The Guardian

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,411
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Ben Elton gave a very impassioned rebuttal to the criticism of the Guardian during an interview on Fivelive last week. He put Eleanor Oldroyd somewhat on the back
foot IIRC.

If interested, forward to 15:00 in the following podcast:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/5live/extraedition/extraedition_20141106-1500a.mp3
He slated the Guardian's view as 'patronising' and praised the 'beauty of the piece'. Sorry, I think I misread your sentence bolded- can be read either way (whether he is rebutting the article or the paper)!

EDIT: The point he makes about how popular art critics are tools if they hate an installation purely because it is popular is spot on. 'They want to tell them what to like'.
 

Nick 0208 Ldn

News 24
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
23,721
The only problem I have with the poppy display is its presence at the Tower. What an incredibly inappropriate place to choose.
Whilst i can see why you might think so, it does work rather well as a place to site 888,246 poppies, what with the pre-existing means by which people can view the poppies from an elevated vantage point.

I suppose that somewhere like Kew may also have been fitting, or to have somehow planted in the Thames and appear as if floating, yet upon reflection both would have their own differing problems of practicability.
 

Nick 0208 Ldn

News 24
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
23,721
He slated the Guardian's view as 'patronising' and praised the 'beauty of the piece'. Sorry, I think I misread your sentence bolded- can be read either way (whether he is rebutting the article or the paper)!

EDIT: The point he makes about how popular art critics are tools if they hate an installation purely because it is popular is spot on. 'They want to tell them what to like'.
Whoops, that should have read "criticism from" as opposed to "criticism of".

I concur with your comments above btw.
 
Last edited:

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
I dunno...I just view the Tower (and certainly the Church of St Peter ad Vincula) as the final resting place of (genuine & alleged) traitors. Although the Tower's virtually always had a military presence, it's true, I'd have thought a more 'obviously military' site could've been found.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,411
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
I dunno...I just view the Tower (and certainly the Church of St Peter ad Vincula) as the final resting place of (genuine & alleged) traitors. Although the Tower's virtually always had a military presence, it's true, I'd have thought a more 'obviously military' site could've been found.
I just like the Tower site because if you have ever been in and walked around, it is a stunning mix of gothic, Tudor and Stuart architecture. Understand people not loving the blood diamonds.
@Nick 0208 Ldn wasn't deliberately being a pedant- it's late and I wasn't quite sure what to think!
 

Mockney

Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
40,956
Location
Editing my own posts.
Amid all the (deserved) DM abuse, lest we forget the Guardian's ability to disappear up it's own arse. This prick said the poppy installation was 'fake, trite, Ukip-style' and horror of all horrors 'popular art'.
Most people across the political spectrum found Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red a powerful and evocative tribute to the war dead. Not so this guy. The wider public 'got it' and liked it, so it was obviously shit and not abstract enough. What a fecking cretin.
http://www.theguardian.com/artandde.../tower-of-london-poppies-ukip-remembrance-day
To cover both sides of the "we need to find something about WWI to be offended by" political spectrum..This is equally OTT

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/13/sainsburys-christmas-ad-first-world-war

I've seen a few people complain about this tbf. Mostly the kind of people who share Russell Brand videos on my facebook timeline. I'm as cynical about exploitative capitalism as the next lefty wanker, but really, there's nothing to actually be offended by in that ad. It's a tasteful depiction of a significant real life event. If it makes a couple of people buy their ham slices and own brand detergent from a slightly different location, so what?* Think of it as a short film if it makes you feel better. Logically, why is Macca using it to sell records, or Hollywood using it to sell tickets any less unconscionable? And neither of them gave diddily shit to the Royal British Legion.

It's certainly less exploitative than a mawkish attempt to sell a £96 plush toy Penguin IMO.

* One of the 200+ complains was apparently that it failed to convey the true horrors of war, and thus made light of it. Because a coda where a guy is shot through the head as he returned to his trench would've patently been less controversial.
 
