axegas
Joined: November 2015
Posts: 222
|
Post by axegas on Feb 27, 2021 0:42:22 GMT
Having never read that paper, why do people use that name “grauniad” on here please ? Save your effort reading it KP. It's no more a newspaper than The Daily Mail is. The Guardian is the rag whose founder made part of his fortune from slave labour, but when questioned about that in 2011 the paper's response was unapologetic, they said that his views were 'Of his time'. Fast forward to summer 2020 and whilst rioting mobs are tearing down the statue of Edward Colston, the Guardian ran the headline 'It's been a long time coming'. Typical of that type of publication, from both the left and the right, it's always one rule for them whilst holding their political opponents to much higher standards. It's called hypocrisy. I’m sorry but when did we judge publications on the basis of things that happened 200 years ago? Or anything in life for that matter. Do you expect the Guardian writers to have a booklet of the original founder exact beliefs from 1821, so they don’t print anything contradictory? The Guardian campaigned against the slave trade and welcomed the 1833 abolition act anyway, so its a massive stretch to accuse it of hypocrisy in that regard. Same with the Daily Mail, I judge it based on the trash sensationalist and inflammatory journalism it regularly prints, not on any view it may of had in the 1920/30s.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 11:47:30 GMT
Save your effort reading it KP. It's no more a newspaper than The Daily Mail is. The Guardian is the rag whose founder made part of his fortune from slave labour, but when questioned about that in 2011 the paper's response was unapologetic, they said that his views were 'Of his time'. Fast forward to summer 2020 and whilst rioting mobs are tearing down the statue of Edward Colston, the Guardian ran the headline 'It's been a long time coming'. Typical of that type of publication, from both the left and the right, it's always one rule for them whilst holding their political opponents to much higher standards. It's called hypocrisy. I’m sorry but when did we judge publications on the basis of things that happened 200 years ago? Or anything in life for that matter. Do you expect the Guardian writers to have a booklet of the original founder exact beliefs from 1821, so they don’t print anything contradictory? The Guardian campaigned against the slave trade and welcomed the 1833 abolition act anyway, so its a massive stretch to accuse it of hypocrisy in that regard. Same with the Daily Mail, I judge it based on the trash sensationalist and inflammatory journalism it regularly prints, not on any view it may of had in the 1920/30s. The point is, and I'm surprised that you don't see it, the blatant hypocrisy in running a celebratory headline when rioters attacked the Colston statue but have never, to my knowledge, uttered a word of contrition relating to the actions of John Edward Taylor. Taylor wasn't just some guy who uttered an odd word out of place, he chose to side against Lincoln. When Lincoln was assassinated, as you would expect, Taylor ran a story condemning the assassination. Oh, hang on, no course he didn't, this is what his disgusting rag actually chose to print, Take a second to let that sink in. This was in 1865, so I'm not sure what your 1833 reference is. Good to hear that you take a dim view of sensationalist and inflammatory journalism, which is why I'm sure you'll join me in condemning not only the Mail but also The Guardian, who I'll remind you give column space to Owen Jones and Ash (I am literally a Communist) Sarkar. Of course, people can buy it if that's what they want to read, likewise The Sun and The Mail, but I would like to think that on here we were a little better than that.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 27, 2021 13:59:59 GMT
Having never read that paper, why do people use that name “grauniad” on here please ? Save your effort reading it KP. It's no more a newspaper than The Daily Mail is. The Guardian is the rag whose founder made part of his fortune from slave labour, but when questioned about that in 2011 the paper's response was unapologetic, they said that his views were 'Of his time'. Fast forward to summer 2020 and whilst rioting mobs are tearing down the statue of Edward Colston, the Guardian ran the headline 'It's been a long time coming'. Typical of that type of publication, from both the left and the right, it's always one rule for them whilst holding their political opponents to much higher standards. It's called hypocrisy. I don’t tolerate extremism in any way and if they encourage that type of behaviour then I’m glad I’ve never read it. I am just intrigued by the name used.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,255
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 27, 2021 14:02:28 GMT
Having never read that paper, why do people use that name “grauniad” on here please ? Basically the Guardian going way way back, used to have a fair few spelling mistakes that often weren’t corrected in the early prints. So the nickname “grauniad” is a bit of dig at that. It’s a private eye joke. Thank you axegas , it was something I wanted to ask but never did. That explanation makes sense
|
|
warehamgas
Predictions League
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,430
|
Post by warehamgas on Mar 1, 2021 20:54:35 GMT
that's a phrase I thought I'd never read The sports coverage is OK. As for the politics and ever present bias, it's no better than the Daily Mail. Come on epping, everything’s better than the Daily Mail. If they told me today was Monday I’d go and check a diary. 😉 UTG!
|
|