There's an old-fashioned look about the Guardian this morning. What could it be?
Oh, it's forgotten the puff!
Forgotten? Or decided that its splash is so important that nothing should diminish its impact?
As SubScribe has noted before, the Guardian is not a popular member of the Fleet Street gang. The phone hacking saga made it few friends, and its holier-than-thou air doesn't help.
Here we can see an example of why it gets up people's noses.
Edward Snowden's leaked documents from America's National Security Agency not only let the world into the secret of how the Obama administration listened into Angela Merkel's phone calls, but also won the Guardian a hatful of awards, including a Pulitzer prize and being named Britain's Newspaper of the Year.
Snowden is clearly important to the Guardian. But how far up its own backside does a paper have to be to think that this source - an American living under asylum in Russia - and his opinions on forthcoming British legislation are of overarching significance to its readers?
People concerned about invasions of privacy, infringements of liberty and rushed legislation do not need their concern validated by the foreigner whose actions, more than anything else, led to this situation in the first place. And those who support the proposed new laws are the very last people who would be swayed by the fact that the "traitor" Snowden is against them.
Snowden's views may be worth reporting - The Times and Mail think they are, while at the same time both making the point that he is the reason for this week's legislation - but as a top-to-bottom splash on a puff-free front?
And with the boast that these opinions were shared during a seven-hour interview in a Moscow hotel, "one of only a handful of interviews since he sought asylum a year ago"?
As one of the key conduits for Snowden to get his material out into the world, there is nothing surprising that the Guardian should get to interview him. What is surprising is that there is an air more of privilege than of entitlement that Snowden should now choose or agree to speak to the paper.
Readers are promised the full interview later in the week. Wonderful.
*The Government has said that the legislation being pushed through this week is merely formalising the existing arrangements. For an alternative view, please see this from Graham Smith.
Oh, it's forgotten the puff!
Forgotten? Or decided that its splash is so important that nothing should diminish its impact?
As SubScribe has noted before, the Guardian is not a popular member of the Fleet Street gang. The phone hacking saga made it few friends, and its holier-than-thou air doesn't help.
Here we can see an example of why it gets up people's noses.
Edward Snowden's leaked documents from America's National Security Agency not only let the world into the secret of how the Obama administration listened into Angela Merkel's phone calls, but also won the Guardian a hatful of awards, including a Pulitzer prize and being named Britain's Newspaper of the Year.
Snowden is clearly important to the Guardian. But how far up its own backside does a paper have to be to think that this source - an American living under asylum in Russia - and his opinions on forthcoming British legislation are of overarching significance to its readers?
People concerned about invasions of privacy, infringements of liberty and rushed legislation do not need their concern validated by the foreigner whose actions, more than anything else, led to this situation in the first place. And those who support the proposed new laws are the very last people who would be swayed by the fact that the "traitor" Snowden is against them.
Snowden's views may be worth reporting - The Times and Mail think they are, while at the same time both making the point that he is the reason for this week's legislation - but as a top-to-bottom splash on a puff-free front?
And with the boast that these opinions were shared during a seven-hour interview in a Moscow hotel, "one of only a handful of interviews since he sought asylum a year ago"?
As one of the key conduits for Snowden to get his material out into the world, there is nothing surprising that the Guardian should get to interview him. What is surprising is that there is an air more of privilege than of entitlement that Snowden should now choose or agree to speak to the paper.
Readers are promised the full interview later in the week. Wonderful.
*The Government has said that the legislation being pushed through this week is merely formalising the existing arrangements. For an alternative view, please see this from Graham Smith.
RSS Feed
