The only difference is that the Guardian/NYT's lies are accepted enough to be dangerous.
See: russiagate; russian bounties for american soldiers; the lack of representation of blacks and minorities in initial Covid coverage, leading many to assume it did not affect them; etc.
You're going to have to do better than that. Please provide articles from The Guardian that were stating incorrect facts (not reporting allegations or personal opinions) that weren't recanted later when new evidence came to light.
Edit to clarify: you're making a statement, you should be able to provide direct proof.
Most sources claim the Guardian is mostly factually correct:
Yeah... I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole for you. You have to have been paying attention. These things turned out to be false but were continuously reported on at length as if they were true, even though plenty of sound skepticism existed at the time and a basic, continuous, genuine application of journalistic standards would have compelled then to ask, what is this based on? And discovered it was nothing or made-up.
When it comes to your links, consider that media ranking the media is perhaps not the least-biased judgment. Outlets branding themselves as fact-checkers are often particularly egregious. Snopes, for example, can't even dispassionately and accurately rate stories that do not fit a woke worldview.
I once read a NYT "fact check" that was checking a trump quote. One of the quotes was "we've been fighting in the middle east for 17 years." They rated this statement False, flat-out. Why? The correction stated, "We've been fighting in afghanistan for 17 years, but afghanistan is not the middle east. We've been fighting in the middle east for 16 years."
It completely ignored the point of the statement to issue a False rating on a technicality. Any reasonable interpretation would not have done so.
This is an example of the accuracy of modern-day "fact-checking." It's basically made up.
That's not equivalent at all. The dreadlocks story is a legitimately outrageous and racist attack. It's not journalistic ethics to write stories like a robot. The context is important. The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader. "Kids Cut Another Kid's Hair" just sounds like juvenile hijinks and isn't doing justice to the story.
The Daily Mail will actively gin up uninteresting or patently false stories with the hottest headlines they can possibly get away with. They'll skip coverage of important news if they can find a story about a prominent person misspeaking about something inconsequential. Look at the lawsuit. They were upset that publishing multiple stories a day about Piers Morgan weren't all getting top search ranking. The world doesn't need multiple stories per day about Piers Morgan any more than it needs multiple stories about celebrity bikini bodies like what's on their front page right now. DM is fluff, it's pandering, it has no redeeming value.
> "Kids Cut Another Kid's Hair" just sounds like juvenile hijinks and isn't doing justice to the story.
The alternative take is that story pretty much is just juvenile hijinks, and the NYT is pretty much ginning up a story. A lot of the kids I knew in school were horrible to each other and nobody wrote an article about them.
Most print journalism has gone to the gutter these days, the NYT isn't a respectable institution. There is a bunch of stuff on the internet that is more reliable.
But it is juvenile hijinks, and did turn out to be patently false.
> The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader.
Lets see which details were no longer relevant once the story turned out to be false, and the Times (to their credit, unlike the Mail) changed the headline to reflect that:
