I tried the weekly paper edition for a while, but although it was posted on-time at the printers (in Britain or Austria), the Danish postal system usually delayed delivery to me by at least a week.
they're still better than most big news organizations, but they're massively scewed toward a certain type of left wing echo chamber at this point. I loved reading the publication for years; the Snowden revelations were the high point.
Now you'll get a massive dosage of anti-Sanders, anti-Corbyn hit pieces and similar along that political vein. You'll get a solid 70% of opinion articles pushing extreme feminism. If that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. But I don't think they're remotely impartial for a second anymore.
Comments sections strategically opened or closed or moderated depending on the subject.
Good on them for pulling out of Facebook I guess, but that definitely doesn't mean they're remotely objective at this point in my experience.
Do not feel guilt tripped into supporting the Guardian through donations!
The Guardian turned their back on investigative journalism and went for columnists (that write columns concerning the agency news). This was decided years ago and last year there were more cuts to the budget, so even more agency news and flim-flam columnist nonsense.
How can the Guardian compete when they are just churning out the same agency news stories as everyone else?
Opinion pieces from a select few columnists worked fine in the days of print but it does not cut it online, people are not that bothered about what their columnists think.
It is too late to turn the sinking ship around, the rest of the Scott Trust money will be thrown down the same hole and it will be game over, with cycles of cutbacks along the way. At the moment the chickens are coming home to roost, a friend in the Farringdon area recently took on two refugees from the Guardian, or maybe they were 'rats leaving the sinking ship'. In former times the Guardian would be the company you would want to work for, not flee because the writing is on the wall.
Had they done it differently and actually done the independent reporting and investigative journalism instead of the agency news with columnists, then things could have been different.
Nowadays the 'please donate' deal sounds a bit like 'give us some money then we will do this investigative journalism stuff, honest'. It is back to front and not as if they really believe honst money can be made from honest journalism - everything is someone else's fault.
The Guardian published a terribly misleading series of stories about WhatsApp that it refuses to correct, despite being called out by most of the security industry. Keep your wallet in your pocket!
I tried the weekly paper edition for a while, but although it was posted on-time at the printers (in Britain or Austria), the Danish postal system usually delayed delivery to me by at least a week.
Same here. I had a subscription and they'd usually arrive in Germany a couple of days too late. Luckily, Germany has Der Spiegel, which is also more than worthy supporting.
For me the problem is that the number of sites I'd like to support to some extent. I'd love to donate to The Guardian, but I also frequent The Atlantic, BBC and many other sites. Actually supporting all these sites would take time and effort. I took a look at some chrome extensions which try to make this easier (namely tipsy) but they seem to have very few publishers signed up.
What if adblockers kept (locally stored) stats on sites you visited (where ads were blocked) and how often, and provided a link to donate to them, if you were so inclined. In your case, it might say "You visit guardian 10 times per week. To donate, click here, or to subscribe, click here".
i'm a happy subscriber. i initially subscribed in gratitude for their making their entire crossword archive free, but i also appreciate the journalism they do and are happy to support them.
interestingly, their lack of a paywall is a definite part of the value i feel i'm getting for my subscription; if i had to log in to read them i'd be a lot less likely to subscribe in the first place. i wish more sites followed an explicit "pay to help keep us free for everyone" model.
i am in quite opposite situation, i used to like guardian and read it almost daily, until they started to beg for money, which turned me away, rather put it behind paywall than annoy me with begging, i don't find their content so exclusive that i would make donation to them, almost everything i read there i can find elsewhere
Oh, I dunno. I thought it was an interesting experiment. I think it still has its uses. Facebook is hardly a monopoly in the sense that google or microsoft was. I know tonnes of people who don't use facebook and the people who do use it, it's usually just to connect with friends.
Facebook / instagram / messenger, from what I can see, are just hard charging innovative platforms trying to create products people like. Their businesses could crater pretty easily and the only reason it doesn't is because they keep trying different things.
It's not like search and microsoft's OS dominance / network effects from their Office products.
You don't need to log onto facebook in order to work, you chose to because it's fun and you can connect with friends. Google / MSFT have far deeper hooks.
