It's not just the opinion section. While I don't regularly read The Guardian, I do read some articles from it that show up here, and the donation nag at the end of every article is always specifically anti-Trump. Not trying to say that's right or wrong, but definitely doesn't give them a "unpolarized" look.
> the donation nag at the end of every article is always specifically anti-Trump
It’s not really surprising, or even controversial, for a European newspaper to be mostly anti-Trump. They are also anti-fascism and pro-democracy. All perfectly logical.
The Daily Mail was very pro Hitler in the 1930s
Even they, and the rest of the right wing press in the U.K, seem to at most indifferent to Trump at the moment.
Quite odd really. Hitler in the 30s was threatening to invade neighbouring countries, saying Germany needed places like Austria, Czechoslovakia, for national security reasons
> Even they, and the rest of the right wing press in the U.K, seem to at most indifferent to Trump at the moment.
I must admit that I don’t go out of my way to read the Daily Mail. Maybe I should. I wonder which way they are going now, with the conservatives missing in action, Reform intent on sabotaging itself and Trump quite hostile and not very sensitive to the “special relationship” argument. Same for the Telegraph, actually.
> Hitler in the 30s was threatening to invade neighbouring countries, saying Germany needed places like Austria, Czechoslovakia, for national security reasons
The history of British international policies is fascinating. It has always been a combination of splendid isolation and playing continental countries against each other. I can see how there could be a tendency to support anybody just to annoy the French, or to have a strong right-wing government to eliminate the Communists. There is some kind of internal consistency, if you assume that no problem will cross the Channel.
Being a bit polarised (and really most newspapers have a political leaning and this is part of the reason subscribers pick them!) is a very different thing from 'ragebait'.
And really Trump is doing enough to warrant rage, all the guardian needs to do is report on it :)
The ones I see aren't explicitly anti-Trump, but rather pro-press freedom. The one I just saw said "It’s clear that in 2025 rigorously fact-checked journalism will be more vital than ever".
That said, being anti-Trump is not a partisan position for a UK newspaper. Since the Zelenskyy/Oval Office events, he's unpopular even among much of the right. Nowhere near as unpopular as Vance and Musk though.
Relevant paragraph from the linked story:
> Despite The Guardian’s strident anti-Trump fundraising pushes, its broader audience is less partisan, as is the tone of its news coverage. It’s a weird line to straddle. “The appeals that you see at the bottom of articles are really framed around issues of press freedom and our identity and our structure of ownership,” Reed said. “They are not appeals that say, ‘Trump is bad, you need to support The Guardian, we are against Trump.’” Maybe not explicitly. But they are clearly benefitting from this moment and using the new money to hire, with expectations to continue growing its staff in the U.S. this year.
> as is the tone of its news coverage
I read the Guardian for 20 years, it's not less partisan in its output, it's incredibly partisan - just like all the other big papers. Thinking a news source doesn't have a slant is incredibly naive, in my view, but since this is coming from another newspaper or journalist with their own biases and slant, it's at best false and at worst a lie.
I don't see how that's relevant to my comment? I've been using that site for many years for media I'm unfamiliar with and it's only somewhat helpful, and its current ranking of the Graun says nothing about its partisanship (or bias, which in their usage is a misnomer, in my view).
I can pick certain topics and check the Graun to see whether they ever deviate from positive or negative on those topics. That's partisanship, wholly different from where they land on the political spectrum.
I was chiming in to the broader thread not just your comment but I think it adds to your observation about the political bias.
I'd love to get a higher quality source of data on media bias and accuracy. Both of these matter because even reporting facts but emphasizing a certain perspective distorts reality. Inaccuracy or straight out making stuff up is another form of reality distortion.
Fair enough. I'm hopeful that with AI we can get better metrics (although it'll probably add another layer of bias!)
As to the distortions, the only defence against that appears to be to read a wide array of sources. I stopped reading the Guardian after one too many straight up lies but I certainly can't say they're the only ones.
I'm not sure that site is fair.
The Guardian has some statistical errors (600 vs 30), a couple serious and the others less serious (9% vs 3%).
It seems to be being held to a higher standard than media known to be less trustworthy.
Does seem odd to have Fox News, which they describe as exhibiting "promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks", ranked above the guardian for factual reporting, when it describes the guardian as having "numerous failed fact checks over the last five years."
Neither is desirable, but one seems quite definitely worse than the other, and I wouldn't say the one making mistakes is worse than the one they call out as "PANTS ON FIRE"...
They're both ranked mixed which sits below the next level. Maybe fox is at the bottom of that bucket while the Guardian is not?
Also it would depend on the ratio of fact check issues to stories. Maybe Fox News runs a lot more news?
Either way, the analysis seems not crazy, and the Guardian seems biased and not 100% factual.
They have a numeric scale as well, which scores fox at 6.1 and the guardian at 5.7 (I think, I looked yesterday)
The guardian’s editorial is politically biased, it wears that on its sleeve, their opinion pieces come from a moderate-left viewpoint. But its reporting is generally factual, even if they make mistakes sometimes, as reported on that site.
Whereas they literally label some fox links as “PANTS ON FIRE”, I.e deliberate falsehoods. And we all know the story around, say, Dominion, where Fox knew they were lying but carried on. And the site gives them a higher score?
This is enough for me to doubt the site is anywhere near a reliable comparator.
I thought Fox News had declared themselves to be entertainment television only and not the news for legal purposes.
But yes, The Avengers is riddled with inaccuracies and may not reflect yesterdays actual events in New York, London and Wakanda.
> always specifically anti-Trump
A lot of newspapers in Europe are also explicitly pro-Ukraine for instance. How is that different?
And politically being anti Trump is an extremely moderate position.