[eastbound]

The Guardian never publishes a link or an academic reference to the source of scientific articles it pretends to quote.

As you say, it also waits until a reader notices factual mistakes, the other ones just slip through. Last point, you don’t have any backing to conclude that their mistakes are honest, and not the result of intent of bias. Given their bias is always in the same direction, I do not believe for a second that The Guardian isn’t putting its thumb on the scale when they only reproduce the part of scientific studies that goes in their editorial direction, conveniently leaving the rest unsaid.

[seadan83]

> The Guardian never publishes a link or an academic reference to the source of scientific articles it pretends to quote.

This is not true. A single counter-example is all that is needed to disprove the assertion "the guardian never.." Counter-example:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/10/asthma-of-th...

In this section, the source article is linked (which is: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035232/), that section is:

> When Attwood first identified EoE in the late 1980s, it was vanishingly rare, with estimated rates of less than 10 per 100,000 people. But just like food allergies, which are also mediated by eosinophils, EoE has become increasingly common in all age groups, from young children to the over-70s, for reasons we do not fully understand.

> Estimates from the British Society of Gastroenterology suggest that it now affects approximately 63 in 100,000 people, which Attwood says is sufficient to make it technically “a common disease”.

The same article links other studies..

[seadan83]

> As you say, it also waits until a reader notices factual mistakes, the other ones just slip through.

I don't believe I said that. My impression is that they certainly do pro-actively correct mistakes and do not rely on just readership. At the very least, the 'corrections' section is discoverable from their home page. I can't find the corrections part of some other news websites.

Please provide evidence that the Guardian does not do any of their own corrections.

> Last point, you don’t have any backing to conclude that their mistakes are honest, and not the result of intent of bias.

I don't think you have any backing for that either. Though, what backing would anyone need for any kind of slant for "we published a generic picture of a radio tower" (with clear context note on the image) - how is that a slant due to bias?

> I do not believe for a second that The Guardian isn’t putting its thumb on the scale when they only reproduce the part of scientific studies that goes in their editorial direction, conveniently leaving the rest unsaid.

I would ask you please provide backing for this assertion/opinion. (It's going to be difficult to determine whether it's your bias in reading something to think an extraneous assertion is an omission compared to something you think that is related but is either unrelated or incorrect. But, if you have a good resource that has done the systematic research, and relies on reproducible science, that would be an interesting read)

[seadan83]

One last response.. I think we should take a step back.

A clearly labelled image of a radio tower for a sensationalist story that a radio tower in Alabama was stolen, that.. that clearly labelled image is evidence of "left wing bias" and the "the guardian... putting its thumb on the scale." I don't think this is the story to choose for that particular hill to die on.