The Guardian is not the example I would have chosen. They are among the most politically biased publications you could have chosen. Simply being backed a by a non-profit doesn’t mean they can’t be pushing an agenda.

They are truthful not neutral. You don't have to like or read them. That's journalism and free speech.

Truthful doesn't mean unbiased. Different people who agree on the facts but have different values may come to different conclusions about what is or isn't newsworthy and worth mentioning.

The Guardian is the worst example you could come up with, it is openly politically militant and its opinion pages headlines are hysterical.

It's the British style, but it doesn't make it bad journalism. You don't have to read or like it (or the opinion pieces), but their members clearly do. I was responding to the topic of "serving corporate political interests".

The guardian openly states on their website that they are anti-trump. So going to posit they may be less that neutral.

From the banner on their home page:

"From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, billionaire owners control much of the information that reaches the public. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy"

also

"After Trump remarked that “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend,” The Guardian blasted out a defiant fundraising email stating, “Trump, we don’t want to be your friend” and urging readers to contribute a year-end gift."

With the overwhelming trends towards winner takes all, regulatory capture (or elimination) and western oligarchs this seems like a valuable perspective. Some of the balance we need is on the other side of the scale from the power; I'd like to subscribe to a paper that always stakes out oppo the current ruling party & power.

Last I am going to post on this, but its fascinating the pushback even on this site against what I wrote. Everything I wrote is literally from the Guardian's site. People are insistent though, not that they did not post it but that I am still somehow wrong and that my posting it is evidence of some sort of bias. We have become so echo chambered that we demand that others ignore the evidence of their own eyes. Some even arguing that it's right for news to be biased as long as its against Trump.

I want all news sources to be honest, that lack of neutrality is exactly what led us to the current situation where there isn't a single trust worthy news source. You cant go anywhere just to get the facts. You want another Trump, a biased media is exactly how you get it.

If you read carefully, that's not anti-Trump, that's nuanced. A newspaper isn't supposed to be friends with politicians - it's supposed to report on them critically and truthfully.

I would agree with you if you can point to a similar post being made by them when Biden was elected.

This is an weird take considering:

- trump's previous failure as president

- his history of rape, fraud, and other crimes

- knowing what we now know about his first weeks of his lawless second term, and things are only getting worse

A newspaper is supposed to be neutral, if you think Trumps prior behavior absolves them of neutrality then they are not a newspaper they are an opinion paper. Which is fine, as long as everyone acknowledges the slant. Not really sure why you are upset that I want my news to be neutral

Friend, I'm not sure I follow you. My claim is still they are anti--trump based purely on their statements. You may attempt to twist their words however you like but taken at face value, they are clearly anti-trump. Their banner literally states: "This is what we're up against"

"If you are not for us, you are against us." Or how exactly does "we don't want to be Trump's friend" become "we are anti-Trump"?

Friend, I am not really sure what you are arguing. There website fundraising banner literally says they are against Trump, Musk and the rest. I'm not the one saying it, they are. If you disagree, your argument is with the Guardians editors.