Facebook has single-handedly almost ruined news consumption among certain demographics in the US.
Your news feed is designed from the ground up with powerful artificial intelligence to become an echo chamber, and lots of FB users just don't understand this. They fall for it completely.
I have more liberal friends than conservative friends, and my FB feed literally only shows me anti-Trump pieces (along with ads and other spam), some of which are astoundingly blatant in their bias.
I have to go out of my way to seek out opinions from or articles shared by my conservative friends. Even if I do this frequently, FB still does not incorporate them into my feed. Instead, every single day, it shows me low-quality clickbait anti-Trump articles shared by someone who lived on the same floor as me in a college dorm 7 years ago with whom I shared one conversation in real-life and whom I've never interacted with on FB in any way aside from approving her friend request.
This is something some colleagues in my research team (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, part of the University of Oxford) are studying.
The evidence doesn't seem to show an effect: while there's definitely partisan selective exposure as a result of Facebook's algorithm, our longitudinal audience data suggests that before Facebook people mostly only read or watched a single news source. So even the attenuated diversity you get through a selective feed still seems to result in wider incidental exposure than the pre-social media world.
No paper to link, as the research is still ongoing. I understand they look like pretty robust results, though - it's certainly changed the way we look at things.
I had a similar thing happen, but in the opposite direction.
Back in September (two months before the election), a random meme of Hillary Clinton popped up on my Instagram Explore feed. It was funny, so I liked it. Immediately after, after one like on a seemingly innocuous meme, I started getting full blown "Hillary is a criminal" memes. Along with that, gun activism, taxation is theft, and that WW3 was going to happen. And I tried to fix this by flagging all the suggested posts as "not relevant to my interests", and even blocking the meme accounts, but Instagram wouldn't get a clue. So for weeks afterwards, my Instagram account was bombarded with pro-Trump memes. All because I thought one joke about Hillary Clinton was funny.
With all these automatically curated feeds, there's no space for moderates anymore on the internet.
Just stop using Facebook. You complain about your experience of it and claim (quite correctly) that it
> has single-handedly almost ruined news consumption among certain demographics in the US
but you just keep using it. What would it take to make you stop?
I don't mean to single you out --- I'm just reaching a breaking point here. I usually hold my tongue, to avoid sounding "holier than thou." I stopped using Facebook about six or seven years ago when I stopped liking it. I don't miss it at all. On the contrary: as a non-user, I hate it more than ever. It is an out-of-control addiction causing real problems for society, and people know they hate it but can't stop).
My sister --- who never used it in the first place --- sometimes says that she feels like Wesley in that episode of Star Trek TNG where everyone was addicted to that holographic puzzle game, and he had to pretend that he was into it in the hopes of delaying his assimilation.
I feel that way more and more, especially on a thread like this where there is so much "concern" about Facebook from its very users, even among "our HN-reading, privacy-interested, technically-competent bubble" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14177389).
Do you think Trump has been a good president so far and liberals aren't aware of it because they're shown lies that fit their narrative? Or do you think the media has been gleeful and aggressive in their reporting and targeting of legit bad news about Trump?
How come the Apple News Feed in Siri isn't configurable? It doesn't even follow the sources of the News.app. It's constantly clickbaity or depressing. Who moderates and chooses that.
Unsubstantiated guess: Apple wouldn't be able to tell big publishers their active reach on the News platform is X million people if it limited the news in the widget to the app sources you've explicitly followed.
I was also turned off by this and stopped using it for that reason.
Guardian spokesperson: "Our primary objective is to bring audiences to the trusted environment of the Guardian to support building deeper relationships with our readers, and growing membership and contributions to fund our world-class journalism.”
Precisely. FB's brand with respect to news is damaged to the point where it's negative. FB is the place to get fake nuz. The Guardian and the Times are wise not to allow their content to move under the FB brand.
It's actually a sleeper hit [1][2]. The Guaridan seems to be the anomaly.
>Publishers are also paying increasing attention to Apple News, which added push notifications as part of a redesign last year and now delivers significant traffic thanks to the fact that it comes pre-installed on hundreds of millions of devices.