Last edited:

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,692
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
To cover both sides of the "we need to find something about WWI to be offended by" political spectrum..This is equally OTT

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/13/sainsburys-christmas-ad-first-world-war

I've seen a few people complain about this tbf. Mostly the kind of people who share Russell Brand videos on my facebook timeline. I'm as cynical about exploitative capitalism as the next lefty wanker, but really, there's nothing to actually be offended by in that ad. It's a tasteful depiction of a significant real life event. If it makes a couple of people buy their ham slices and own brand detergent from a slightly different location, so what?* Think of it as a short film if it makes you feel better. Logically, why is Macca using it to sell records, or Hollywood using it to sell tickets any less unconscionable? And neither of them gave diddily shit to the Royal British Legion.

It's certainly less exploitative than a mawkish attempt to sell a £96 plush toy Penguin IMO.

* One of the 200+ complains was apparently that it failed to convey the true horrors of war, and thus made light of it. Because a coda where a guy is shot through the head as he returned to his trench would've patently been less controversial.

For me it's the equivalent of a child that only does a kind act because he knows his mother will give him a chocolate bar.

Imagine then that the whole of Facebook lit up about this child's act of kindness, showering him with praise while he sits there and laps it up while gorging on his chocolate.

Call me cynical but I find it very hard to give any praise to his act of kindness because the intention was to get chocolate, not to be kind.

I'm not "offended" by the Advert in any way shape or form. I'm just a bit sad that anyone can look at it as anything other than a huge corporation using a tragic event to sell mince pies.

A real tribute would be anonymously funding a video like that and letting a relevant good cause reap the coverage it gets. But they wouldn't do that because they're a corporation that has the sole interest of making money. That is absolutely fair enough, I'm not naive enough to think the world doesn't work like that but at the same time don't expect me to fawn over Sainsburys for having a very intelligent advertising team that found a very effective way of exploiting a historical event that they know will pull on heart strings and get them coverage across all social media.
 

Crono

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,043
To cover both sides of the "we need to find something about WWI to be offended by" political spectrum..This is equally OTT

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/13/sainsburys-christmas-ad-first-world-war

I've seen a few people complain about this tbf. Mostly the kind of people who share Russell Brand videos on my facebook timeline. I'm as cynical about exploitative capitalism as the next lefty wanker, but really, there's nothing to actually be offended by in that ad. It's a tasteful depiction of a significant real life event. If it makes a couple of people buy their ham slices and own brand detergent from a slightly different location, so what?* Think of it as a short film if it makes you feel better. Logically, why is Macca using it to sell records, or Hollywood using it to sell tickets any less unconscionable? And neither of them gave diddily shit to the Royal British Legion.

It's certainly less exploitative than a mawkish attempt to sell a £96 plush toy Penguin IMO.

* One of the 200+ complains was apparently that it failed to convey the true horrors of war, and thus made light of it. Because a coda where a guy is shot through the head as he returned to his trench would've patently been less controversial.
Nah, the article is spot on. He doesn't say anything about any part of the advert being offensive. He is saying commercialising the horrific war is unconscionable and making what is a 'tasteful' short film into an advertisement only makes it worse. I agree with him.
 

Mockney

Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
40,956
Location
Editing my own posts.
Sainsbury's corporate executives didn't make that ad. They hired a filmmaker who most likely took it very seriously. It's getting worked up for worked ups sake IMO. In the trade off between respectful historical involvement and buying some ham, I don't see the negligent effect at all.

If it was crap. Yeah. If the actual content was offensive. Yeah. But the fact they've done it, and done it quite well, pfft. Seems like the kind of thing only someone determined to get worked up by can get truly worked up by. I'd rather every ad took the care to be that impressive, rather than just cheap cak. But hey, feck nice things if they're for a supermarket. Even if they're raising charity money.
 
Last edited:

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,692
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Sainsbury's corporate executives didn't make that ad. They hired a filmmaker who most likely took it very seriously. It's getting worked up for worked ups sake IMO. In the trade off between respectful historical involvement and buying some ham, I don't see the negligent effect at all.

If it was crap. Yeah. It the actual content was offensive. Yeah. But the fact they've done it, and done it quite well, pfft. Seems like the kind of thing only someone determined to get worked up by can get truly worked up by.
So it's not Sainsburys but the ad makers that people should be getting annoyed at?


