrated it only with crimes committed by (for example) immigrants and tries to say that there is a link between the two is disengenuous, so too is this. article. Every example given may be true, but if you fail to mention that it happens across the spectrum then the analysis is fundamentally flawed, just like ignoring crimes committed by 'non immigrants' means you would have a false interpretation of the links between immigration and crime.

In this particular article, I'm not even sure how accurate the examples are.

It starts with some stuff about Tony Benn from 40 years ago, saying prominent British socialists have always received death threats. Unfortunately I suspect that is true, but haven't all MPs? I'm pretty sure there were attempts on many MPs lives in the 80s, the most famous being the Brighton bomb.

It then talks about the Tory doners awful comments. But it fails to reference that the recent shadow chancellor proclaimed in a speech that an MP should be lynched. Lynched! Again, when you look in the whole, then the headline and thrust of the argument gets weaker.

It talks about MPs being physically assaulted, citing egg throwing etc. Now I don't think that's on. I remember calling it out when Farage and others had milkshake poured on them (at a time of prominent acid attacks btw). Let's see how the guardian talked about that:

When it's Corbyn and an egg:

"In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn had an egg smashed on his head by a Brexit supporter. Such incidents have generally been treated by the media as minor, almost meaningless. Yet they form part of an ominous pattern"

When it's Farage and milkshake:

"This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tommy-robinson

I could conclude the Left have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but I won't, as I know it's not like that, just as I suspect the author here knows the reality is quite different to what he's presented.

Never mind all that pseudo intellectual nonsense

The Economic League persecuted people and prevented them from getting jobs because they were left wing or believed to be left wing

The Economic League was FUNDED by Conservative donors and big business

Directly and indirectly

Thatcher knew about this

State sponsored intimidation

Your lot

It wasn't just a few eggs thrown sonny

[Citizen's Nephew]

So, my issue with the article, is that I don't think it's based in reality. They have a website to fill, some advertising to sell and they need articles shared. That's not just a guardian thing of course, but I do think it means that many (now primarily online) articles are less balanced than they may be; they'll come up with a rather jazzy headline and construct a not entirely truthful reality around that.

In this case, do we have some protesters being oppressed? I'm sure there's examples of it. Do left-wingers get abused online? Of course some do. Are left-wing protesters smeared as an angry mob? I don't actually think they are, but no doubt some people will do so, citing some protests or online behaviour etc.

But just like an article that talks about crime and illustrated it only with crimes committed by (for example) immigrants and tries to say that there is a link between the two is disengenuous, so too is this. article. Every example given may be true, but if you fail to mention that it happens across the spectrum then the analysis is fundamentally flawed, just like ignoring crimes committed by 'non immigrants' means you would have a false interpretation of the links between immigration and crime.

In this particular article, I'm not even sure how accurate the examples are.

It starts with some stuff about Tony Benn from 40 years ago, saying prominent British socialists have always received death threats. Unfortunately I suspect that is true, but haven't all MPs? I'm pretty sure there were attempts on many MPs lives in the 80s, the most famous being the Brighton bomb.

It then talks about the Tory doners awful comments. But it fails to reference that the recent shadow chancellor proclaimed in a speech that an MP should be lynched. Lynched! Again, when you look in the whole, then the headline and thrust of the argument gets weaker.

It talks about MPs being physically assaulted, citing egg throwing etc. Now I don't think that's on. I remember calling it out when Farage and others had milkshake poured on them (at a time of prominent acid attacks btw). Let's see how the guardian talked about that:

When it's Corbyn and an egg:

"In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn had an egg smashed on his head by a Brexit supporter. Such incidents have generally been treated by the media as minor, almost meaningless. Yet they form part of an ominous pattern"

When it's Farage and milkshake:

"This Milkshake Spring isn’t political violence – it’s political theatre"

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tommy-robinson

I could conclude the Left has a monopoly on hypocrisy, but I won't, as I know it's not like that, just as I suspect the author here knows the reality is quite different to what he's presented.

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.