You're not missing much. I subscribe to a couple dozen different topics, but all I get is News, Entertainment, Cars, Sports, and Electronics, most of which are dominated by one source. I subscribe to my local mid-sized city news, and it's completely dominated by suburban high school sports scores. If I 'dislike' the sports scores, all of my local news goes away. There also doesn't seem to be a way to tell Apple why you're disliking something. I liked the story, I just don't like the clickbait headline. Show me the same story, but not from Buzzfeed.
I have smaller topics like Ruby, Arduino, security, AI, etc subscribed but I've never seen anything from those subjects in my feed. If I scroll down far enough it starts going back days, rather than showing more subjects.
I read it once or twice a day to keep up on big news, but I've given up any pretenses that it can be personalized in any way. It's a big-media news aggregator, that's it.
With Apple's budget, what on earth convinced them to not take the risk of launching in 20 countries at once? Google and Facebook really are the champion of multinational media endeavours.
This is one of the problems with monopolies, or maybe the bigger one. Once you are dominant in one business, search/mobile/messaging, you can take over other business without much effort.
They are not news companies, they are not in the news business, they don't know it, and they have not done anything to be worth the trust of the public. They are just convenient because they are a monopoly in another area.
almost none of them know about news, they just happen to own the largest distribution media in some region and because of that everyone have to listen to them.
add to that that traditional media (tv, radio) you are limited by government allowing you to own a frequency.
If a paper becomes a part of a large feed, it risks becoming an interchangeable part and that means the aggregator can lower prices.
In some sense, Apple faced that problem, too. It created its own sales channel, whereas the Guardian has one to fall back on.
In contrast, Intel when faced with that problem in the PC market, choose to work on brand awareness through the "Intel Inside" campaign. Reason likely is that, to create their own sales channel, they would have had to start making PCs, thus competing with their own customers.
So, Intel accepted that there were larger entities offering both their and their competitor's product, as long as it had ample opportunity to market its brand there.
So, perhaps the aggregators should work on two things: pay more to their contributors, and allow contributors more to present their brand.
The problem with the "semi-auto" curated feeds that all of the Internet middlemen thinks is going to finally allow them to turn their online market share into profits is that the feed idea depend on the same omnibus newspaper model* that no longer works for the newspaper industry.
The dead of the omnibus paper the press is forced to choose between a return to the old local/partisan model where the paper becomes a part of political movement and receives "patronage" from that movement in forms of paid subscriptions, or the yellow(named for the color of cheap paper) model that lives off scandal creation.
*Most of the newspapers of the 90ies based most of their revenue off content sourced from their network of partners a model that only really worked because the paper had access to long distance communication networks too expensive/exclusive for widespread usage among consumers.
"The draw of Instant Articles was that they load much faster than the Facebook links that take readers back to most publishers’ own sites."
Are you serious, that is the draw? Apologies as needed from me (someone who doesn't know or care a thing about Facebook) but I'm surprised. Couldn't a publisher easily silver-bullet this just by removing the bloatware from their own site?
Always seemed crazy to me that publishers were willing to give up so much for these integrations. The ability to have final say over how readers experience your information, and opportunities for freely measuring/analyzing that experience, should be key for news organizations that want to evolve.
Integrating with FB IA & Apple News is giving up power for gains that may not be worth it in the long run.
I get why they've done it, and The Guardian is a site that I both contribute to and disable my ad-blocker for, but I will miss the speed at which the articles load on my ancient and rubbish phone.
I find it surprising that they are still going strong on AMP. I tend to club AMP along with Instant Articles, etc. Any thoughts on as to why this is the case?
Dunno, as a user I'm a bit sad. I enjoyed having a simple native app to view all my news in, (Apple News). I was subscribed to The Guardian, but now I don't feel like I'll get my worth from their network if I have to change my daily flow just for their news site.
