That means nothing when Katharine Viner is the editor. There are all sorts of charitable trusts, for instance UK Lawyers for Israel and Jewish National Fund which are supposed to have no political affiliation, but we all know they do. Who sits on their boards and who do they listen to is the key question. I use those as instances because the Guardian is as pro-Israel as any other right wing UK media and its coverage of Gaza shows that. The Guardian is probably the sneakiest newspaper in the UK because it passes itself off as some liberal to left wing outlet that promotes feminism, LGBTQ issues and as such is seen as âwokeâ. Just check how often it presents IDF narratives word for word even when they are so obviously lies or distortion. When it comes to hardline geopolitics the Guardian is basically as solidly aligned to western hegemonic values as the Daily Telegraph and is the scorn of all genuine independent jounalists.
FT is a very good choice too.
Admit it, youâve never read or listened to Al Jazeera because you wouldnât laugh otherwise. Of course, AJ gets pilloried by the right wing media as biased because it actually does present a pretty unbiased view of middle east politics and a very good view of geopolitics in general. You should check it out without any preconceptions.
The Guardianâs biggest problem is that itâs got some decent journalists, but the quality doesnât seem to be institutional. So itâs rather hit-or-miss with the articles. Some pieces are really well-written, hard-hitting journalism, and the rest are at best regurgitation/pale imitations of press releases.
You must be new here if you think Iâm basing my view off âright wing mediaâ.
Itâs quite the opposite. Al Jazeera does decent journalism sometimes when itâs issues that do not concern the Middle East directly. Otherwise itâs essentially a mouthpiece for the Qatari government.
What do you have against her? I donât know her or her career, but a quick check on Wikipedia seems to show a quite decent woman? So what have I missed there?
I didnât suggest that you were personally influenced by right wing media but thatâs the common perception. Al Jazeera is considered a good, balanced source by impartial and independent journalists and itâs middle east coverage for me is balanced. Certainly it is far more instructive on Israel and Gaza than any other. I canât rule out it it may favour Qatari issues in some cases but overall it is sound and a LOT less government influenced than the BBC.
But donât believe me, check out what respected indepenent journalists and news sources say about the Guardianâs true face. Viner was elected to her role despite Alan Rusbridger and other editiorial seniors expressly favouring Janine Gibson. However Gibson who ran the US operation was instrumental in backing Edward Snowden to the hilt whereas Viner was ardently anti-Snowden from the start. Thereâs a lot of skulduggery on the Guardian believe me.
EDIT - for the record I agree that the Guardian does do some excellent journalism and investigations but when it comes to politics, especially international stuff, it is to be viewed with suspicion.
There are some missing early years in the career of Oxbridge educated Katharine Vinerâs resume, some of them spent on extensive âholidaysâ in the middle east - Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the West Bank and other, yâknow, noted resort destinations.
But just look where she positions the paper on hardline geopolitics. Itâs hardly impartial and you just need to be wary IMO of accepting that the Guardian is âaboveâ all that stuff.
I donât know what you mean with âhardline geopoliticsâ to be honest. What I know is that this paper isnât owned by a multi-billionaire, nor by a corporation or the state. As such, for me at least, they are a credible, priofessional and independent information source, which isnât tainted by vested financial or political interests, like so many other newspapers.
You think Katharine Viner is pro-Israel? Or am I mis-understanding?
Itâs certainly not a Murdoch rag, for sure. However, they are all tainted by political interests. It is credible in many respects but not to the extent that you can assume its stance is impartial. That would be naive. Viner started out as a left winger but is seen as malleable to political influence by senior staffers. Sheâs a champion of âboth sideismâ on Israel and her approach to backing away from criticism of our intelligence services is a distinct departure from normal Guardian policy. The paperâs Ukraine approach is utterly western-centric. I donât want this stuff in media and thatâs why online independent journalists tend to get my vote.
Yes, itâs hard to argue that her editorial approach to Israel and the conflict is not pro-Israel by how it chooses to present information and what it omits. The Guardian falls over itself to present Israelâs version of every action no matter how egregious. A comparison with itâs Ukraine coverage is telling.
Going to need some actual examples and receipts. Along with Alan Rickman she co-edited a play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie, based on the diaries and emails of Rachel Corrie. An activist killed in the Gaza Strip by an IDF operated bulldozer. Call me old fashioned, but that doesnât sound like the actions of someone pro-Israel?
Replying to myself here - probably this - How the Guardianâs Editor-in-Chief Caved to Pro-Israel Pressure | Novara Media
The Rachel Corrie stuff was done more than 20 years ago though, long before she was made editor in chief. To be clear I donât know what her personal politics are but the policy she adopts for the Guardian is pro-Israel by reason of the manner in which Israelâs genocidal actions are given equivalence with that of a nation defending itself - a position I think we are all way past by now. There is none of the strident opposition that is directed at Russia for instance. It is common knowledge and editorial staff have publicly criticised her willingness to be influenced by pro-Israel sources, particularly the Board of Deputies. Israel critics like columnist Owen Jones have been yanked off any Gaza coverage while Tel Aviv softies like Jonathan Freedland are free to write tut-tut puff pieces on the issue. Itâs not overt anti-palestinian coverage but the tone is appeasing.
I donât think it is possible to get a completely unbiased news source. Clearly some are much, much better than others, and should be towards the top of the list. The Guardian is very clearly in that category, even if it is not perfect.
The media that most people consume here in America is a disgrace. It is bought and paid for by billionaires with a very clear agenda. Little depth or analysis. Skewed talking points. Unchecked lies aplenty.
Critiquing the Guardian against that backdrop is like straining a gnat from a bowl of 
That piece covers a lot of issues and thereâs a lot more like that too. Sheâs seen as very sensitive to criticism from the jewish media too. I read that criticism of MI5 and MI6 has been clamped down on and that is a big red flag for me. Sheâs even annoyed the trans lobby that the Guardian is supposed to epitomise and responded by reducing pieces by gender critical writers. In short, the Guardian under Viner tries to be all things to all people and thatâs not what newspapers are there for. It should be holding authroity to account, not currying favour. I read the Guardian but Iâm always sensitive to whether the message is balanced.
I canât argue with that assessment of US media. But trust is a nuanced thing and when you canât trust a newspaper about genocide coverage then it shouldnât be at the top of anyoneâs list.
I first came across AJ a few years back when I was in Jordan, and the only Ennglish channel I got in my hotel was AJ News, and I have to say it was really interesting to see the level of non-bias in their programming.
It is completely different to the AJ channel in UK
Ah , and there we have it , the real reason for your distaste. I have to hand it to you mate , you really have surpassed yourself with some of the absolute codswollop you have posted in these exchanges.
I started watching/reading AJ while I was in Saudi years back and still use it. What I like is the breadth of the middle east coverage and the interesting angles that only a local news service can provide. Great access to sources too. I like to read a western media source on an issue and then contrast it with the AJ version which is invariably fairer.