6 ms·
They're an excellent publication that publish stories[0] that the New York times, LA times, and other institutional newspapers would not dare to touch. If you
by wpdev_63 7y ago
They're an excellent publication that publish stories[0] that the New York times, LA times, and other institutional newspapers would not dare to touch.
If you value your privacy and your constitutional rights - please consider donating to the Guardian. They are one of the very few news organizations that are not censored by the US/UK gov't.
[0]:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files
- jammmety 7y agoWhich news organisations are censored by the UK government?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- throwaway190102 7y agoUhhh, the BBC is funded by the UK Government...
- bsamuels 7y agothere's plenty of UK news outlets that are not the BBC I'm also interested in hearing how the UK/US government is allegedly censoring news outlets, that's a pretty big claim for a top level comment
- wpdev_63 7y agoThere's a bit of censorship that goes on behind the scenes, i'll let you google for specific examples. Highly recommend watching 'kill the messenger'. Fun movie to watch and it will give you a sense of what i am talking about.
- zymhan 7y agoSelf-censorship is a thing. News organizations have sat on stories in the past for fear of rocking some boat too hard.
- te_chris 7y agoThe BBC is independent by decree and design. There’s certainly an establishment slant, but that’s down to hiring decisions and the class system more than anything.
- Doubl 7y agoYes but they have their own agendas. I think I have seen one comment piece that was from a pro brexit point of view over the last three years. During the Irish abortion referendum run up, it was the same. It was as though the right to have an abortion was self evidently as much a human right as free speech. The guardian overall is too black and white for me.
- andrewshadura 7y agoThey publish opinion pieces from people holding quite different views.
- Doubl 7y agoI haven't noticed that, quite the opposite is my impression.
- weberc2 7y agoThat is also my impression. Especially on social issues, so much of what they publish is shamelessly ideological. I get that we can't completely eliminate bias, but I have no use for a publication that makes no attempt.
- namirez 7y agoThis is such an interesting topic. You find them "shamelessly ideological" probably because you don't agree with some of their commentaries. It's a fair point, but objectively, it doesn't say much about the quality their journalism. Here is a concrete example; no reputable news outlet would publish an opinion piece by a creationist in an attempt to be fair or unbiased, and I guess most people here on HN would agree with that. But it gets more interesting. Ideology can be so powerful and deep-seated that becomes virtually invisible, but it's hard to argue that it's not there.
- malandrew 7y agoif it's ideological, it's not really journalism, is it? It's opinion. We're long past the days of A.M. Rosenthal and Walter Cronkite, where journalists actively exercised restraint in injecting their personal biases into the stories they were covering. This isn't surprising, because facts without opinions just don't sell that well in our modern attention economy.
- technofiend 7y agoI have a friend whose email was hacked. His personal photos of himself, his wife and child were taken. The guardian called him and said "we need a quote from you about an article on XYZ or we'll release your personal information found in the e-mails." So in this particular case "If you value your privacy" does not apply to the Guardian. Unless you feel they have a constitutional right to blackmail people?
- sonnyblarney 7y agoIt is flat wrong to suggest that most news organizations are censored by the US/UK government.
- tangental 7y agoI always get a good laugh when I'm reading an article on the Guardian about protecting my privacy and look up to see uMatrix reporting 182 trackers blocked.