How well they've done it isn't really the issue for me though, it's the fact they've done it at all. As has been said above, they're commercialising war. They're using an event that happenend during a brutal time where millions upon millions died and sugar wrapping it to make people go "oh that's really nicely done, well done Sainsburys, here's my money".

That's cheap and tacky no matter how much money and research went into making it as factually acurate and as tasteful as possible (so people don't get annoyed at them for getting it wrong).
 

Crono

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,043
Sainsbury's corporate executives didn't make that ad. They hired a filmmaker who most likely took it very seriously. It's getting worked up for worked ups sake IMO. In the trade off between respectful historical involvement and buying some ham, I don't see the negligent effect at all.

If it was crap. Yeah. If the actual content was offensive. Yeah. But the fact they've done it, and done it quite well, pfft. Seems like the kind of thing only someone determined to get worked up by can get truly worked up by. I'd rather every ad took the care to be that impressive, rather than just cheap cak. But hey, feck nice things if they're for a supermarket. Even if they're raising charity money.
Yes, that's exactly my point of view. F*ck 'nice' things if they're commercialising the first world war. For goodness sake, we're talking about a million British people dead.

You seem to have taken a point of view that corporations should be able to commission adverts that use any material without criticism so long as it's well produced and so long as they donate a portion of the revenue to a charity. Dunno what you're on.
 

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
9,362
Location
Thucydides nuts
Advertising is inherently malevolent, it just is. The Sainsbury's advert is classic engineering of consent. Bernays would be proud. The whole loss-leading chocolate bar campaign is an extension of this malevolence.

Obsolescent techno must-haves and fluffy meerkats are a stain on our collective psyche that we just have to live with, but the level of vulgarity that Sainsbury's has stooped to is actually quite sickening (I could genuinely feel my stomach turning when I saw it, this aint no pretrending).
 

Mockney

Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
40,956
Location
Editing my own posts.
Sorry lads and lassies, I've been hanging terribly all day. Lets get into it!

Advertising is inherently malevolent, it just is. The Sainsbury's advert is classic engineering of consent. Bernays would be proud. The whole loss-leading chocolate bar campaign is an extension of this malevolence.
PARKLIFE!

Obsolescent techno must-haves and fluffy meerkats are a stain on our collective psyche that we just have to live with, but the level of vulgarity that Sainsbury's has stooped to is actually quite sickening (I could genuinely feel my stomach turning when I saw it, this aint no pretrending).
You sound like Citizen Smith after binging on Bill Hicks and George Carlin. G'wan with your badself.

So it's not Sainsburys but the ad makers that people should be getting annoyed at?
It's neither.

How well they've done it isn't really the issue for me though, it's the fact they've done it at all. As has been said above, they're commercialising war. They're using an event that happenend during a brutal time where millions upon millions died and sugar wrapping it to make people go "oh that's really nicely done, well done Sainsburys, here's my money".

That's cheap and tacky no matter how much money and research went into making it as factually acurate and as tasteful as possible (so people don't get annoyed at them for getting it wrong).
Yes, that's exactly my point of view. F*ck 'nice' things if they're commercialising the first world war. For goodness sake, we're talking about a million British people dead.

You seem to have taken a point of view that corporations should be able to commission adverts that use any material without criticism so long as it's well produced and so long as they donate a portion of the revenue to a charity. Dunno what you're on.
Right, lets get arguing bitches!

While I admire the right on view of advertising as the engineered product of cynical plots in shadowy rooms full of finger pyramiding Agent Smiths, I don't share it. It's all a bit House of Cards innit lads? It's an oversimplification to claim anything produced as such has no merit beyond exploitaton. In real life most peices like this are pitched by filmmakers rather than evil marketing droids. Advertising (along with music videos) is still the main testing ground for Hollywood, so they're not all the products of the CynicAd100 (though I suspect the 'Webuyanycar' ads may be) If the quality is anything to go by (and it's all we've got to go by) the people who made this did so with good intentions and the utmost respect. Even though I understand the ideological objections, they're just that. Fury in the wind. I prefer to see things in the context of benefit and harm. The idea that being both an advert and a tribute is oxymoronic is a purely self imposed ideological slant that's merits are counterbalanced (and IMO negated) by the benefits such a well made (not to mention charitable) film bring.

