Tactics that would make the gutter press ashamed

This "newspaper" has and is being run by a white Rhodesia (EIC) who seems (through his journalists) to possess a rather vicious hatred of the English. This appeared to go to such an extreme that the English were being labelled as "criminally lacking in empathy".

With the "Guardian's" on-line version, not only was St. George's Day overlooked, but whenever there were several people saying "Happy St. George's Day" on any comments section, the section suddenly went down with "technical problems". EIC is currently hobnobbing it with the Oxford elite.

But it gets stranger still. This outfit would appear to be the only English paper which isn't ostensibly pro-Tory and in fact runs frequent stories in favour of "New" Labour. It seeks to appeal to the left-leaning-liberal sort. However, you'd be sorely mistaken if you thought that their reporting and coverage were intellectually balanced. They aren't. Just like other UK gutter press papers, article after article can pander to the lowest common denominator. But, with the ordinary gutter press, you know what you're getting straightaway - unless of course you're just dim.

Many articles of the Guardian are deliberately designed to present a single viewpoint (obviously that of no less than EIC himself).EIC  does not wish his readers to think - he just wants them to react like beasts. Most if not all of the Guardian's stories are designed to provoke, to bait, and to wind-up. This creates a great deal of fuss and stir on the Guardian's on-line comments section. Thus the Guardian's readership increases. This in turn increases revenue from the very corporations which the Guardian claims to be "critical" of.

What makes the "Guardian" worse than the gutter press is their pretence of being "for the intellectual". This pretence is surprisingly successful with a significant proportion of the readership who believe the shadowy EIC to be "their" man, little suspecting that, in reality, he might be to them "a wolf in sheep's clothing".

When a Guardian journalist criticised "social media", someone aptly remarked : "But isn't that where the Guardian gets most of it's copy from?". Answer - Yes, but it's the other "copy" that's more worrying.