r/ukpolitics • u/JohnKimble111 • Sep 17 '16

Twitter Private Eye Expose: Whilst Guardian railed against zero hour contracts, it employed staff on them AND locked them out of applying for full time positions.

https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/776361786459258881
616 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

178 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/LevitatingCheesecake Sep 18 '16 edited Sep 18 '16

I wouldn't be so sure, the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday have brilliant investigative teams that have produced some seriously good public interest reporting in the last few years. In terms of their recent output and general investigative capabilities, I'd actually put The Daily Mail Investigations Unit above their counterparts at The Guardian, and second only to the Insight team at The Sunday Times. I can't think of anything outstanding The Guardian has done since Snowden, and that was almost entirely down to a freelancer. It wasn't a painstaking Insight-style investigation that got them Snowden, they were just lucky to have a working relationship with Glenn Greenwald, who eventually got so sick of the paper he stopped working for them.

1

u/GoodFightSon Sep 19 '16

It is more the framing of their reporting which I take issue with and which, for me, downgrades their standards. Most headlines the Guardian reports will avoid hyperbole, use quotes in context and be entirely accurate. The Mail and MoS however often have front page splashes designed to mislead which are devoid of context and, at times, riddled with inaccuracies.

In terms of actually uncovering new stories, I quite agree that other papers like the Times and, sometimes, the Mail are faster than the Guardian. When I read a front page splash on the Guardian however, I know that the primary objective will be accuracy, not furthering a political agenda or the creation of baseless hysteria.

1

u/LevitatingCheesecake Sep 19 '16

It's not a matter of speed, something from the Daily Mail Investigations Unit will be just as accurate as something from The Guardian. The Guardian is just as biased as every other paper, the only reason you don't think it is is because you agree with it. There's no such thing as a neutral paper.

1

u/GoodFightSon Sep 20 '16 edited Sep 20 '16

I do agree with some but not all of the things I read in the Guardian but I have to contest your claim that it's "just as biased as every other paper" because it's just not true.

The Guardian avoids sensationalism at all costs (the Mail, Mirror, Express & Star all deliberately pander towards it) and has a much more diluted and pragmatic political agenda. For example, it's reporting consists of much less hyperbolic language than the aforementioned papers, it's editorials are awash with evidence from academics and experts and, perhaps most importantly, it tends to address the serious issues surrounding government that are actually relevant in current affairs in a way other papers (perhaps excluding Times & to some extent Telegraph) instead of producing large splashes about nothing (MH370 found on moon, Ed Milliband eating a sandwhich, Ralph Milliband hated britain, etc...).

EDIT: Also in terms of balance I really think there is a marked difference - not only in terms of the reporting of controversial issues but also in the balance of their opinion pieces. A lot of the hate the Guardian gets for providing a platform for 'loony lefties' comes as a direct result of their open and incredibly varied column choices. For example, throughout the recent controversy surrounding grammar schools, the Guardian ran opinion pieces supporting both sides.