Supporting The Guardian
#78
Re: Supporting The Guardian
Bought the new format weekend Guardian on Saturday. Interesting pink masthead colour, but overall it's fine.
On Sunday the Observer was sold out so ended up with a Sunday Times for the first time in 10+ years... oh dear me, what a pile of rubbish. It couldn't be more "SE England insecure, aspirational, middle-class up itself" if it came with a Boden catalogue for the mums and an Orvis catalogue for the labrador. Dreadful, dreadful paper.
On Sunday the Observer was sold out so ended up with a Sunday Times for the first time in 10+ years... oh dear me, what a pile of rubbish. It couldn't be more "SE England insecure, aspirational, middle-class up itself" if it came with a Boden catalogue for the mums and an Orvis catalogue for the labrador. Dreadful, dreadful paper.
#79
Re: Supporting The Guardian
Two weekend broadsheets! You're obviously not spending enough time on the internet.
#81
Re: Supporting The Guardian
There really is no need to exaggerate.
In 2016 The Guardian/Observer reported that "More than 85% of public tips on benefit 'frauds' are false"
This is a bit like querying reported crimes on the basis the police didn't find someone guilty of every crime reported.
Okay, it's not quite the same, but down in the actual article you read "Insufficient or no evidence of fraud was discovered" in the 85%.
This could mean the job on the side has already finished or there was evidence tha lone parent had a partner with her but they've now split (nothing ongoing) or even the living together had previously been investigated and without an admission nothing can be done, even though there's ample suggestion but not fact of cohabitation. And it's not uncommon for the allegation that leads nowhere to have been made multiple times, so you could have 9 'problematic' allegations about one person (difficult to prove or plain malicious) and 1 genuine allegation about another person found to be true and it looks like 90% come to nothing when it's really just one out of two.
But at least that report was fair even if the headline was misleading.
Today, in a similar article headed Is this truly Britain – a land that spies on sick and poor people? the Guardian writes "In 2016 the Observer revealed through freedom of information requests that out of a million alleged cases of benefit fraud put forward by the public between 2010 and 2015, a staggering 85% were completely unsubstantiated."
Only because of the link did I discover the original article. So "Insufficient or no evidence" has become "completely unsubstantiated" and that's such a gross distortion.
I don't need convincing that benefit claimants are demonised. I don't need convincing that more attention seems to be paid to them than people fiddling their taxes. 85% says enough on its own without the same screaming/misleading headlines the gutter press is guilty of.
There will be some who could be convinced. but with such obviously misleading headlines they have every reason to doubt such reports they may just say "typical bloody guardian" and they'd be right.
Headline - More than 85% of public tips on benefit 'frauds' come to nothing. It carries the same startling detail and has the same impact. While also being true.
Opening paragraph - "While some allegations are difficult to prove, investigators were unable to find sufficient evidence of fraudulent claims in an astonishing 85% of reports."
Same job done without anyone having an easy reason to dispute what they read.
Why do people with a good case for something ruin it?
In 2016 The Guardian/Observer reported that "More than 85% of public tips on benefit 'frauds' are false"
This is a bit like querying reported crimes on the basis the police didn't find someone guilty of every crime reported.
Okay, it's not quite the same, but down in the actual article you read "Insufficient or no evidence of fraud was discovered" in the 85%.
This could mean the job on the side has already finished or there was evidence tha lone parent had a partner with her but they've now split (nothing ongoing) or even the living together had previously been investigated and without an admission nothing can be done, even though there's ample suggestion but not fact of cohabitation. And it's not uncommon for the allegation that leads nowhere to have been made multiple times, so you could have 9 'problematic' allegations about one person (difficult to prove or plain malicious) and 1 genuine allegation about another person found to be true and it looks like 90% come to nothing when it's really just one out of two.
But at least that report was fair even if the headline was misleading.
Today, in a similar article headed Is this truly Britain – a land that spies on sick and poor people? the Guardian writes "In 2016 the Observer revealed through freedom of information requests that out of a million alleged cases of benefit fraud put forward by the public between 2010 and 2015, a staggering 85% were completely unsubstantiated."
Only because of the link did I discover the original article. So "Insufficient or no evidence" has become "completely unsubstantiated" and that's such a gross distortion.
I don't need convincing that benefit claimants are demonised. I don't need convincing that more attention seems to be paid to them than people fiddling their taxes. 85% says enough on its own without the same screaming/misleading headlines the gutter press is guilty of.
