-
but it's editorially evil, running misguided campaigns against vulnerable groups and fuck me does it bear grudges.
Interesting you say this, this is basically the impression I have from occasionally dipping into it. I think the difference is all the more stark to me because it was what my Dad read when I was a kid so I used to read it with my breakfast every morning in the 90s. As you say, the quality and intent of editorial writing has changed a lot.
Stonehedge-
There are examples I'd like to give but can't publically, but generally it used to be a lot less editorially driven. Their long running campaign against trans people and their rights is a corker though.
Which is why @user119690 I don't think this is quite true...
Funnily enough the reasons you've said you dislike The Times are the same reasons why I dislike The Guardian.
You can say what you like about the Guardian but it doesn't have any vicious, long-running campaigns against vulnerable, oppressed groups of people. Unless you count Blairites.
Fox
I hate the Times but having worked in PR for 20 years and for a very big news agency for seven of those I've dealt with more national journalists than anyone would ever want to. It has to be said that these days the Guardian is often just sloppy. Well meaning, but sloppy, with some often super crap journalism.
The Times tends to be much more thorough and journalistically sharper, but it's editorially evil, running misguided campaigns against vulnerable groups and fuck me does it bear grudges.
Basically all newspapers are shit. The FT is the one exception I can think of right now but it's pretty much a slave to mammon isn't it?