what an utter ridiculous bias "feature".

Mind control by the media in full force.

What the hell is the guardian anyway????

WetDream said:

What a strange reaction. Can you honestly say that any of the things they list didn't happen? Where's the mind control or bias?

Wow. That was realllllyyyy biased!

TwiliteKid said:

It's not that the things listed didn't "happen", but it's the way that they are presented in the worst possible light that makes it biased. Did they in turn mention anything positive about the man? No? Then that's biased.

azifwecare said:

What are you seeing that's negative? I think you guys are being a little senstive and over protective. It's a slideshot meant to generate traffic on their site, not a condemnation of Prince. No need to get worked up.

a timeline of Controversy: seems to be a lot of negative stories.

they forgot about the Michael Jackson incident/ Prince not showing up for the We Are The Wold session

Interesting!

I don't know how to copy, or even find an online version, but there is a good article in this months GQ (UK edition). The article compares Prince's 21 nights stint at the O2, to MJ's upcoming stint.

Not particularly nice about Mr Jackson, but it is nice to read something positive about Mr Nelson for once. Check it out if you can.

Nothing negative there. The Guardian is one of the better British newspapers (not a tabloid). If you bother to read the other timelines on various groups/people/events you will start to notice (immediately if you're English) that a common style of appraisal and humour runs throughout each one. It's an oh-so-subtle tongue-in-cheek appraisal so perhaps that's why some don't notice it's jocular manner.

iloveannie said:

Couldn't put it better.

Seems to me the point of the timeline is not show Prince negatively but hightlight the things he's done that just don't make any sense!

djfine said:

Nope!

The Guardian as a whole hates The Mail and The Mail On Sunday (the paper that Prince used to distribute and promote Planet Earth) - The journalists that write for The Guardian are from the opposite side of the political spectrum to their counterparts at The Mail. The Guardian tends to have a left wing, more liberal agenda. Prince has proved that he tends not to.

funksoldier said:

But does any level-headed and informed person actually take the Mail seriously? No.

iloveannie said:

If you needed to shift some cds I know who I would turn to first.

He didn't say his epilepsy was cured by angels.

Serious lack of a sense of humor round here...

Dayclear said:

It's a newspaper. The link is right there.

darlingomo said:

Got it in one.

iloveannie said:

Yep, it's actually quite light hearted and amusing. I don't see anything to be offended by. Could have been a LOT worse if actually done by The Mail!! Or The Sun.... can you imagine...?!

mypancakeplaces said:

I missed the appraisal and sence of humor.

Jeffiner said:

The Mail would have mentioned his rib removal.

iloveannie said:

not negative?

that feature is not exactly flattering, it makes Prince looks like a freak, doesn't it....?

usually in such 'histories' his charitable work for those in need, and his assistance and inspiration of many upcoming and established artists is negated.

iloveannie said:

Yep!

But didn't they spell JWs wrongly? (missing h). A bit disappointing for the Guardian's editorial standards...