What are the better UK newspapers??

On 10 Jun 2005 01:01:21 -0700, wrote:

DFM:

I can't find the article at the moment. Might have a look later when I
have more time...

Neither can I - a search on "renewable energy" didn't reveal anything
that would support your assertion. The evidence of The Guardian talking
rubbish seems rather elusive. Can it be found within 45 minutes?

Probably, but I am too lazy to look for that long. I just recall it
talking about how Europe was going to be the leading force in
renewable energy in the future, along with dire predictions about the
US's oil based economy falling on its knees.

Their view is one of never giving an inch to the right (or never
giving an inch to anything American) which is something that ****es me
off.

So - would it be better to say that some things which are wrong are, in
fact, right, just to be "balanced"?

Yes, of course.

!!

!!!

That shut you up, eh!

Defining oneself in terms of left and right is simplistic and
foolish, and that's what the Guardian does constantly to appease its
readers.

You're the one throwing "right" and "left" labels around here.

And you just called them labels, which is not what I said.

You used the labels - call them "descriptions" if you will - "left" and
"right" in lieu of actually presenting any evidence to support your
claim. If you had a substantive point to make, it was too obscure for
me to get it.

My point was as I first stated it - that the Guardian is about as far
left as credible reporting can go. My next sentence about it being
virtually fantasy was wrong. Usually the Guardian is pretty good, but
their opinionated stuff can be waaaay off.

The BBC has better balance from my point of view. They will lean to
the left, but they wont fall over.

The BBC is simply pro-government, whatever the government happens to be.

When the government was pro-war, was the BBC pro-government?

They gave the govt a softer ride than they deserved - they were fast
enough to hang Andrew Gilligan out to dry.

The BBC is still centre left. They are selective in their coverage,
but they don't skew things to the extent that the Guardian does.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:25:24 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Deep Foiled Malls

Speaking as a USAin, I like the _Guardian_ and the _Independent_...

The Guardian is about as hard left as credible reporting comes. So
hard left it's virtually fantasy.
--
The Guardian isn't hard left, you want Socialist Worker.

I wouldn't call that credible! I read someones copy once and that WAS
fantasy.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Des Small wrote:

* The Guardian has the most free content and is very "liberal" (in the
US sense). It's tabloid G2 section is always interesting, but it's
more like a magazine than a classical newspaper.

* The Independent is pro-Europe and was vigorously against the Iraq
war. It is my preferred choice, since it concentrates on news and
does it fairly well.

* The Telegraph is an old-fashioned social conservative quality paper,
and good for sports.

* The Times has never recovered from Murdoch buying it.

The rest of the dailies are strictly bogroll.

Funnily enough you omit the one that is probably the most ideology-free
in terms of its news values (though admittedly also probably the
dullest read): The Financial Times.

writes:

Des Small wrote:

* The Guardian has the most free content and is very "liberal" (in the
US sense). It's tabloid G2 section is always interesting, but it's
more like a magazine than a classical newspaper.

* The Independent is pro-Europe and was vigorously against the Iraq
war. It is my preferred choice, since it concentrates on news and
does it fairly well.

* The Telegraph is an old-fashioned social conservative quality paper,
and good for sports.

* The Times has never recovered from Murdoch buying it.

The rest of the dailies are strictly bogroll.

Funnily enough you omit the one that is probably the most ideology-free
in terms of its news values (though admittedly also probably the
dullest read): The Financial Times.

I've never really quite got around to having an opinion about it, to
my probable discredit.

I must have a go some time, but it's so very sprawlingly pink. The
Independent may not be quite as dull, but it's certainly more
manageable.

Des

The Morning Star does indeed still exist, though with a negligible
circulation compared to the others you mention.

It does style itself a newspaper as the other poster mentioned, though
the explanation at
http://www.economist.com/help/Displa..._The_Economist
fails to convince me it is nowadays more than an affectation!

There is some speculation that The Guardian, when it changes to its
smaller size, is going to reposition itself to fill the gap left by the
dumbing-down of The Times -- ie the nonpartisan 'newspaper of record'.
Though IWHT The Independent better positioned to do so from the POV of
public perception.

I guess the closest U.S. equivalent to The Economist would be
BusinessWeek, though it's much more narrowly business-focused.
Conversely the UK equivalents of Time and Newsweek are, I suspect, the
fat Sunday broadsheets - which is probably why a mass-market newsmag
has never worked here.

The BBC was considered a lefty organisation by the Conservatives
when they were in power. Can you give examples of them being
"soft right" then?

Supporting the Tories almost all the way in the Miners' Strike.

I wouldn't even call that "soft" right, they pumped out hundreds
of hours of lying fascist bull**** toadying to Thatcher and never
even pretended to give the miners a fair hearing.

And covering up the Goose Green massacre. It wouldn't have been
that hard to find eyewitnesses to what Thatcher's stormtroopers
did.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco wrote:

The state of The Scotsman is very sad. I remember it as a good newspaper
in the 1980s. I find it an appalling newspaper now, and agree with those
who prefer The Herald.

I grew up with the Scotsman - but now I am much more likely to buy the
Herald (even though I was born in Edinburgh, and the Herald is a Glasgow
paper!).

Sheila