UK Newspapers

[RedAnarchist]

Apart from the Morning Star, what other UK newspapers are considered leftist?

[James]

well you have loads of crapy raise the fist ones - which sell 5 copies a week at most.
Socialist Worker, paper of Socialist Worker Party, sells a reasonable amount i guess.

Then you have your mainstream ones - Guardian, Times and the independent. Depends on how left you mean.

[RedAnarchist]

Nothing right of Socialist.

[James]

So whats "socialist"? Give a paper you class to be on the line. Then we can name all the ones "left" of it.

[RedAnarchist]

i dunno. The Guardian?

[James]

hmm... i'd say the independent and the times are a bit to the right of the guardian.

Like i said - socialist worker. probably the socialist party paper too... whatever its called.

[Poderosa III]

I actually quite enjoy reading the guardian, its not that much left wing, but it's inquisitive and doesn't have moronic headlines such as "Catherine Zeta Jones buys MFI Kitchen!". The guardian still prints banter but it's intelligent banter =p

[toastedmonkey]

The gaurdian is probbaly the most "leftwing" mainstream paper in the UK, and it isnt particuarly left either.
It is however republican, and it seems to be less bias than most paper and not affiliated with any party.

[bunk]

Times is not left-wing i assure you.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Times certainly is not left wing in the slightest. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Sun. The times is for intellectual sun readers.

The Guardian is ok, but it tends to be up Blairs arse for the most part and their opposition to the war wasnt as strong as the independent. I read the independent because of its opposition to the war and because it is critical of Blair, and the tories equally.

I would say the intdependent was more left wing, or more liberal than the guardian...although they both cater to the liberal lower and upper middle class..

[James]

The Times certainly is not left wing in the slightest

lol
Okay; the anarchist yells the times is right wing. Whilst the BNPist yells its socialist.



+ + +

Private eye is very good for an all round balance.
Highly recomendable.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:01 PM
Apart from the Morning Star, what other UK newspapers are considered leftist?
the Guardian and Independant are usually to the left on issues. Maybe the Observer, but that is fairly ambiguous, and can't seem to make its mind up.

I agree certainly not the Times though, that is without a doubt alongside the Mail.

[Kez]

since when was the guardian leftwing?

a paper that simply calls the USSR a dictatorship, and authoritarian, and seems to believe "communism is dead" (as though you can kill an ideology) is not a leftwing paper.

Hugo Young was a particular wanker in my opinion, seemed to always attack the unions.

[thatCHEr]

Marxism does not hold the monopoly on left-wing thought.

And really, are you so stupid you are unable to understand the concept of metaphors? Yes, yes you are.

[Funky Monk]

Are you saying that the USSR was never authoritarian?

[Kez]

course it was, but if you wanna make an opinion on the USSR you must (as in everything) give an objective view.

Ive never seen the guardian gives information on how during the Soviet Union healthcare, education, transport were expanded to no end, and how under communism a thrid world shit hole was made into a super power.

As for defining left wing, i dont think Che Guevara would read liberal shite from the guardian.

Only good rags to read are Financial Times and economist, coz they will tell you what capitalism is really doing. Ie during Iraq war, the FT just plainly said the war was good for oil for the west, no bullshitting about, so you can use this info for articles, discussions etc.

[thatCHEr]

Amusing. So you criticise liberal papers such as the Guardian, then commend two papers that could not support the free market any more than they already do. I personally like the Economist, but why a communist would I have no idea. Their articles assume that you understand and agree with the principles of Economics, such as there being a natural amount of unemployment in a good economy, labour being purchased at the correct price, and international trade being an excellent thing. Things commies would take issue with, I believe.


As for defining left wing, i dont think Che Guevara would read liberal shite from the guardian.
Again, Marxism does not have the monopoly on left wing thought. Nor does Che Guevara. Left wing = For government intervention in the economy. Right wing = Being in support of the free market.
Being 'liberal' is a social issue, not economic.

[James]

Kez makes me smile. He says


a paper that simply calls the USSR a dictatorship, and authoritarian,
... can't be "left wing". Then actually admits


course it was
Well... its just funny isn't it.

So yes kez, you agree with the guardian. A paper which is "not leftwing". Wait till new youth finds out about you...

[Kez]

christ almight!

do people not read?

James:

"course it was, but if you wanna make an opinion on the USSR you must (as in everything) give an objective view."

the point which u clearly cud not pick up on, was that the guardian is not objective, and just slates the USSR. I on the otherhand support it and what gains it made, but critisize it for how it should be improve.

Thatcher:

you say:
"I personally like the Economist, but why a communist would I have no idea"

i said on the previous post,
"Only good rags to read are Financial Times and economist, coz they will tell you what capitalism is really doing"
i would have thought the reason why i read them, would give you the reason why i read them.

fucking hell.

[James]

Hitler did lots of good stuff too. Doesn't change the fact that Germany was a dictatorship.


