I was under the impression that you and others considered the Guardian to be less than a respectable newspaper
John, as I have said before, the Guardian is no rag, but it is overtly political. Meaning, it has some good reporters and you can get good stories out of it, but there are certain drums that the paper will beat, whether or not the evidence is really in. Therefore, you need to apply political filters to any story that touches one of its left-wing hobbyhorses. But if the Guardian runs a story that it does not have any position on, I would tend to trust until I read something that tells me not to. Unrest in Saudi Arabia falls into this category imho. Also, if it ever prints a story that runs counter to its biases, I will believe that too. With the stories that run with its biases, I will cast a suspicious eye on the evidence presented.
When I say that the New York Times is becoming Guardianized, I am refering to this process of making a good newspaper serve a political cause. So if they report on the situation on the ground in Riyadh, I'll believe them. But I will mistrust the next story that says Global Warming Is Here, oh my! or Bush is Really Toast This Time. -g- |
