Don't Read The Guardian

The Guardian believes they are a beacon for the best in news and opinion; unfortunately they are no more than opinionated-news. Infuriatingly, The Guardian was voted as the most trusted newspaper in the UK, so not everyone will get behind this rant, however I feel the need to share my opinion.

If newspapers are racehorses then The Guardian doesn't just fail to keep up, it dressage-trots off in the wrong direction. Embarrassingly, The Guardian doesn't know the difference between an opinion piece and news. However, pretending to be 'unbiased' isn't an issue unique to just The Guardian, but they suffer harder from the mistake then any other, asking for donations from online readers as if they are Wikipedia or some other actually useful online platform.

Whatever you do, don't swat a fly with this chauvinistic tabloid, heaven forbid the fly might accidentally read some of it and lose it's one remaining brain cell. Or worse, the fly might try to lecture you on why right-wing post-liberals are the real reason for a future fall of Western-pressured globalisation.

The reason The Guardian stands out in particular with the most intolerable frequency is because of the way the writers of the newspaper/website truly believe their farts smell like roses. Here is a quote from Patrick Collinson: "there is an early sign that supermarket panic buying may be on the wane, if figures from the online bank Starling are an accurate guide to how shoppers are behaving". No Patrick, 'Starling bank' is not an accurate indication for consumer shopping at all. An accurate indication for spending at supermarkets such as Tesco would be Tesco customer numbers. Of course, we wouldn't expect Patrick to go and find this out because that would be actual journalism, so before writing a pathetic two-hundred word piece on this 'amazing' topic, perhaps do some research. Why use Starling Bank as an example in the first place? A six year old online-only minor league bank is unlikely to show any real data about the general public. Insultingly a large portion of this write-up are copy/paste quotes and this was published on the front page of The Guardian website as NEWS, not an opinion, but news. This is where the issue lies; a click-bait headline with weak quotes, from a weak source.

The fact that Patrick has looked at arguably irrelevant data to form a conclusion about consumer spending constitutes an opinion of what that data represents to him. Someone once told me that a lack of bias is impossible to find, because everyone forms opinions based on previous knowledge or understanding. It would be impossible for a writer at The Guardian to be unbiased because even before a reporter or journalist starts to write, they have formed some sort of opinion about the chosen subject.

The Guardian has been showering out watered-down Pinot Grigio whilst shouting 'top-quality Champagne' for years and the public is lapping it up from puddles of misinformation.

Look at the irony of an article on Vocal.media calling out The Guardian because they post opinions as fact. Well this is opinion, and it will not be anything else. The required word count for an article on this platform is six-hundred, which means a large amount of content from The Guardian would be rejected from being published on sites like these because they would be likely lacking in content and fleshed out ideas. Posting limited words is less work and less time consuming. It's all about the click-bait headline and enticing strapline, and the rest is filler.

It is impossible not to form a bias. As soon as we are old enough to choose our favourite colour or perhaps even before then, we have enough personal experience to form bias against and for certain things. The quicker The Guardian stops pretending they publish without any, the better.

IMO- Max T