Put simply, "how it's done" is of paramount importance. Otherwise you can object to anything. You can, nay should, object to Blackadder Goes Forth for it's pithy light hearted slight on "a million British people dead (for goodness sake!)" Why shouldn't you? The famous final scene in Goodbyeeee wasn't even intended as the moving tribute it became, it was slapped together last minute in the editing room because the original footage was flat. Even the fade to poppies was the idea of a studio runner. Is pisstaking better than homage as long as it's not commercialy funded?

And if it's simply the idea of "commercialising" that rankles, why are films, or music videos exempt? The bottom line of both is to make money (music videos were invented for that singular purpose. Adverts for songs.) The shadowy execs funding these artistic endeavors care only for profit. Hence why simplifying it to a common room revolutionary view of "COPRORATIONS COMMERCIALISING WAR!" is reductive. You're just subjectively drawing lines.

In my view, this film (and it is still a short film) has raised awareness, created emotional involvement and paid respectful tribute to a significant event on it's anniversary. And as one of the few genuine human triumphs of that war, celebrating it, in hagiographically romantic terms no less, is as far from denegrating the millions of British war dead (for goodness sake!) as possible. If I was a survivor (a subjective imaginary anecdotal argument I know) I'd rather that given positive attention than the countless depictions of it's futile horror. Does a 2 second orange logo really negate all that? In fact, negating would be coy, rather tip it over into stomach churning immoral disgrace? If it does, have a word in the mirror lads...

The fact it's raising shit loads for charity is of course an added plus. Perhaps suffixed for PR purposes, but so what? Unless you've lived a pure, monkish egalitarian life, what bones could you have with that? In the trade off with ideological fist shaking, it comes out a clear winner. It's like complaining about Comic Relief's pandering, or celebrities using their profile to raise money. One does tangible good, the other satisfies only the righteousness of the complainee.

The best this can do is raise money for charity and create a greater understanding of the strength of humanity in crisis. The worst it can do is encourage someone to buy their microwave carbonara 100ft down the road. For my part, watching it did a lot for the former, and very little for the latter. If anything it sort of made me want to get one of those bars (the ones that go to Charity) and then pop down to my local for fags and milk...but if, perish the thought, a dotty housewife in Neasden is dangerously manipulated into getting her Persil all in ones from a slightly different shop, who the feck cares?

Basically, who's actually losing out here? And who's benefiting? What fight are you fighting, and who are you fighting it for? If you're fighting for a world where no good can be done without the purest of intentions, good luck. Seriously all the best lads, sounds great. But I reckon you'll do more damage than good.

Happy Saturday cockbiscuits!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rado_N

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
5,230
Location
Not Moskva
Sorry lads and lassies, I've been hanging terribly all day. Lets get into it!



PARKLIFE!



You sound like Citizen Smith after binging on Bill Hicks and George Carlin. G'wan with your badself.



It's neither.





Right, lets get arguing bitches!

While I admire the right on view of advertising as the engineered product of cynical plots in shadowy rooms full of finger pyramiding Agent Smiths, I don't share it. It's all a bit House of Cards innit lads? It's an oversimplification to claim anything produced as such has no merit beyond exploitaton. In real life most peices like this are pitched by filmmakers rather than evil marketing droids (along with music videos, advertising it's still the main testing ground for Hollywood.) They're not all the products of the CynicAd100 (though I suspect the 'Webuyanycar' ads may be) If the quality is anything to go by (and it's all we've got to go by) the people who made this did so with good intentions and the utmost respect. Even though I understand the ideological objections, they're just that. Fury in the wind. I prefer to see things in the context of benefit and harm. The idea that being both an advert and a tribute is oxymoronic is a purely self imposed ideological slant that's merits are counterbalanced (and IMO negated) by the benefits such a well made (not to mention charitable) film bring.

