voxish wrote:
Leighton wrote:
These days I avoid the agenda ridden rag that is the Grauniad but that was a great read
It seems he really does feel he can go on and on and who's to say he won't
However if League 1 at 40 proves too great a barrier then a win at Wembley would be a brilliant end to the playing story side of his Dons journey
The Guardian isn't an 'agenda rag' any more than the Times or the Independent. This ridiculous prejudice was put about a decade or so ago to discredit opposition to the tories (it wasn't really a big deal before then). I don't agree with everything they write (which is mostly pretty neutral anyway - if you want polemic read the New Statesman) any more than I agree with everything I read in the Mail or the Times. To be fair they occasionally lack objectivity - some of their pieces about AFCW, if they deign to mention us it's as biased and cliched as anything in the Metro or Evening Standard.
This piece was good though.
I never said that other papers don't have an agenda. However the Guardian's agenda is so transparent it has become a parody of itself
It's the left wing version of the equally risible Mail
I'll summarize my feelings on it with this Twitter account that points out a few things.....(sadly no longer updated)
https://twitter.com/SoMuchGuardianI personally enforced a complete ban on it after the Guardian chose to report the death of David Cameron's six year old son Ivor by leading the article with a suggestion that Cameron's grief was 'priviliged pain'...
..I found that particularly hateful and indicative of their agenda ....it what their journalists really feel and it was nice seeing them get called out for it
Any sense of balance they once had in journalism went years ago
I will only read it now if someone shares an article of interest to me