The Guardian's Three Little Pigs ad

British newspaper The Guardian promotes its "open journalism" format with this fantastic mockumentary ad.


  1. The Whole Picture? Ha ha.

    The Guardian is almost as bad as the Murdoch press in bias and unreported hypocrisy. Just going the other way.

    I like some of what they do but their shrill holier than thou rhetoric is makes them worse than the Sun et al. because they are meant to have higher standards and they fail dismally.

    Their tax avoidance activities alone read like a bankers wet dream. It is one of the least read papers in the UK and their readership is in massive decline. It’s a little sad as they are a least a decent voice in opposition and keep the right wing press (a little) more honest.

    BUT the Grauniad’s* sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    Cory is the one of the only really great things about the paper.

    *The Guardians nickname due to their consistent standards of bad spelling.

    1. No, Phen, that’s simply not true. Not in the slightest.

      The ongoing arrests at the Murdoch gutter press show what corrupt, rotten, poisonous organs he maintains. 

      There’s only one paper that isn’t embroiled in phone hacking, political and police corruption. Can you guess which one it is? Clue: it’s not one of your poor, put-upon right wing papers.

    2. It’s a terrible ad. Overwrought, unsubtle, and clearly cost a fortune.

      I’d be delighted to hear how the newspaper avoids tax, though. Do tell. It’s a consistent editorial theme so if what you’re saying is fact, it would be front page news. Could you the person who’s winkled out the smoking gun that News International would, doubtless, pay more than a few sovereigns to be able to print?

      **The Grauniad is so named for their poor typesetting and printing, a heritage from Manchester print runs,  and a quick Google would explain to you why. Take your time.

      It’s still a dreadful ad, though.

      1.  The Guardian Media Group does some fairly ‘ordinary’ corporate type tax avoidance – nothing illegal.  It is disappointing that they resort to that but who doesn’t nowadays.  I wish they didn’t.

        Its not new because a) its not illegal and b) all the other newspapers who would love to get the guardian are up to the same if not worse.   

        News International, for example,  pays a tiny amount of tax considering how profitable it is.

  2. I dont like that ad. it shows people commenting on a fictional fairy tale and siding with the wolf    and nit picking. it shows up the worst aspect of those people who comment and if this is what guardian readers are like, or what the guardian wants to encourage those kinds of readers it makes me want to avoid the paper. maybe i am the only one who feels this way. i wont be surprised if that is so and i get lots disagreeing with me because i seem to be living out of synch with general opinion. but i dont mind. just wish there are more of us though. or maybe those of us who feel like me, just dont bother to comment. what is the point right? no one will take any notice.  

  3. A fun watch – but I can’t work out whats it’s actually saying about The Guardian. Does anyone know? Did the ad guys?

    1. The ad implies that news unfolds, and the big picture (and opinions) change as facts are brought to light. Conclusions are jumped to and abandoned as the story gradually gets told. You don’t know everything right now, but if you continue to read *** newspaper, you will.

  4. @anthony_wrong:
    Of course, the irony is that you’re here in exactly the role of those that you’re attacking.

    I thought it was a wonderful pub that left us all thinking, and also wondering if Jeremy Irons would accept the role of the wolf if he had to keep the mask on for the whole film.

    (i swear i posted this under the proper “Reply” queue, but then some @#$! disqus login blew me off)

    1.  After I type up my replies, then login, the text often drops down to a new Reply window. If I find the post again and click on Reply, it puts the text in That window. I think they’re hoping you’ll check any new posts or something.

  5. The ad may well be overwrought, unsubtle, and have cost a fortune, but I’d be surprised if it doesn’t have the desired effect.

    I thought it was a neat gimmick to have a small story leading to bigger ones, like pulling a loose thread… hinting at the unravelling of society driven by the banks.

    That aspect definitely scored a few points with me.

    So it doesn’t alienate the base, at least. Wonder how it fares with Sun readers…?

    1. The ad is doubtless much too long for a Sun reader’s attention span. They’d have flipped channels after 10 seconds to watch ‘Monkeys Do the Craziest Things.’

    2. At least they’re selling their publication on discussion and journalism, rather than 1p holidays and the quality of the tv listings – like everything from Murdoch.

  6. How revealing of the Guardian’s blinkered world view that the threads of the story just happen to unravel to reveal that evil bankers are behind it all.

  7. You can tell it was a fairy tale, the headline of Riots spark reform debate…
    I thought it was made clear in reality that riots spark more totalitarian responses as the media spins everything to get better ratings.

  8. Guardian reporting sparks riot

    Recent reports in the Guardian, excusing insurance fraud perpetrated by three murderous pigs, have been directly linked to recent riots, with damages said to have run into millions of pounds. Unrest broke out in central London when a mob of Guardian
    readers took umbrage at the stiff sentences imposed on the porcine trio for a range of counts, including fraud, theft by deception and murder.

    Although the riots were initially blamed on poor copy editing in the daily newspaper, no corroborating evidence has been provided.

Comments are closed.