When, exactly, was this period of unbiased/opinion-free event coverage in UK journalism you apparently long for? You rail against “modern journalism” like it’s some kind of recent downhill slide, a by-product of modern political biases, but when was this not the case?

You're choosing to fixate on a characterization of the past you believe I implied - which isn't an important aspect of my comment.

Being unbiased, and offering multiple points of views is something mature readers value - both in the past and today. It is something a journalist's should aspire to as a matter of professionalism.

Can you make the honest argument that you want a news outlet to not even try to be unbiased when reporting to YOU? My experience with people who advocate biased journalism is that they want others to consume biased journalism that they agree with - because they believe they are immune to the bias.

If you are not paying for news, you are the product and not the consumer. And I specifically choose my news outlets based upon my perception of their quality of journalism, which heavily includes their degree of bias and the depth of their coverage.

I'd like to hear what publications are less biased (I won't write not biased because I don't believe in magic or miracles). Can you name just one?

I get the impression you want me to name a specific publication so you can argue that it is just as biased as The Guardian. ...which isn't the point of this conversation.

Can we simply agree that being less biased is better than being more biased, as a fundamental principle?

Or are you honestly making the argument that you prefer more bias in news you read?

I'm arguing that you can't name something like what you described.

Can we agree that being less biased is better than being more biased?

Prior to modern journalism, newspapers were directly funded by political interests. Now that advertising dollars no longer provide a somewhat unbiassed source of income, publications like the guardian are relying on direct donations from their readers and I suspect that introduces some bias as well.

> It merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong".

True. There appears to be no self-reflection that in the future, today's political and moral fashions will be seen as bad, in much the same way that the political/moral fashions of the past are seen as bad now.

Reminds me of the BBC news headline this morning: "The Conservatives have inflicted a _crushing_ defeat on Labour...". The BBC shouldn't be dramatising the news, they should just be reporting it factually.

That was a direct quote about the labour party by a member of the labour party, so that is factual reporting.

> Diane Abbott, an ally of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, tweeted: "Crushing defeat for Labour in Hartlepool. Not possible to blame Jeremy Corbyn for this result. Labour won the seat twice under his leadership. Keir Starmer must think again about his strategy."

Granted though they've toned down the headline of the article to "Elections 2021: Conservatives hail historic Labour defeat in Hartlepool by-election"

News sources should not be using direct quotes for their article titles. That's just a way to skirt the illusion of unbiased reporting.

Unironic: I get more actual news from the world socialist website than from the Guardian. Aside, there is axios.com, or the news section of Wikipedia.

Then pay for it.

I do. I pay for the WSJ, the Economist, and a hand full of others.

The Guardian is terrible these days. You will notice that all the mistakes that they admit to are things from decades ago. There is absolutely no reflection on the current positions that they take. It's essentially more virtue signalling from them.

That’s journalism today. I read an article about the voting changes in Texas.

“Massive backwards move in voting rights”. Wow! This sounds bad. So I search the article for what changed (so I can judge for myself). A few paragraphs about the civil right battles of the 60’s. A few more paragraphs about attempts to stop the new law. Ok...one sentence with vague comments about the changes - harder to do absentee ballots (how?) and you limits on helping people vote (like what?). Ok. Well those could be good or bad, depends on the details, right?

Well I finished the article and I still don’t know what these changes are or whether they are bad, because a 10 page news article didn’t explicitly say what they are.

And I’m not arguing the newspaper is wrong in their conclusion. But I read the news to be educated, not force fed opinions.

A better approach would be - explicitly lay out what the changes are (quoting the law is good!), then interview people from both sides on their viewpoints. I’m smart enough to understand the changes and determine which side is right. Hell, maybe both sides are kind of right? Crazy I know.