I cancelled my subs to the NYT and WaPo months ago because, you know. . . . I persisted with The Guardian because of their claim to deliver "fearless, investigative journalism" and to be "free from political and commercial influence."
Ha, I say. Ha-ha!
So, yesterday, after the "debate debacle," The Guardian published four stories insisting Biden must drop out. This morning there were eight, all of them excessively speculative and fear-driven. Look, I can get this sort of garbage every day from "America's Most-Trusted News Source" or Fox"News," but I have higher expectations from a publication that makes claims like those above.
I began to have doubts when The Guardian referred to the Trump-New York fraud trial as a "hush-money case," which, of course, it wasn't. Now, doubts have been erased. They've turned the corner.
I'm beyond disappointed to find worthless, uninformative, histrionic click-bait like this in a supposedly trustworthy publication like The Guardian. Maybe I expect too much. But considering how much bullshit is out there already, is it too much to ask that we have at least one place where hand-wringing doesn't overtake fact-telling and genuine analysis?