Do you read The Guardian? If so, why?

[Ugg]

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) has just launched Guardian America (http://www.guardian.co.uk/america).

The Guardian today launched its US website with an exclusive interview with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The site, Guardianamerica.com, has been designed for the Guardian's growing US audience, which now accounts for nearly a third of Guardian Unlimited's readership.

In the latest audited ABCe figures for August, Guardian Unlimited had 15.9 million unique users, of which the company estimates 5.1 million came from the US.

Here is what wikipedia.org has to say about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_guardian)

I started reading the Guardian around 2001. In the aftermath of 11 September, I felt the US media had jumped onto the "kill all the muslims" bandwagon and came to rely almost exclusively on The Guardian for information about what was happening around the world. I was very impressed by their coverage of the issues.

At the time it was truly a light in the wilderness.

My opinion over time has altered somewhat. Too often the articles are geared towards some mythical suburban London couple who work in the city in some rewarding occupation, have two children, take frequent exotic vacations and pay lip service to the environment.

However, in the last few months, The Guardian website has really begun to change. Like all papers, they're facing declining readership. They've truly begun to expand their website. Not only are they expanding it, they're also making it extremely readable and very Safari friendly. Despite the fact that Jack Schofeld (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/askjack/), their twat of a tech columnist hates Macs.

They've truly expanded their online content and are on the path towards what paper and ink newspapers will eventually become, whatever that may be.

Anyway, my point really is that I've become a much more careful consumer of news since bushco took power. The Guardian, The Economist (conservative rag that it is), Der Spiegel and BIRN (http://www.birn.eu.com) are all part of my daily reading.

I can't imagine being limited solely to the American press, in this day and age it's extremely important to see what's going on around the world.

Is American media failing Americans or is The Guardian's popularity in the US a sign of a true global news market?

[hulugu]

...

Is American media failing Americans or is The Guardian's popularity in the US a sign of a true global news market?

Now there is an interesting question.

I think I've mentioned it before, I think the TV news has become a swamp of bellicose ramblers, stupid human tricks, gotcha series, and worthless banter. And of course, anyone connected to TV news tends to get slimed as well. Talk Radio, by the way, is where this swamp runs into the local waste disposal plant.

But, there are bright spots abound. Much of PBS remains interesting and well-considered, despite attempts to scuzz it up, and there are several papers and magazines that also do thoughtful reporting on the larger world.

One of the great things about the internet is the ability to check on the BBC, the Guardian, the NYTimes, and dozens of foreign papers easily. Even just reading the AP and UPI wires makes the world appear very different.

[Stampyhead]

I've always looked to the CBC and the BBC for news, alongside CNN. Ever notice that the American media very rarely ever has any news about Canada? I think non-US sources are better for international news.

[yetanotherdave]

Yes, but I live in the UK so I pretty much default to the BBC and the guardian. Sometimes the telegraph, but since it all went online, just the guardian and bbc.
My other options are the red top tabloids. the sun, the express, the sport, the mail.
So my choices other than bbc/guardian are (respectively) either sex and celebrities, princess diana, porn and sport or nazi sympathising facist rag.

[xUKHCx]

Yes, but I live in the UK so I pretty much default to the BBC and the guardian. Sometimes the telegraph, but since it all went online, just the guardian and bbc.
My other options are the red top tabloids. the sun, the express, the sport, the mail.
So my choices other than bbc/guardian are (respectively) either sex and celebrities, princess diana, porn and sport or nazi sympathising facist rag.

I default to The indepandant rather that the Telegraph but appart from that this is exactly my stand point. (For me The sun is boycotted, read MacKenzie)

[Much Ado]

Is there an American version of 'The Week'?

I read the Guardian, Economist, BBC, with occasional forays into the Independent for variety.

[Piarco]

Personally its The Guardian (still) during the week, The Observer & The Times on Sundays. However I have recently swung to reading The Guardian online supplimented by the BBC website. More a convenience thing than anything else. Oh yes, and Schofield is a blinkered jackass.
From my time in the States, newspapers offer a narrow USA centric viewpoint. International news is of minor concern and often reduced to a mere page or two. But the idea of a true global news market is a great one, and if the Guardian is proving so popular out there that it can launch a US edition, then bravo America.


Oh crap, I've just posted in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues sub forum :eek:
*Starts backing out of the room. Slowly.*

[Blue Velvet]

I read the Guardian, Economist, BBC, with occasional forays into the Independent for variety.


Me too, although I've started straying onto The Times and The Telegraph's sites to read about business and to get a taste of what broadsheet conservatives are thinking, particularly as sooner or later, the Tories will be back. Know thine enemy. ;)

[Applespider]

I haven't bought a newspaper in months unless I'm going on the long train/flight. I generally read the Guardian's website and the Times website along with the BBC one.

The Times also seems popular with US readers since their comments are often dominated by US locations when I read it in the morning - I'm guessing this is because it publishes in the US evening slot when people are active online.

[calculus]

Another Grauniad reader here. Why do I read it? What else is there?

