I'm saying that their standards of journalism are sometimes lower, certainly lower than a lot of their readers imagine, and just because we personally prefer the politics of the Guardian it doesn't mean their journalists are more thorough or work to a higher standard.
I've worked in PR for 20 years and I worked (also in PR) for the world's largest news agency (who pride themselves on the quality of their journalism - with good reason) for 7 of those - sorry for any confusion. Working in PR for a media organisation is a strange meta sort of job but my access to the inner workings of said organisation, editors and the workings of other news org's (who were also clients) was incredible. So I didn't just see my own personal interactions with journalists, I saw when clients messed up using our content too...
I wasn't suggesting that only those who've worked for the Guardian are able to gauge the quality of the journalism (and I agree that would be wrong): I've been exposed to Guardian journalists enough professionally to get a pretty good idea though and when a news organisation takes an interest in where you work you know a lot more about the facts and what went into the piece than the average reader. Including, for example, when they have completely misrepresented a situation to suit their own editorial ends (n.b. very much not just the Guardian).
It's a difficult conversation to have frankly on a public forum because I still have a mortgage to pay, I could be a lot more open over a beer!
I'm saying that their standards of journalism are sometimes lower, certainly lower than a lot of their readers imagine, and just because we personally prefer the politics of the Guardian it doesn't mean their journalists are more thorough or work to a higher standard.
I've worked in PR for 20 years and I worked (also in PR) for the world's largest news agency (who pride themselves on the quality of their journalism - with good reason) for 7 of those - sorry for any confusion. Working in PR for a media organisation is a strange meta sort of job but my access to the inner workings of said organisation, editors and the workings of other news org's (who were also clients) was incredible. So I didn't just see my own personal interactions with journalists, I saw when clients messed up using our content too...
I wasn't suggesting that only those who've worked for the Guardian are able to gauge the quality of the journalism (and I agree that would be wrong): I've been exposed to Guardian journalists enough professionally to get a pretty good idea though and when a news organisation takes an interest in where you work you know a lot more about the facts and what went into the piece than the average reader. Including, for example, when they have completely misrepresented a situation to suit their own editorial ends (n.b. very much not just the Guardian).
It's a difficult conversation to have frankly on a public forum because I still have a mortgage to pay, I could be a lot more open over a beer!