Put simply, "how it's done" is of paramount importance. Otherwise you can object to anything. You can, nay should, object to Blackadder Goes Forth for it's pithy light hearted slight on "a million British people dead (for goodness sake!)" Why shouldn't you? The famous final scene in Goodbyeeee wasn't even intended as the moving tribute it became, it was slapped together last minute in the editing room because the original footage was flat. Even the fade to poppies was the idea of a studio runner. Is pisstaking better than homage as long as it's not commercialy funded?

And if it's simply the idea of "commercialising" that rankles, why are films, or music videos exempt? The bottom line of both is to make money (music videos were invented for that singular purpose. Adverts for songs.) The shadowy execs funding these artistic endeavors care only for profit. Hence why simplifying it to a common room revolutionary view of "COPRORATIONS COMMERCIALISING WAR!" is reductive. You're just subjectively drawing lines.

In my view, this film (and it is still a short film) has raised awareness, created emotional involvement and paid respectful tribute to a significant event on it's anniversary. And as one of the few genuine human triumphs of that war, celebrating it, in hagiographically romantic terms no less, is as far from denegrating the millions of British war dead (for goodness sake!) as possible. If I was a survivor (a subjective imaginary anecdotal argument I know) I'd rather that given positive attention than the countless depictions of it's futile horror. Does a 2 second orange logo really negate all that? In fact, negating would be coy, rather tip it over into stomach churning immoral disgrace? Have a word in the mirror lads...

The fact it's raising shit loads for charity is of course an added plus. Perhaps suffixed for PR purposes, but so what? Unless you've lived a pure, monkish egalitarian life, what bones could you have with that? In the trade off with ideological fist shaking, it comes out a clear winner. It's like complaining about Comic Relief's pandering, or celebrities using their profile to raise money. One does tangible good, the other satisfies only the righteousness of the complainee.

The best this can do is raise money for charity and create a greater understanding of the strength of humanity in crisis. The worst it can do is encourage someone to buy their microwave carbona from Sainsbury rather than Tesco. For my part, watching it did a lot for the former, and very little for the latter. If anything it sort of made me want to get one of those bars (the ones that go to Charity) and then pop down to my local for fags and mile...but if, perish the thought, a dotty housewife in Neasden is dangerously manipulated into getting her Persil all in ones from a slightly different shop, who the feck cares?

Basically, who's actually losing out here? And who's benefiting? What fight are you fighting, and who are you fighting it for? If you're fighting for a world where no good can be done without the purest of intentions, good luck. Seriously all the best lads, sounds great. But I reckon you'll do more damage than good.

Happy Saturday cockbiscuits!
Let's take it down to basics - a supermarket chain launches an advert to encourage more people to buy food at its stores by reference to an event in a brutal war. The war itself is already surrounded in mawkish sentiment by a generation who have no living connection with it and Sainsburys have selected the most mawkish (and possibly fictitious) moment of our collective understanding of that war. The real underlying issue is our strange attitude to WWI but Sainsburys could easily have chosen another advertising theme and made a donation all the same.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
The penguins in that JohnLewis ad are propaganda mouthpieces for the fascist triumphalism of heterosexual relationships.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Yes - I saw a pair of them on Will and Grace once.

Oh dear, I've said too much...
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
49,682
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
So it's not Sainsburys but the ad makers that people should be getting annoyed at?


How well they've done it isn't really the issue for me though, it's the fact they've done it at all. As has been said above, they're commercialising war. They're using an event that happenend during a brutal time where millions upon millions died and sugar wrapping it to make people go "oh that's really nicely done, well done Sainsburys, here's my money".

That's cheap and tacky no matter how much money and research went into making it as factually acurate and as tasteful as possible (so people don't get annoyed at them for getting it wrong).
Agree and will be avoiding Sainsburys from now on. Not that they'll care much about that, but it's all I can do.
 

Nick 0208 Ldn

News 24
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
23,721
Guardian 'changed Iraq article to avoid offending Apple'

Guardian facing series of allegations from insiders over its relationship with advertisers, including suggestions that it changed an article on Iraq amid concerns that Apple would object

20 Feb 2015


The Guardian is facing questions over its relationship with advertisers after allegations that it changed a news article amid concerns about offending Apple.