Most writers, be they novelists, journalists, bloggers or whatever label suits you, wish to write and hope to be paid well enough for it so that they can write some more. Most will acknowledge that they have a bias from the very outset (called 'eating'). If you are 'lucky' enough to have some semi-permanent arrangement with some publisher you will have their biases to contend with and if your employer accepts monies for advertising you will have their clients' biases to contend with and if they accept subscriptions you must contend with the bias of protecting the bubble into which the subscribers so willingly insert themselves because here in the United Kingdom, newspapers and even television media have, historically and quite openly, been arranged along political and socio-economic lines to the degree that if one took the Guardian one could be fairly assumed to be a 'middle-class, slightly-left of centre, hand-wringing, grammar school educated' whereas if you took the Telegraph you were ‘a cunt’. I find it especially relevant today what with all this talk of what is and isn't 'fake news'. Can 'good' journalism be paid for? What is 'good' journalism? And what are you paying for? Clearly some people do not wish to wander from the menu and can be justifiably upset having paid for a certain serving at having other unpleasantries appear on their plates. When you pay for your subscription and I do not mean to pick, you might wish to pay the Dirty Digger instead or as well as even, do you expect 'a' truth or 'the' truth? If the unbiased reporting of facts is what you are after then doesn't an aggregated feed from a variety of sources much better fit that goal? I could write more...
Would be great if some newspapers and other media cooperate and found a new friendly-minded ad-network. Provide old-school picture based banner ads with pay-per-click or pay-per-view models and no (or very small and fast) JS third party code/library.
Instant Articles is the best experience I've ever had reading an article online. It loads lightning fast and doesn't have bloated layouts or obtrusive advertising. I was shocked the first time I [unknowingly] clicked on an Instant Article.
I think it's best for the internet's health that Instant Articles is slowly declining, but it did show me how much better the experience could be if people paid attention to that stuff.
(I'm only commenting on the bigger picture, nothing about the Guardian specifically. They actually have one of the better websites out there.)
[+] [-] Symbiote|9 years ago|reply
The link for a one-off contribution is here: https://contribute.theguardian.com/
Or for a subscription, here: https://subscribe.theguardian.com/
I tried the weekly paper edition for a while, but although it was posted on-time at the printers (in Britain or Austria), the Danish postal system usually delayed delivery to me by at least a week.
[+] [-] RVuRnvbM2e|9 years ago|reply
* no tracking of the articles I choose to read, as in online news subscriptions
* cross-section of articles that I wouldn't otherwise seek out (no filter-bubble)
* very little advertising, none of it obtrusive
It's also a great way to support real journalism, and learn about world news, not the parochial junk my local tabloids cover.
[+] [-] moonshinefe|9 years ago|reply
Now you'll get a massive dosage of anti-Sanders, anti-Corbyn hit pieces and similar along that political vein. You'll get a solid 70% of opinion articles pushing extreme feminism. If that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. But I don't think they're remotely impartial for a second anymore.
Comments sections strategically opened or closed or moderated depending on the subject.
Good on them for pulling out of Facebook I guess, but that definitely doesn't mean they're remotely objective at this point in my experience.
[+] [-] Theodores|9 years ago|reply
The Guardian turned their back on investigative journalism and went for columnists (that write columns concerning the agency news). This was decided years ago and last year there were more cuts to the budget, so even more agency news and flim-flam columnist nonsense.
How can the Guardian compete when they are just churning out the same agency news stories as everyone else?
Opinion pieces from a select few columnists worked fine in the days of print but it does not cut it online, people are not that bothered about what their columnists think.
It is too late to turn the sinking ship around, the rest of the Scott Trust money will be thrown down the same hole and it will be game over, with cycles of cutbacks along the way. At the moment the chickens are coming home to roost, a friend in the Farringdon area recently took on two refugees from the Guardian, or maybe they were 'rats leaving the sinking ship'. In former times the Guardian would be the company you would want to work for, not flee because the writing is on the wall.
Had they done it differently and actually done the independent reporting and investigative journalism instead of the agency news with columnists, then things could have been different.
Nowadays the 'please donate' deal sounds a bit like 'give us some money then we will do this investigative journalism stuff, honest'. It is back to front and not as if they really believe honst money can be made from honest journalism - everything is someone else's fault.
[+] [-] idlewords|9 years ago|reply
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nqlE6UQjbUmgoMeJCePVcY5f...
[+] [-] flurdy|9 years ago|reply
It's £5 a month, and whilst you do get some extras it is mostly just to support their journalism.
