[tmnvix]

Similar story with their coverage of Clinton/Sanders during the US primaries. Also the coverage of Corbyn (effectively leading the charge with some very tenuous but oft-repeated accusations of antisemitism). The bias shown on these two issues in particular have been detrimental to the credibility of the Guardian in my opinion.

It seems the Guardian's editorial position has become decidedly centrist/establishment since I first started reading the Guardian Weekly many many years ago. They have long since stopped being the voice of the left. That is unless you subscribe to a left/right schism defined along the lines of identity politics - which helps explain the Guardian's rejection of Sanders in favour of Clinton.

Despite all of that, I do still find it a good source of news and visit the site most days. Aside from the content, the site is very good in my opinion. I'll be taking a closer look at the design style guide for sure.

[drcongo]

On the Corbyn thing, it was also revealed in the Labour Leaks that the Guardian were colluding with "Blue Labour" and the party's right wing to get those stories published, along with every single disgusting hit piece on Diane Abbott.