The Guardian used to be a serious left of centre/liberal newspaper. Better than the red tops and the go-to for non-sensationalist balanced news. Since however moving to the paid supporter model for funding all that's changed. Now it's a lefty fanzine. The editorial stance seems to be give the supporters what they want, never write an article that might challenge their hard-left views and pander to them even to the extent of censoring any contrary views in their comments sections. It really has dropped to red top standards and is 100% tribal. Tories bad, the left good. No attempt to be honest or fact check and very very little real journalism. The 'news' seems to be copy and paste from other news sources and the bulk of the content is un-fact-checked opinion pieces masquerading as news. Its decline is very very sad. How long it will survive is anybody's guess.

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.

I'm fairly politically centrist, and whilst bias is natural to all newspapers to some extent, the Guardian's extreme-left wing is so divorced from reality it's actually ended up "rock bottom wing". Unverified amateurish "Tweets" regularly get passed off as "sources" followed by the inevitable back-tracking later on when many get outed as fake / blatant propaganda. As for their online edition, I was just banned from their comment section. My "crime"? Posting a picture of a young couple (one Jew & one Muslim) kissing each other holding the sign "Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies" and commenting "We should put these two in charge of the peace process". Within minutes it was banned - because it *DIDN'T* contain enough of the regular mindless "hang all the Jews, long live Hamas, woohoo!" style of hate that the regular "Guardiantas" seem to lap up in droves... Many other comments by thousands of people regularly go "missing" simply for correcting many articles inaccuracies (both political and technical) - again not for any genuine abuse, but simply out of editorial embarrassment. The level of censorship of even the pettiest things is chronic & wildly out of control, and the overall tone of both articles and commentary regularly sinks to a cesspool of rabid ultra-fringe hate when it involves certain "hot-button" issues. My first purchase - and my very last...

This newspaper is just too idealism driven. Their berating of other papers (esp the DM) seems very hypocrytical and a bit childish. Everything seems to be trotted out very smuggly and with an agenda. To facilitate this they far too often trott out opinion pieces usually starting with "why you should.......", "why this is going to........", effectively telling you what you should think. They should report the circumstances around the issues, instead they look into it and give you their opinion on it without giving you many of the facts they have uncovered that formed their view. I'm not partial to using the term 'looney left' but none the less it comes to mind with the Guardian. We can form our own opinions thanks.

Personally I would say the Guardian is very bias. If you are a left or far left reader then it will come across as non-bias, if however, you're a right or centralist reader (centralist being myself) then it ends up being rather obvious as you can definitely see where the Guardians agendas lie on many issues particularly in foreign affairs and social issues.

With so many newspapers around, The Guardian easily is the best. You get depth, quality, the columnist are brilliant and front different backgrounds which make it very rich and valuable on every read. Keep the good work!!!

If the Justice sector reccomend the Guardian to students of Justice, then they endorse its ethics within writing. It is an acceptable newspaper for research because it is held as being trustworthy. As a sceptic I have done a fair amount of research to allow me to be guided and say that it is a better (for me) newspaper than the Telegraph.

I can't believe how biased this newspaper is. I heard it was unbiased and a place for all opinions but it has a single agenda all the way through. It's basically a tabloid with less celebrities and more naive readers.

Far to biased to present the news fairly.

I find the The Guardian newspaper too selective about what news is included so as not to damage the delusion that a liberalized society, with poor standards in every aspect of life, is somehow a better place to live. The comments are also politically angled so as to disguise the truth. Either the reporters and columnists live in ivory towers or they simply refuse to accept the harsh reality of modern society and its declining standards.

For example, it was recently reported that recorded crime is decreasing and it is merely people's perception of crime that is increasing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/25/ukcrime.police). This is true. However, there was no mention that certain types of crime are no longer recorded, a lot more crime goes unreported and there is a cap on the number of crimes recorded per person.