Why do people assume Guardian readers are Labour supporters?

Most of the comments I read in response to articles that show any sign of pandering to New Labour doctrines make it clear that the Guardian is wasting its time trying to be the "independent" mouthpiece of the Labour Party.

Case in point: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/time-look-again-back-labour

Over 200 responses condemning the author for even suggesting we should give Labour another chance.

Anyone who believes any paper is independent is away with the fairies. They all have their mates in Westminster, how else do they get their leaks and exclusives?

As for the Guardian, its readers are the most deluded of all in just swallowing every lie their beloved labour party tells them. And you only have to look at their jobs supplement and its thousands of "non-jobs" in the public sector such as One Legged Black Lesbian Outreach Worker to work out why council tax is so high all over the country!

As for the Guardian, its readers are the most deluded of all in just swallowing every lie their beloved labour party tells them.

Er... did you read my post?

The thread title, even?

The Guardian is as flawed as any other form of commercial media but I do enjoy it as it leans to the left. I would certainly choose the Guardian over most newspapers but I would never vote for New Labour.

Er... did you read my post?

 

The thread title, even?

Yes, and you're wrong! The Guardian publishes yet another article imploring its readers to vote Labour and you state it's not a Labour-supporting paper? You could try reading the article you linked to yourself before criticising others!

Yes, and you're wrong! The Guardian publishes yet another article imploring its readers to vote Labour and you state it's not a Labour-supporting paper? You could try reading the article you linked to yourself before criticising others!

The question in the OP is about the readers of the paper not its editors. I agree that the people in charge of the Guardian may support Labour but that doesn't mean it's readership does.

The question in the OP is about the readers of the paper not its editors. I agree that the people in charge of the Guardian may support Labour but that doesn't mean it's readership does.

Well in that case the OP's post is badly worded and his link just takes you to the article and not the comments (my browser just shows a wavy line underneath and the text "loading comments" but it never does).

Either way, comments on a paper's website don't necessarily come from its readers, they could just be from mischievous opponents. You don't have to read an article just to post a comment on a website.

Oh and have you seen the picture of the journo who wrote the article. Could they find a more stereotypical hatchet-faced ugly lesbian? :hihi:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jackieashley

Over 200 responses condemning the author for even suggesting we should give Labour another chance.

You're making an assumption in saying that negative responses in an online comments/discussion forum is indicative of the general support of the readership.

Anyone who believes any paper is independent is away with the fairies. They all have their mates in Westminster, how else do they get their leaks and exclusives?

 

As for the Guardian, its readers are the most deluded of all in just swallowing every lie their beloved labour party tells them. And you only have to look at their jobs supplement and its thousands of "non-jobs" in the public sector such as One Legged Black Lesbian Outreach Worker to work out why council tax is so high all over the country!

I've been known to read the Guardian a lot as well as other papers. Of the people I know, an awful lot read the Guardian. However, I can't think of one that supports new labour, including myself.

Although it's daft to generalise the whole readership of a paper, I would suggest that the Guardian leans to the left, unlike new labour. So, I don't really see why its readership would generally lean towards a middle-right party.

Yes, and you're wrong! The Guardian publishes yet another article imploring its readers to vote Labour and you state it's not a Labour-supporting paper? You could try reading the article you linked to yourself before criticising others!

So you can't read... ok.

The title of this thread was "Why do people assume Guardian readers are Labour supporters?"

The title of this thread was not "Why do people assume the Guardian is a Labour supporting paper?"

See the difference? Yes? Good.

So you can't read... ok.

 

The title of this thread was "Why do people assume Guardian readers are Labour supporters?"

 

The title of this thread was not "Why do people assume the Guardian is not a Labour supporting paper?"

 

See the difference? Yes? Good.

 

I see you're resorting to your usual tactic of personal jibes and "loopy" smileys when losing the argument.

But if it will make you happy, I'll answer your question "Why do people assume Guardian readers are Labour supporters?

It's because the Guardian regularly publishes articles telling its readers why it should vote Labour, just like the one you've linked to.

Why would anyone who didn't support Labour buy a newspaper that's effectively the Labour Party newsletter? :loopy:

I used to read the Guardian on a Saturday, mainly due to the content rather than any perceived political bias and I've not supported Labour for many years.