The media organisation has criticised The Telegraph for failing to observe the "Chinese wall" between advertising and editorial coverage, a claim The Telegraph strongly denies.

However, The Telegraph can disclose that in July last year Apple bought wraparound advertising on The Guardian's website and stipulated that the advertising should not be placed next to negative news.

A Guardian insider said that the headline of an article about Iraq on The Guardian's website was changed amid concerns about offending Apple, and the article was later removed from the home page entirely.

The insider said: "If editorial staff knew what was happening here they would be horrified."

The Guardian declined to comment on the specific allegation, but said: "It is never the case that editorial content is changed to meet stipulations made by an advertiser."

The spokesman added: "Apple, in common with other advertisers, sometimes choose to make stipulations about the type of content their ads appear around. If the content on the home page does not meet stipulations, the ad would be removed." Apple declined to comment.

The Telegraph also understands that there are concerns within The Guardian about funded journalism on its website.

It confirmed that it is in discussions with the European Climate Foundation "regarding the funding of journalism projects". The foundation lobbies for climate and energy policies to reduce emissions.

The Guardian is facing further questions over a section of its website sponsored by the Go Ultra Low Group, a group of vehicle manufacturers promoting low-emission vehicles.

The section includes 11 articles devoted to the benefits of low-emission cars, including one entitled "miles of smiles" and another "driving into tomorrow, today".

At no point do the sections or the article disclose that the content has been sponsored by the Go Ultra Low Group, a £2.5 million campaign supported by seven international car manufacturers.

The Telegraph website also carries content produced in association with Go Ultra Low. However, it carries a statement indicating the relationship between its own articles and the car campaign at the top of the page.

The omission represents an apparent contradiction of The Guardian's own editorial guidelines on sponsored content.

Written in February last year – just one month before the Guardian's Go Ultra Low articles first appeared – they state: “The presentation of the content makes clear how the content has been commissioned and produced, and who has funded it.

"One of three labels will appear on this content: 'Sponsored by'; 'Brought to you by'; or 'Supported by'.”

The Guardian said that the sponsor label for the section on low emission cars was "removed in error" two weeks ago when its website was updated and that it would be removing the content.

The Guardian has also been criticised by its own correspondents over its advertising deals.

In April 2014, The Guardian signed a "seven-figure" deal with Unilever, the consumer goods giant, which it said was "centred on the shared values of sustainable living and open storytelling".

However George Monbiot, a Guardian columnist, described it as "another step down the primrose path".

In an article for The Guardian, he said: "Almost every political agent – including some of the NGOs that once opposed them – is in danger of being loved to death by these companies."

A Guardian spokesman said: "George Monbiot, and indeed all of our journalists, are free to – and often do – challenge the activities of companies and organisations that are also our advertisers and sponsors."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/med...ed-Iraq-article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html
 

Mozza

It’s Carrick you know
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
23,353
Location
Let Rooney be Rooney
The Torygraph trying their best to deflect from them being caught not reporting on HSBC for money. The Guardian have not done anything like as bad
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,644
Wow that's desperate from the Telegraph. HSBC must have really stung.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
18,893
Telegraph are doing a great job of making themselves look even bigger cretins.
 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
17,162
No I don't think it's an example of poor journalism. I am aware this thread was made mocking the extreme lefty views of the Guardian but that doesn't mean it doesn't break some very important stories. I've taken your advice and posted it in the American cops thread.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
No I don't think it's an example of poor journalism. I am aware this thread was made mocking the extreme lefty views of the Guardian but that doesn't mean it doesn't break some very important stories. I've taken your advice and posted it in the American cops thread.
Yeah, was thinking that would be a good place for it but couldn't remember what its name was.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
88,996
Location
Centreback
Desert Eagle said:
I am aware this thread was made mocking the extreme lefty views of the Guardian
The Guardian barely makes it to the left of centre.
 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
17,162
The Guardian barely makes it to the left of centre.
Yeah extreme lefty was probably a tad harsh. In comparision to the other British papers it's definitely lefty leaning though that's not necessarily a bad thing.