You can pay more as partner and patron if you choose.
[+] [-] microtonal|9 years ago|reply
Same here. I had a subscription and they'd usually arrive in Germany a couple of days too late. Luckily, Germany has Der Spiegel, which is also more than worthy supporting.
[+] [-] tsiki|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clamprecht|9 years ago|reply
What if adblockers kept (locally stored) stats on sites you visited (where ads were blocked) and how often, and provided a link to donate to them, if you were so inclined. In your case, it might say "You visit guardian 10 times per week. To donate, click here, or to subscribe, click here".
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zem|9 years ago|reply
interestingly, their lack of a paywall is a definite part of the value i feel i'm getting for my subscription; if i had to log in to read them i'd be a lot less likely to subscribe in the first place. i wish more sites followed an explicit "pay to help keep us free for everyone" model.
[+] [-] kombucha2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Markoff|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twsted|9 years ago|reply
The web is at a crossroad and we should promote multiple platforms, old-style blogs, decentralized navigation, classic journalism, etc.
For too many people, Facebook is the web and this is really sad and wrong.
We must find other ways to pay for information and curated content, limiting tracking and defending privacy.
[+] [-] blazespin|9 years ago|reply
Facebook / instagram / messenger, from what I can see, are just hard charging innovative platforms trying to create products people like. Their businesses could crater pretty easily and the only reason it doesn't is because they keep trying different things.
It's not like search and microsoft's OS dominance / network effects from their Office products.
You don't need to log onto facebook in order to work, you chose to because it's fun and you can connect with friends. Google / MSFT have far deeper hooks.
[+] [-] return0|9 years ago|reply
Those people don't have a need for the web, and, more importantly, the web has no use for them.
[+] [-] nilkn|9 years ago|reply
Your news feed is designed from the ground up with powerful artificial intelligence to become an echo chamber, and lots of FB users just don't understand this. They fall for it completely.
I have more liberal friends than conservative friends, and my FB feed literally only shows me anti-Trump pieces (along with ads and other spam), some of which are astoundingly blatant in their bias.
I have to go out of my way to seek out opinions from or articles shared by my conservative friends. Even if I do this frequently, FB still does not incorporate them into my feed. Instead, every single day, it shows me low-quality clickbait anti-Trump articles shared by someone who lived on the same floor as me in a college dorm 7 years ago with whom I shared one conversation in real-life and whom I've never interacted with on FB in any way aside from approving her friend request.
[+] [-] pmyteh|9 years ago|reply
The evidence doesn't seem to show an effect: while there's definitely partisan selective exposure as a result of Facebook's algorithm, our longitudinal audience data suggests that before Facebook people mostly only read or watched a single news source. So even the attenuated diversity you get through a selective feed still seems to result in wider incidental exposure than the pre-social media world.
No paper to link, as the research is still ongoing. I understand they look like pretty robust results, though - it's certainly changed the way we look at things.
[+] [-] et-al|9 years ago|reply
Back in September (two months before the election), a random meme of Hillary Clinton popped up on my Instagram Explore feed. It was funny, so I liked it. Immediately after, after one like on a seemingly innocuous meme, I started getting full blown "Hillary is a criminal" memes. Along with that, gun activism, taxation is theft, and that WW3 was going to happen. And I tried to fix this by flagging all the suggested posts as "not relevant to my interests", and even blocking the meme accounts, but Instagram wouldn't get a clue. So for weeks afterwards, my Instagram account was bombarded with pro-Trump memes. All because I thought one joke about Hillary Clinton was funny.
With all these automatically curated feeds, there's no space for moderates anymore on the internet.
[+] [-] gavinpc|9 years ago|reply
> has single-handedly almost ruined news consumption among certain demographics in the US
but you just keep using it. What would it take to make you stop?
I don't mean to single you out --- I'm just reaching a breaking point here. I usually hold my tongue, to avoid sounding "holier than thou." I stopped using Facebook about six or seven years ago when I stopped liking it. I don't miss it at all. On the contrary: as a non-user, I hate it more than ever. It is an out-of-control addiction causing real problems for society, and people know they hate it but can't stop).
