Search results

I don't think it did. I just looked up Wikipedia: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq The paper endorsed the argument that Iraq had to be disarmed of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction': "It is not credible to argue, as Iraq did in its initial reaction to Mr Powell [at the Security Council], that it is...

That was a joke by the way. Yes. I am not entirely sure about the highlighted part. It just seems that if papers chased the largest audience - they will end up basically the same. Like the major parties after the middle ground in politics. They all end up looking the same, different traditions...

And you can eff off.

Those are not cosy words. That is the tradition from which the Guardian has arisen. No need to make the words "cosy". And the idea that any news organisation can give "the full picture on every story" is fanciful.

Are you sure you are just not seeing what you want to see. I read some of those comments section and there seemed to be quite a wide range of opinion. I am not sure that the paper looks at its readership and then tailors its reporting to that audience. More that it stays loyal to its liberal...