And how does the fact that the Guardian doesn't dwell on the positives on the USSR, make it "not leftwing"?
I could understand you calling it anti soviet, or simply "not soviet"; but not left wing? As thatcher pointed out, you and other new youthists, are not the only leftwingers.

Just because you don't agree with someone kez, doesn't make them wrong (or "not left wing").


Like i said, you make me smile.
:)

[Invader Zim]

The only even remotly newspaperish thing I read is Private eye. Which is very much apolitical, because they take the piss out if everything and everyone without fear or favour. No one is safe from Ian Hislop.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:22 PM
Hitler did lots of good stuff too. Doesn't change the fact that Germany was a dictatorship.


And how does the fact that the Guardian doesn't dwell on the positives on the USSR, make it "not leftwing"?
I could understand you calling it anti soviet, or simply "not soviet"; but not left wing? As thatcher pointed out, you and other new youthists, are not the only leftwingers.

Just because you don't agree with someone kez, doesn't make them wrong (or "not left wing").


Like i said, you make me smile.
:)
the fact that it doesnt support the gains of the workers during the Soviet Union makes it not leftist. It may be progressively bourgeois, but this does not interest me.

If it doest support the gains and rights of workers, and supports the maintenance of the capitalist state then it is not a leftwing paper.

You know what makes me smile? The way you state that somethings Hitler did were good ( ! ) and that your in agreement with ThatCHEr, who is a neo-liberalist....

[thatCHEr]

Your far left position may make them seem to be 'right wing', but that is no more valid than the neoconservatives who attack the mainstream media for being too liberal.


If it doest support the gains and rights of workers, and supports the maintenance of the capitalist state then it is not a leftwing paper.
Well, that is a different definition of left wing than what I use. Government intervention will often be to the benefit, and because of the disadvantaged, but it is the acts, not the wishes that define it. The government could offer large subsidies to firms, and reduce social security to the individual and claim it was to help the worker, but that doesnt mean its left wing.

[James]

the fact that it doesnt support the gains of the workers during the Soviet Union makes it not leftist.


How do you know that? You can't state that, based simply on its opinion that the USSR was a dictatorship!



It may be progressively bourgeois, but this does not interest me.

How do you define "left"? I'm afraid that whilst all "new youthists" maybe descirbed as being left, it does not mean that all leftists are new youthists.
I think thats your stumbling block.


You know what makes me smile? The way you state that somethings Hitler did were good ( ! )

Do you disagree?
Hitler did many "good things".

I should state that this of course does not make me a nazi in ANY WAY (before the Socialist Worker party people try and "jump" on me for being so...)


and that your in agreement with ThatCHEr, who is a neo-liberalist....

Yes, i agree with thatcher!
"Your far left position may make them seem to be 'right wing', but that is no more valid than the neoconservatives who attack the mainstream media for being too liberal."

i.e. we are in agreement regarding your stupidity.

Hardly an agreement on economics though kez. Contary to what the people at new youth may well tell you to think.

[Kez]

well, ok, if we are to assume we are liberals on this board, then the guardian may well be the left wing rag for members.

However, was Che Guevara a liberal? fuck no.

Left wing comes from the French use of progressive, vs conservative, where in their Parliament those who voted for a change in the state would move to the left of the parliament, and be counted in their votes there.

Now lets look at the guardian, at best it is centre-left in that it wants reforms in order to maintain the status quo (ie capitalism).

If you were to stand for status quo, then guardian would be "left-wing", but if you want socialist change, then this piece of shit newspaper would be AGAINST such a move, ie conservative, ie right wing.

1-0, eat that you prick.

So, just make it clearer for your thick skulled head, IF one is to fight for socialism, where would the guardian stand, to the left or to the right of you?

[James]

I see, so your argument is that you are correct, because your definition of "leftwing" is not supported by the majority? I think the BNP argue a similar line.
Yes, the guardian is not revolutionary; but that wasn't the quesiton put: was it.
The guardian is left wing; unless you are very leftwing, in which case you have to be left of trotsky to be worthy of the title: Left Wing.


[by the way, I'm worried about your seemingly obsessive need to "win". I advise you see a doctor old boy.]

[Funky Monk]

So in order to be reformative you have to be anti-capitalist?

[Kurai Tsuki]

The BBC's website works well for me, also watching the BBC World News. But I suppose neither of those are newspapers :rolleyes:

[Saint-Just]

I would say the Guardian is moderately left-wing; it tends to support old Labour governments. The Guardian does have articles that are from a far-left or far-right perspective too. Generally, it seems to aim itself at people from Islington who eat sun dried tomatoes and so on. Because of that I prefer to read The Mirror, although it is no more left-wing, and its football news is better.

[Poderosa III]

I Personally like the guardian, it's just left wing enough to be fun to read and to be critical of the more right wing political parties and issues, and it's not too left wing for it to be able to talk about other things not just "anarchy this, revolution that." which is all well and good but i like to read about other things too, also total left wing papers tend not to sell as well, so it's in their interest really to be around center left, which is where i think it is. which is probably as far as they can go while still selling and being let wing. All in all, its a nice, inquisitive intelligent paper to read.