The Guardian

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Grauniad)
Jump to: navigation, search
In case you haven't guessed, this is their logo.
You gotta spin it to win it
Icon media.svg
Stop the presses!
We want pictures
of Spider-Man!
Extra! Extra!
The Guardian is such a biased, multi-culti, middle-class, left-wing rag, it could be Swedish.
Pat Condell, complimenting Sweden[1]

The Guardian (known as The Observer for its Sunday edition)[notes 1] is a British centre-left newspaper (beloved of organically-grown, muesli-wearing, sandal-hugging, tree-eating, disabled, lesbian, atheistic, feminist social workers and teachers) with one of the most popular websites in the United Kingdom.[2] Unsurprisingly (thanks to a certain hypothesis), the comments on their Internet 24/7 blogorama Comment is Free can be somewhat problematic. But at least it's sort of free, so we can't complain too much.


Its columnists include David Mitchell, a rare breed of politically-aware comedians,[3] and it also hosts the anti-science and anti-mathematic screeds of Simon Jenkins[4] and a variety of entertaining writings on gender from the likes of Suzanne Moore and Julie Bindel.

Former columnists include self-confessed misanthrope Charlie Brooker,[5], who since moved on to television; excellent science writer and sceptic Ben Goldacre[6] (who had his legal fees paid by the paper during his lawsuit with woo-peddler Mattias Rath); and Ariane Sherine,[7] who was responsible for setting up the atheist bus campaign, although more recently she has concentrated on comedy.

Its science section also sometimes features RationalWiki contributor The Lay Scientist (under his IRL name Martin Robbins).[8] During the 2010 general election Robbins wrote analytical commentaries to the major parties' responses to science-related questions asked by Brian Cox, Simon Singh and David Nutt.

More recently, Glenn Greenwald[9] has done massive work covering privacy issues post-PATRIOT. In 2013, he formally resigned and is working on new projects.

The Grauniad[edit]

What's wrong with this picture?

The papper was once notorios for it's many toyps and other ovbious mstakes, so that Private Eye always refereed to it as "The Grauniad" after it was sad to hve msprinted it's own name - an epethet which bcame comon usige. redirects to the propper name, and Wikiipeida has a similar reedirect.

Example: "The audience was encouraged to wander over the stage and activate hidden censors"

Comment is free[edit]

Comment is free, but facts are scared
—P. C. Scott[citation NOT needed]
The Dawkins inspired "atheist ranters" come out in force on Guardian pages. They hate organised religion with a zeal, they deride the faithful as mentally retarded, they gibber on about spaghetti monsters and sky pixies, as if such talk actually added anything meaningful to the debate. They debase Dawkins' own arguments through grotesque simplifications and they adore the man almost reverentially. It is easy to picture these sycophantic drones smugly typing their intolerant bile, glowing with inner pride at their own rebellious contrariness.
Another Angry Voice, a left-leaning internet blogger[10]

Comment is Free (CiF) is the comment and opinion... "section" on The Guardian's website that publishes content submitted by, well, potentially anyone. Authors are free to suggest themselves, and, if approved, get to write a column. While there are some editorial standards, it's not considered a part of the Guardian proper and it's not supposed to reflect the paper's stance - it's intended to be something of an open forum in the spirit of attracting page views the open exchange of ideas, page views intellectual debate, and page views the accumulation of hundreds of posts with varying level of stupidity in the comment section of each column.

Due to the controversial nature of some contributions, there's the inevitable suspicion that The Guardian is trolling its own audience for page views, and even then there are "WTF were they thinking when they approved this?" moments, such as when CiF invited contributions from members of the Occupy St Paul's movement in 2011 and Freeman on the land garbage got a free airing in a national newspaper.[11]

The comment section on the comment is free articles is naturally even worse, being filled with Alt-Right talking points, anti-semitism, conspiracy theories and just plain weirdness to the brim. The editorial staff tries to moderate and patrol, but... There is only so much you can do. We know the feeling.


In the past few years, the paper was accused of supporting anti-Semitic commentators. In the past, it has written approvingly of Gilad Atzmon, portraying him as a mere pro-Palestine activist and glossing over his dodgy statements about "the Holocaust religion" and Jewish conspiracies;[12] however, a September 2011 column by Andy Newman finally denounced Atzmon and criticised the British left for ignoring anti-Semitism.[13] The paper has also written approvingly about Raed Salah, depicting him as an innocent victim of prejudice rather than a purveyor of medieval anti-Jewish sentiment.[14] In 2012, the paper was criticized for running a cartoon which depicted Benjamin Netanyahu as a "puppet master" for members of the British Government, including Tony Blair — playing on the anti-Semitic stereotype that Jews are cunning manipulators and that Blair isn't capable of thinking on his own.[15] Guardian editors seemed to have embraced false dichotomy in this aspect — that you have to have to be a raving nut of an anti-Zionist to critique Israel's human rights record.

Senior members of the British Parliament have claimed that The Guardian may be guilty of treason in leaking data given to them by Edward Snowden regarding the NSA's spying operations. British Prime Minister David Cameron has ridiculously accused The Guardian of "aiding the enemies" of the United Kingdom.[16]


The Guardian crossword, a standard British cryptic-style puzzle in which the definition is only part of each clue, is a long-time favourite of cruciverbalists. It is devised by a rotating team of some 30 compilers, each with his/her characteristic style and special interests. Access to the online version is free, and various cheat levels are available up to an instant solution of the entire puzzle at the click of a mouse.

Style guide[edit]

The Guardian's style guide, edited by David Marsh and Amelia Hodsdon,[17] sets out the rules for its journalists and writers to use in their prose. It is regarded as one of the most authoritative style guides for journalism in British English (along with those of The Economist and the Daily Telegraph).[18][19] This requires making a variety of determinations not only about punctuation, capitaliation, variant spellings, common errors and clichés to watch out for, and English usage but also about how to describe places and people, for instance whether to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.[20] Hence it makes various judgement calls on what to call indigenous peoples and ethnic groups, what to call people with AIDS ("people with Aids" not "victims of Aids"), usage of phrases such as "alt-right" (should be in quotes and "evidence-based"), "gay" (an adjective not a noun), whether to capitalise "Google" (even when a verb), "Gypsies ("are recognised as an ethnic group under the Race Relations Act, as are Irish Travellers, hence capped up"), "tabloid" (to be used of traditional redtops like the Sun but " not shrunken broadsheets"), "schizophrenia" (only for those with the specific mental condition), and accurate health reporting (antio-viral drug Tamiflu is not to be described as a flu vaccine).


See also[edit]


  1. Effectively - The Observer began as a separate Sunday newspaper in 1791 and predates the then Manchester Guardian by 30 years. Guardian Media Group acquired The Observer in 1993 as its Sunday organ.