And you base this notion on what exactly? As Minty pointed out the evidence points to the opposite. The more developed the society the lower the birth rate.

Dismissing the Guardian because the editorial has an agenda, as all papers do, is lazy.

Papers like the Guardian tend to separate news i.e. fact based reporting from editorial opinion far better than tabloids (including the Mail).

I can't remember what thread it was on but I quoted some facts from the Guardian to which Robinson made his stock reply of "It's in the Guardian so there is no point following the link". I then found the exact same set of facts written in the Telegraph.

The "It's the Guardian so its no use" line is pretty pathetic really. It just shows the people who trot that line out can't dispute what is actually written in the paper.

The real illustration of its failure is not that it missed the 5% target but that job seekers got more success at finding jobs by themselves. That is a higher percentage of those [inot[/i subject to the program found employment then those on it!

I remember seeing, some years ago, a documentary about women in (IIRC) Calcutta, which is one of the poorest areas of India. But the regional government had worked particularly hard to increase education and job opportunities for women – and as those took effect, the number of births decreased.

The Guardian is like all other papers it will lead with whatever it thinks will help sell most papers. It's take on all issues will be tainted by the agenda its editor/owner is trying to push. The articles it commissions and the writers it uses will have careful vetted to ensure they do not go off message. In that respect the Guardian is no different from any other daily.

That's called the editing process.



Although I would say, having worked for the online version of the [iGuardian[/i, it really wasn't as rigid as you suggest.

Once you get compliant writers you don't need to be so rigid - would be interesting to see what would happen if they commissioned Richard Littlejohn

Y'see, I think that the likes of Littlejohn are part of the problem, in that they don't promote reasoned discussion but a ranting, knee-jerking approach that is simply designed to whip people into an unthinking frenzy.

I've used this example before, but when the French were debating the burqa ban, their media had the likes of philosophers discussing it in the pages of papers. We'd get Littlejohn or Burchill or assorted other idiots.

the problem is there are narrow minded gob5hites on both sides of any argument, once someone adopts an extreme position someone adopts the opposite (but equally extreme) position, and the majority are left floundering in the midst.

Totally agree. But that's why we need a responsible media more than ever. That doesn't mean a media where every publication/channel has the same political ethos, but one where they actually look at questions properly. Another French example: if there's industrial action in France, the French right-of-centre press won't simply scream 'Bad!' but will look at what has caused the industrial action. It may not agree, but it may even sympathise – you get my drift.

If you're not currently watching C4 Dispatches, make sure you watch tonight's episode on [url=http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od4oD[/url

Test.