My sister --- who never used it in the first place --- sometimes says that she feels like Wesley in that episode of Star Trek TNG where everyone was addicted to that holographic puzzle game, and he had to pretend that he was into it in the hopes of delaying his assimilation.
I feel that way more and more, especially on a thread like this where there is so much "concern" about Facebook from its very users, even among "our HN-reading, privacy-interested, technically-competent bubble" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14177389).
[+] [-] gdulli|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shimon_e|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ch215|9 years ago|reply
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/press-gazette-launches-duopoly...
[+] [-] criddell|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w-ll|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fiatpandas|9 years ago|reply
I was also turned off by this and stopped using it for that reason.
[+] [-] OliverJones|9 years ago|reply
Precisely. FB's brand with respect to news is damaged to the point where it's negative. FB is the place to get fake nuz. The Guardian and the Times are wise not to allow their content to move under the FB brand.
[+] [-] chmars|9 years ago|reply
I had some hope that Apple News could help RSS but that was apparently never Apple's intention.
[+] [-] IBM|9 years ago|reply
>Publishers are also paying increasing attention to Apple News, which added push notifications as part of a redesign last year and now delivers significant traffic thanks to the fact that it comes pre-installed on hundreds of millions of devices.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/16/15314210/instant-articles-...
[2] http://digiday.com/media/duopolys-shadow-apple-news-finding-...
[+] [-] freehunter|9 years ago|reply
I have smaller topics like Ruby, Arduino, security, AI, etc subscribed but I've never seen anything from those subjects in my feed. If I scroll down far enough it starts going back days, rather than showing more subjects.
I read it once or twice a day to keep up on big news, but I've given up any pretenses that it can be personalized in any way. It's a big-media news aggregator, that's it.
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirykl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ithought|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kartan|9 years ago|reply
They are not news companies, they are not in the news business, they don't know it, and they have not done anything to be worth the trust of the public. They are just convenient because they are a monopoly in another area.
[+] [-] gcb0|9 years ago|reply
almost none of them know about news, they just happen to own the largest distribution media in some region and because of that everyone have to listen to them.
add to that that traditional media (tv, radio) you are limited by government allowing you to own a frequency.
[+] [-] Someone|9 years ago|reply
In some sense, Apple faced that problem, too. It created its own sales channel, whereas the Guardian has one to fall back on.
In contrast, Intel when faced with that problem in the PC market, choose to work on brand awareness through the "Intel Inside" campaign. Reason likely is that, to create their own sales channel, they would have had to start making PCs, thus competing with their own customers.
So, Intel accepted that there were larger entities offering both their and their competitor's product, as long as it had ample opportunity to market its brand there.
So, perhaps the aggregators should work on two things: pay more to their contributors, and allow contributors more to present their brand.
[+] [-] Stranger43|9 years ago|reply
The dead of the omnibus paper the press is forced to choose between a return to the old local/partisan model where the paper becomes a part of political movement and receives "patronage" from that movement in forms of paid subscriptions, or the yellow(named for the color of cheap paper) model that lives off scandal creation.
*Most of the newspapers of the 90ies based most of their revenue off content sourced from their network of partners a model that only really worked because the paper had access to long distance communication networks too expensive/exclusive for widespread usage among consumers.
[+] [-] rdiddly|9 years ago|reply
Are you serious, that is the draw? Apologies as needed from me (someone who doesn't know or care a thing about Facebook) but I'm surprised. Couldn't a publisher easily silver-bullet this just by removing the bloatware from their own site?
[+] [-] fiatpandas|9 years ago|reply
Integrating with FB IA & Apple News is giving up power for gains that may not be worth it in the long run.
[+] [-] sghi|9 years ago|reply
I'd still rather support them though!
[+] [-] inian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Operyl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nthcolumn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frik|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgiannopoulos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luhn|9 years ago|reply
I think it's best for the internet's health that Instant Articles is slowly declining, but it did show me how much better the experience could be if people paid attention to that stuff.
(I'm only commenting on the bigger picture, nothing about the Guardian specifically. They actually have one of the better websites out there.)
[+] [-] Angostura|9 years ago|reply