Slashdot Mirror
Inside the Guardian and the Snowden Leaks
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting and thoughtful article in the New Yorker about the inner workings of the Guardian newspaper. It explains a lot about why the Snowden files ended up there and not elsewhere. Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right. An illustrative quote about Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor: 'He has a really useful piece of equipment that most editors don't have, which is a spinal column.' I would encourage everyone to read this, and if you support the type of journalism the Guardian has been engaging in, think about buying a subscription. The article also talks about the financial side of the newspaper business, and real journalism is not going to happen unless somebody pays for it."
Given all the snark on Slashdot about the sorry state of modern journalism, it is well worth a read to see one organization that got it right.
And that's where you biffed it. The Guardian is as heavily biased as Fox News is. But you tend not to see biases towards things you agree with as clearly as things you disagree with, so I forgive your temporary bout of insanity in making that statement. Maybe they got this one instance right, maybe not. An entire slashdot thread has been created just so we can scream at, er, I mean, debate, the veracity of that statement. But... the Guardian is biased. Sorry man.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
My opinion of The Guardian, they are better at standing tall on a big story, but they're totally full of **** most of the time. They run political lies like a tabloid, just lie lie lie lie lie. They stand tall behind their lies just as much as their scoops. And something like Snowden's leaks, there is no journalism involved. They didn't investigate something and get to some answers. Somebody dropped a golden egg in their lap, and their editors have the business sense to jump on it strong. That's the only reason any of it is even true. And in the first week of the Snowden leaks, they were actually phrasing a lot of it in a dishonest way; speculating about things they later reported on, that we now know the details of, which were typically not what they were speculating. So they managed to tarnish even that. If you look at those first weeks, the Washington Post was giving more honest, less sensational reporting, based on the same leaks. And the Post is a pretty awful rag.