Why the Guardian is good for you!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond, Jan 15, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As well as top quality articles from our Minty an interesting letter in the paper today!

    Having noted the appearance of the official British army fitness programme last week, I have to say that it's reassuring to see some acknowledgment from within my own organisation that the Guardian is seen as a respected heavyweight sparring partner.

    As a serving army officer, I regard a daily read of the Guardian as essential.

    It may be heavy going and at times it might verge on the unpalatable - but it challenges any idle intellectual preconceptions I may have, dislodging them and flushing them away, while keeping my brain in good working order.

    In this respect I feel that the Guardian does for my intellect what a large bowl of bran flakes does for my bowels, and so I am reluctant to give up either.

    Colonel Mark Hainge
    Salisbury, Wiltshire
     
  2. makes you come out with shit?
     
  3. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    He'll be on the fast-track promotion list to the top of the politi . . . armed forces hierarchy if this gets out then.
     
  4. Michael White, political editor, that staunch defender of Gordon Brown.


    Hmmm, I dip into the Guardian for the quality of it's journalism but as for the line taken by it's editorial, forget it.
     
  5. Are you certain Colonel Mark Hainge of Salisbury, Wiltshire, isn't some Trot with a sense of humour? Does the good Colonel appear on any list, that is, a list not compiled by MI5?
     
  6. There's nothing wrong with the Guardian (apart from Polly Toynbee, the Weekend magazine, and the assumption that Labour is A Good Thing), but the readers have an incredible ability to fuck me off:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,,2240453,00.html

    :x
     
  7. But sometimes they f$ck off the right people? Remember when they organised a reader's email tree to urge US voters during the last US Presidential election not to vote Bush? Oh how the Septics whinged!

    Then there was the Charlie Brooker incident when he (jokingly) encouraged readers to assassinate George Bush. All hell broke loose, the FBI became involved, enraged Yanks put Brooker on death lists run by extremely hairy Oregon survivalists, evangelical Christians prayed for him (in between oiling their rifles and ogling their daughters) and the Guardian editor shamefully caved in, filleted the article on the website and grovelled to the humourless Yanks.

     
  8. Jason Bourne reads the Guardian!
     
  9. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    As previously posted:

    This is cr@p that the Guardian should not be publishing...

    http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1687829,00.html

    Apparently pistol shooters should sack it in favour rifles 'cos its all just about firing bullets at targets........well we have cricket so why not ban all other ball sports.....and we have not won anything with pistols anyway (maybe he should google Nick Gault and his new OBE.....)
     
  10. I'm afraid that is typical of the sort of bien passant lunatic views held by some of the readership. Like you, its the main reason it gets up my nose - which is a shame as some of the stories are well worth reading.

    I often think that many of the letters that are submitted to the letters page, are hand scrawled in green ink. I once worked with a prolific Guardian letter writer. He had a beard, was a cycling Nazi and a militant vegitarian. He fitted every stereotype. He was also a cnut.
     
  11. Last time I looked at the Torygraph it was knee deep in articles extolling Boris Johnson, and seemingly endless reports of vicars behaving badly with choir boys. It was also owned by Conrad Black. The Times, on the other hand, kept publishing articles - penned by staff journalists - saying how utterly, wonderfully, blindingly, brilliant Sky TV is. Does Max Hastings still write for the Guardian? Has he been forgiven in military circles for his behaviour in the Falklands? It was a long time ago.
     
  12. The Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers who live on their own private island, no doubt surrounded by Sharks with fricking laser beams.
     
  13. The Telegraph's generally right on domestic issues and defence, but hopelessly clueless on foriegn affairs. Has by far the best obituaries.

    The Guardian's generally wrong on domestic issues, doesn't understand defence, but good on international relations, esp. small Central Asian countries that the Telegraph doesn't realise exist unless we're likely to invade... doesn't believe in war, unless it's to intervene in wartorn countries with pink fluffy tanks that don't hurt people, drive on biofuel and fire Chelsea buns.
     
  14. The Times ability to report anything factual and unbiased is lacking. Yes all its staff are pretty natty with their english and it is easy to read but it has stopped being objective. Also it has Jeremy C which is ther other redeaming feature.

    The only excuse for the reading the Guardian is to "know thine enemy", it is far to lefty and upon reading the Jobs section you discover where all the taxpayers money goes and then suffer cardiac arrest after reading the job titled "lesbian outreach care worker need to impoverished ethnic minority empowerment"



    The only paper worth reading is the FT.

    TMS
     
  15. Spot on. It always had the best industrial relation coverage. The leaders of industry didn't want guff about how Arthur Scargill ate pussy cats, but did want to know exactly how the power lay in the NUM National Executive.

    No other Morning Star readers here I suppose? Similar to the FT: proper hard nosed journalism, not a bad sports section, and a decent editorial line (Marxist-Leninist in the day. God knows what it is now. Green? Liberal? New Age?)