 |
| |
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Im not familiar with the term backgrounder, but i think i know what you mean and i think thats what it is.
Its certainly not an editorial but neither is it presented as 'news'
The article seems to be a few interviews with a bit of context thrown in. Interesting read though.
quote:
..she has (courtesy of her spin-meisters in the White House) framed her husband's disastrous invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq... |
This bit of the article that you quoted however is clearly attributed to someone other than the author - its not a direct quote but then interview write-ups are hardly ever he-said, i-said, he-said, i-said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Jeez. That's it. Im quitting this thread. I've argued my point, but now Im just bored. Here the summing up of the (in my opinion) facts about the supposed bias of Guardian...
Actual news reporting
The Guardian is one of the three truly unbiased British national newspapers: The Guardian, The Financial Times and the Times. Anyone who thinks there is a major bias in the Guardians news reporting is, in my opinion, suffering from clouded judgement due to their own ideological leanings. I know plenty of moderate left-wingers who think that the news reporting in the Times and Financial Times is biased...they are equally as wrong.
Editorials
A huge range of opinions are expressed in the Guardian editorial pages, covering a larger ideological spectrum than any other UK paper. Because the paper is traditionally editorially left-leaning, the majority of contributors tend to be of the left. These range from Blairites such as Polly Toynbee, to Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians of varying ideological persuasion, to hard left socialists such as the recently deceased Paul Foot. Conservative politicians also contribute reasonably often - Malcolm Rifkind wrote and interesting article not that long ago. The only people that dont tend to contribute are those to the right of the Conservatives (ideologically BNP or UKIP) but, on the whole, the far-right hate the Guardian with such a passion that they would rather join the Euro than write for them
A final comment about the editorial section - I feel that people at Poly have got the wrong end of the stick with regards to paper because of articles by the hard-left wing contributors have been posted here. Let me make it clear...most comment in the Guardian is much more moderate (although even if it wasn't, its the comment section and so shouldn't be used as a benchmark to judge the Guardians news reporting/journalistic integrity)
G2 / What has been described here as "Background"
The Guardian is a very different kind of newspaper to any other I've ever read. Many who read it like to think of it as the "intellectual's" paper and, to some extent, it is (although not to the degree that many think). For that reason, G2 is difficult to describe without making it sound pretentious. There tends to be a lot of Social commentary in it. The best way I can describe G2 articles is that they occupy an area where editorial and academia collide - but written in a pretty casual style.
Apart from that G2 contains lifestyle sections on food, health and other stuff, including light-hearted things.
Anyway. To sum up. If you want a paper with editorials that espouse a only one ideological or party viewpoint then dont buy/read the Guardian. If you find reading well researched, intelligent editorials that you may or may not disagree with interesting then you'll like it. And if you can't handle that facts and opinion are mixed together in the NON-NEWS section (G2) I suggest you don't visit the thread about the merits of “The Di Vinci Code”  The Guardian is not a kid's newspaper and it is assumed that it's readers don't need teacher to hold their hand and explain the blindingly obvious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
There are two types of bias a paper can exhibit, thought of course it can exhibit both at the same time.
1. How it analyzes stories- ie, what spin is given to the facts in order to fit the given facts into a pre-existing view.
2. How it reports stories- chosing which facts to put in based on a decision of what should be included or not.
...
To me the second is far more dangerous than the first. |
I agree completely.
Reporters make decisions about what is newsworthy and those decisions are subject to bias, particularly in the question asked during an interview. The Washington press corp tends to treat all presidents with kid's gloves, something that doesn't happen in Canada or Britain.
That's different from copy editors who often have to make quick decisions on what to cut out of a story in order to make it fit. They often have to chop things out of a story simply based on how many lines of copy needs to be cut. They consider how the cut affects the story flow. They don't chop stuff out because They disagree with something and most usually wish they had more space so they wouldn't have to chop out good stuff.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2005 15:05
|