The Guardian is not Marxist. Wooly liberal, even quasi-socialist, possibly. But not Marxist. The Morning Star is Marxist.
As for “forced” subsidy - that’s requiring a significant stretch of the imagination. Are you saying that by paying for some recruitment ads, the BBC is subsidising the paper? Or what?
The first page of the thread?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108785&postcount=42
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108872&postcount=45
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108874&postcount=46
[/QUOTE]
Nope, funnily I did read those posts. Did you read mine?
“Why is the OP wrong to suggest that photos of a corpse (and the Guardian were showing this for at least some period of time) are a tad inappropriate for direct display on the front page of an online newspaper, and it would be more reasonable to post a link instead?”
What’s wrong with saying that a newspaper should put a link up of a photo to a corpse, rather than just display the image on the first page that loads on their site?
Oops, excuse the borked tags.
Assuming that mxist is some strange abbreviation of marxist rather than motocross, even as someone who loathes the Guardian I’d have to say you’re talking nonsense. Up its own arse, middle class handwringing crap - absoluty. Marxist, no.
The Beeb advertises in the Guardian for the same reason that business advertise in the Times, uni’s advertise in the TES (and the Guardian) and makers of limited edition collectible plates advertise in the Daily Express. They look at the circulation figures and work out which is the most cost effective way of reaching their target audience. I’ve got a media position I want to fill, and the Guardian’s the paper most popular in that section, with a dedicated segment for the market. I want to flog some tack to idiots with sod all sense and even less taste, I go to the Express. Claiming that the beeb is subsidizing the guardian by doing that is just daft - I’d be more upset if they wasted my license fee on job adverts in the wrong paper when they could use a bit of commonsense and chuck the ad where it’ll be read by someone who’s interested.
Quite, it’s about getting value for money. Why waste tax payers’/licence fee payers’ money on setting up a new recruitment publication when you can simply use an existing system of classifieds in a well established paper at a fraction of the cost? However the irony isn’t lost on me (given everything I’ve posted about the Guardian and it’s relationship with the truth when it comes to government) that the senior civil service members who are recruited from outside the civil service are often from exercises advertised in the Graun. 
Also a quick thank you to Gary Kumquat for correctly understanding my OP (which lots of others haven’t seemed to do).
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don’t understand you. It is quite possible for two reasonable people to look at the same facts and come to different conclusions on matters of opinion.
“But, but, but, you just don’t understaaaaaaaaaaand…”
[QUOTE=IlluminatiprimusBryan Ekers - is it a regular strategy of yours to dimiss anyone you don’t agree with as a child? Or have you just done it to me?[/QUOTE]
Your writings in this thread remind me of a little girl in a white dress terrified lest something “icky” come close to her, with a reaction all out of proportion to the alleged threat.
Well, that and the idiot who wrote a letter to Time complaining about how their cover photo of “Otzi” in all his dessicated glory had made him sick.
I’m beggining to understand that quote fom Yes, Prime Minister:
However, considering that libel laws are stronger in England that then the Guardian would had been stopped a long time ago if what you say is the whole truth. I have to agree with Bryan Ekers.
He wasn’t disagreeing with me, nor was I saying he was - so what’s your point? Oh right, it’s because I didn’t agree with you that I’m in some way being petulant, I see. Why don’t you fuck off you patronising twat; did you understand that?
The same applies to you Bryan Eckers - your writings in this thread remind me of someone who thinks that anyone who doesn’t have exactly the same take on things as them is a moron and should be humiliated publicly as punishment. Whilst I’ve made clear I don’t agree with some people in this thread I’ve been as respectful of their right to disagree with me as the pit requires me to. You, on the other hand, are simply obnoxious (apparently for fun, you troll).
Great quote GIGObuster, I hadn’t read it before. Shame you’re determined to wear that “I’m with stupid” t-shirt and stand next to Bryan whilst doing so.
Actually it was the “which lots of others haven’t seemed to do” part which my post was concerning.
Dumbass.
Oh, well in that case may I just say “but, but, but, you just don’t understaaaaaaaaaaand…”
So says The Ministry of Silly Walks. 
AFAICR Monty Python came with that parody of British government agency to make fun of guys like you.
I thought their motto was ‘coment is free but facts are scared’
Well, in this particular case, you’re being childish in demanding that you be shielded from something newsworthy but “icky”. The fact that I’m pointing this out (in clear violation of “Nanny State Guidelines For Making Sure Everybody is Happy and No-one Gets Upset”) doesn’t mean I view people who disagree with me as morons, but if it suits you to claim such, go ahead.
I wasn’t aware of any such requirement in the Pit. It would defeat the purpose of having a Pit in the first place. I don’t want to seem even more condescending than you’ve already accused me of being, but the world is a violent place and newspapers compete with attention-grabbing visuals and headlines. There are various technical solutions to your problem, including browser settings that don’t load pictures unless you click on their placeholders, but hearing a modern adult make such a complaint sounds like a Victorian woman eager to avoid anything that might make her gasp, let her tightly-laced corset cause her to faint. If a picture of a hanging Saddam has this effect on you, I can’t imagine you’re ready for the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of the SDMB, let alone its Pit.
Coming from you this means… absolutely nothing.
If anyone is curious, here is the clip of the original *Yes, Prime Minister * “Who reads the papers?”
I was wondering about the Independent… Looking at the comments on YouTube:
True, I did read it a few years ago from America because one dumb reporter from that paper swallowed the false exit polls from Venezuela’s recall referendum in 2004, the opposition did their best to plant doubts and seed armed rebellion, and somehow the early “scoop” from the Independent was being used as evidence by the opposition. However, the Independent corrected itself later on the day and the opposition lost any foreign confirmation of their “evidence”.
Is your source for this the same as for the following?:
Because Katherine Graham is dead and the Guardian receives no taxpayer subsidy. So I’d think again.
More criticism in the letters pages of the Guardian…
This last letter in particular shows why I read the Guardian - they will take the flak and justify their decision, or apologise if they got it wrong.
The public has spoken: that picture of Saddam’s face as he hangs is now one of the three “most e-mailed photos” on Yahoo. Right next to a marching brigade of Storm Troopers, and a very wide female ass.
Apparently the public isn’t bothered.
Or maybe they are! Forty minutes later, Saddam is gone, replaced by the mouse sitting on a cat sitting on a dog. Very cuddly.
‘Yes Minister’ lifted the joke from elsewhere (I forget where but when I heard it broadcast for the first time I already new it) and slightly edited it. This was back in the seventies
The original went:
London’s Newspapers
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they do run the country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who the country ought to be run like it used to be run;
The Daily Express is read by people who think that it still is;
The Morning Star is read by people who think this country should be run by another country;
The Sun is read by people who don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.
Pre Daily Star, Daily Sport and Independent.