[Queso]

Never normally read print media these days except for the New Scientist. Online I'll go to the BBC & CNN, then La Vanguardia and Corriere della Sera if I want a non-English language viewpoint on something.

[Much Ado]

Me too, although I've started straying onto The Times and The Telegraph's sites to read about business and to get a taste of what broadsheet conservatives are thinking, particularly as sooner or later, the Tories will be back. Know thine enemy. ;)

That's why I read 'The Week'. It gives me a taste of what the Tories are thinking, without me having to go and patronize their papers. ;)

[Agathon]

The Guardian used to be a left wing paper. Now I guess it is somewhat moderate (rather like the Labour Party). Bunch of Chardonnay socialists these days.

It's a reasonably good paper, and the new blog page is good. The only problem is that it isn't moderated properly. For some reason it is a magnet for right wing American trolls who regularly disrupt what are otherwise fairly reasonable discussions, and the giyus crowd have it on a watchlist as well.

But like all large newspapers, it is increasingly irrelevant. You can get better commentary from a lot of blogs.

[Ugg]

It's a reasonably good paper, and the new blog page is good. The only problem is that it isn't moderated properly. For some reason it is a magnet for right wing American trolls who regularly disrupt what are otherwise fairly reasonable discussions, and the giyus crowd have it on a watchlist as well.

But like all large newspapers, it is increasingly irrelevant. You can get better commentary from a lot of blogs.

Newspaper interactivity is an interesting area. Of the fora that I go to regularly, macrumors is by far the best. Clear rules and moderation are the key to success. I agree that few newspapers have taken the steps necessary to create a healthy comments section. How do you moderate without destroying free speech? I've no immediate answers.

I disagree that large newspapers are becoming irrelevant. Opinion is something anyone can blather on about but investigative reporting requires resources that few bloggers have. I think the opinion pages of major newspapers have become more relevant but blogging will never take over the world.

The Guardian's "24 Hours" has become one of my favorite sections. Good photography often says way more than a few hundred words ever can. I also like the video clips that have begun to appear.

One of the biggest reasons I've turned away from US news sites is that most international reporting is simply taken from AP or Bloomberg and repeated ad nauseum.

[Marble]

Our household gets The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/), an alternative newsmag concerned specifically with American politics. It generally has very fresh and articulate articles from an educated (and leftist) point of view. Of all the American news sources I've read, The Nation stands out for being particularly in touch with the founding ideals of our country.

[dogtanian]

If I do peruse the papers, its usually the Independent as the editorial-style front pages always have some exciting statistics or article on the front page its self.

Mostly I get my news from the BBC website, even if it panders to the masses of morons that are on there. Have you seen the 'most emailed stories' and 'most popular stories' recently? Its currently populated with "Squirrel gets stuck behind bars" and "Sexy lessons for 'cranky' miners". Sounds like the latest and most important world news from the Sun.

[Agathon]

Newspaper interactivity is an interesting area. Of the fora that I go to regularly, macrumors is by far the best. Clear rules and moderation are the key to success.

Pretty much, although having decent software helps. I like posting on Digg and on here, because your comments appear straightaway and there is quoting and smilies and so on. The Guardian is pretty crude in that respect.

I agree that few newspapers have taken the steps necessary to create a healthy comments section. How do you moderate without destroying free speech? I've no immediate answers.

I do. Free speech and worthwhile speech are independent and incompatible goals. Free speech is a general right, not a particular right to say what you want on any particular site. There will always be people who abuse free speech to disrupt discussions and harass others. Shutting them up helps everyone else.

If they want to troll and disrupt, there is always somewhere else for them to go. The problem with the Guardian is that they are squeamish liberals who don't really understand the depth of hate that some people have for them and the lengths that they will do to to disrupt.

I disagree that large newspapers are becoming irrelevant. Opinion is something anyone can blather on about but investigative reporting requires resources that few bloggers have. I think the opinion pages of major newspapers have become more relevant but blogging will never take over the world.

The reportage is OK, although it's best to take it from a wide variety of sources IMHO. After the Iraq war debacle, there are a lot of people who should never work in journalism again. I'm a strong proponent of the idea that if you are as wrong as that, even once, you should be sacked. Yet those mooks continue to be published.

As for opinion, the standard in newspapers is abominably low. It amazes me that Thomas Friedman is still being published. He's an ignorant blowhard in my opinion, and he's the rule rather than the exception. I guess when they say opinion, they just mean "opinion", and not "opinion with some rational or evidentiary support".

The good bloggers are so much better. I think it probably has to do with the format of the web. It is impossible for a newspaper op-ed to include effective references, while a blog can hyperlink to evidence immediately. This makes internet blogging much more powerful than newspaper op-eds, which are just copies of what appears in the paper for the most part.
The Guardian isn't so bad in this respect.

The Guardian's "24 Hours" has become one of my favorite sections. Good photography often says way more than a few hundred words ever can. I also like the video clips that have begun to appear.

Very true.