There will be some who could be convinced. but with such obviously misleading headlines they have every reason to doubt such reports they may just say "typical bloody guardian" and they'd be right.
Headline - More than 85% of public tips on benefit 'frauds' come to nothing. It carries the same startling detail and has the same impact. While also being true.
Opening paragraph - "While some allegations are difficult to prove, investigators were unable to find sufficient evidence of fraudulent claims in an astonishing 85% of reports."
Same job done without anyone having an easy reason to dispute what they read.
Why do people with a good case for something ruin it?
#82
Re: Supporting The Guardian
This new Guardian style is so ugly. It's hard to believe that someone actually thinks headlines "highlighted" in yellow boxes, and liberal use of pink and violet colour accents actually looks good? It's gone from a very pleasing understated visual style, to something that looks like a middle school media studies project. Obviously the journalism itself is the same, but the presentation now leaves a lot to be desired. Just awful.
#83
Re: Supporting The Guardian
This new Guardian style is so ugly. It's hard to believe that someone actually thinks headlines "highlighted" in yellow boxes, and liberal use of pink and violet colour accents actually looks good? It's gone from a very pleasing understated visual style, to something that looks like a middle school media studies project. Obviously the journalism itself is the same, but the presentation now leaves a lot to be desired. Just awful.
#87
Re: Supporting The Guardian
I was surprised to see this heading in the Guardian today
Will women be equal to men in 100 years?
It's the last place I expected to see recognition that men are better than women.
Will women be equal to men in 100 years?
It's the last place I expected to see recognition that men are better than women.
#88
Re: Supporting The Guardian
Don't mock The Guardian for offering womens' views when Jacob Rees-Mogg, a genuine contender for the Conservative Party leadership (and PM?) proudly declares being a father of six but never has changed a nappy.
#89
Re: Supporting The Guardian
Perish the thought. It would be nice to see the occasional "right of reply" though
.......................................
Pleasantly surprised this morning. The Guardian has a habit of running articles on clothing, holidays, weekend breaks and such leisurely things at budget or affordable prices and they are very often laughably expensive and beyond the reach of most.
Today they had an 'affordable' Mountain Bike which, based on past experience I expected to be a minimum £900. But it was £495.
Admittedly £200 would be more my range (the most off road for me would have been a gritty bike path) but I imagine there would be a fair number thinking that wasn't that bad if you are an off road MTBiker.
But then they spoiled it with a £180 helmet accessory.
Profligacy resumed.
.......................................
Pleasantly surprised this morning. The Guardian has a habit of running articles on clothing, holidays, weekend breaks and such leisurely things at budget or affordable prices and they are very often laughably expensive and beyond the reach of most.
Today they had an 'affordable' Mountain Bike which, based on past experience I expected to be a minimum £900. But it was £495.
Admittedly £200 would be more my range (the most off road for me would have been a gritty bike path) but I imagine there would be a fair number thinking that wasn't that bad if you are an off road MTBiker.
But then they spoiled it with a £180 helmet accessory.
Profligacy resumed.
#90
Re: Supporting The Guardian
Perish the thought. It would be nice to see the occasional "right of reply" though
.......................................
Pleasantly surprised this morning. The Guardian has a habit of running articles on clothing, holidays, weekend breaks and such leisurely things at budget or affordable prices and they are very often laughably expensive and beyond the reach of most.
Today they had an 'affordable' Mountain Bike which, based on past experience I expected to be a minimum £900. But it was £495.
Admittedly £200 would be more my range (the most off road for me would have been a gritty bike path) but I imagine there would be a fair number thinking that wasn't that bad if you are an off road MTBiker.
But then they spoiled it with a £180 helmet accessory.
Profligacy resumed.
.......................................
Pleasantly surprised this morning. The Guardian has a habit of running articles on clothing, holidays, weekend breaks and such leisurely things at budget or affordable prices and they are very often laughably expensive and beyond the reach of most.
Today they had an 'affordable' Mountain Bike which, based on past experience I expected to be a minimum £900. But it was £495.
Admittedly £200 would be more my range (the most off road for me would have been a gritty bike path) but I imagine there would be a fair number thinking that wasn't that bad if you are an off road MTBiker.
But then they spoiled it with a £180 helmet accessory.
Profligacy resumed.