Posted by walter
on November 3, 2009, 9:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Would anyone here want to write for a paper that ..."
Don’t be disheartened Derek – just read my post a little more carefully! You’re way off centre on what I said.
Also, you must bear in mind that I am talking about A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ANALYSIS OF THE GUARDIAN here, or we will end up in outer space.
I agree with the conclusion of establishment bias as much as anyone else. But I am talking about an assessment of the Guardian’s OVERALL OUTPUT. That means considering what is good, not just what is bad.
Please do not inundate me with good criticisms that people have made of the media. I have been applauding them just as much.
Off you go again, with this of mine:
"Regarding other media, well the BBC for example is rarely unfairly criticised here. Its miles worse than the Guardian."
“Rarely UNFAIRLY criticised here, is what I said. Not “rarely criticised” (!).
To rephrase it - it is rare that the criticism of the BBC here is unfair. Its miles worse than the Guardian. Makes sense at least, surely?
My point that “people follow the Eds blindly” applies to their Guardian criticisms. The assumption is made by the Ed’s that the Guardian’s overall output is characterised by a few examples chosen to illustrate propaganda. And people accept this is the case. That’s what I’m pointing out.
Cheers
Walter
Responses: