[dnomad]

The Guardian is one of the most balanced news providers out there and you'd be hard pressed to find a more balanced English-speaking organization.

A recent, concrete example of this is all the breathless reporting about Chinese camps containing a "million" Muslims. The story was complete hogwash [1] that was breathlessly hyped by every American news organization. The Guardian provided the most restrained and actually facts-based reporting by far. There are plenty of other cases like this -- see similar examples involving Iraq and Iran.

I could imagine how not being fully committed to the pro-America hegemony might be confused with being left-wing though. It's the sort of thing where the problem is the problem, as they say.

[1] https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-chi...

[stass]

WSJ, Economist, FT and New Yorker are all western publications, and way closer to providing an balanced journalism. Guardian destroyed their own reputation in the last two years by openly publishing paid pieces and propaganda, even advocating for property seizure (see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB). Economist/New Yorker on the other hand are great examples of a quality left-biased publication.

[rebolek]

I would have never though that I will see WSJ and balanced in same sentence.

[stass]

They were pretty consistent in their critic of polices of both GOP and democratic governments, and are usually pretty open in addressing issues in business from all sides. What do you find to be unbalanced in their reporting?

[rhcom2]

> see all their articles on “nationalization” of FB

Are you talking about the articles labeled "Opinion"?

[mtarnovan]

I used to trust The Guardian, but those days are long gone. A glaring example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/10/romanias-corru...

This is not journalism. The whole article quotes a paper published by a neocon think tank with ties to lobby groups payed by wealthy corrupt under investigation by the (Romanian) DNA. The article even hilariously uses references to recentnews.ro, long proven a fake news site, part of a network of fake news sites that launched the infamous "Pope shocks the world endorsing Trump".

Another example: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...

[nickserv]

The first link is an opinion piece, you do have to take those for what they are: opinion, not fact.

Usually the Guardian opinion pieces tilt to the left/progressive viewpoint, but not always. This is something I appreciate, not being always stuck inside a bubble.

The second link offers a summary and analysis of an interview of Assange, the original piece is linked, and while I didn't read all 3 articles completely I didn't see any massive distortion jump out.

[mtarnovan]

No, that is not opinion. It's payed lobby masquerading as opinion. For anyone who is up-to-date with the tense political and social situation in Romania, that article is a tendentious, vile manipulation, at a time when many Romanians look to the west for support in the fight against corruption.

[cmplxconjugate]

I’m in the same situation. I used the Guardian as one of my main new sources but it’s become painfully bias towards the left.

I long for a source that gives solid middle ground information and analysis.

[lumberjack]

This is also my issue with TheGuardian. Their reporting on internal issues in foreign countries is lacking in impartiality. It is not clear to me whether this is intentional or whether it is just that they put trust in the wrong foreign sources. I suspect the latter. Nonetheless they end up publishing some really ignorant and biased pieces about counties that Britons have no clue about, and thus cannot hold the paper accountable for.