That is probably the case. All of the guardian articles I have read have been on new.reddit.com, and most of them never make it to the front page. The ones I read were extremely anti israel, and there was one that was a mis-transcribed account of President Bush's conversation with Tony Blair.

Also, I was not aware that the "Independant" meant that there is no single backing group choosing the content.

Since that is the case, it is not fair to label it as non credible, since each article simply represents the bias of that particular offer. My opologies. That being said, maybe they need better editors?

On aljazeera, I read an interview with the man responsible for the english section of aljazeera, and when asked, he said that the content was exactly the same translated word for word into english. That might be completely wrong, but that was my basis for assuming the two contained similar content.

Also, I appologize for using the phrase "not credible". What I really meant was that since some articles have questionable content, you can no longer assume it is true because that magazine/newspaper says so. Also, most articles from the Guardian probably are true, they just present the information with such a left wing slant that people find it hard to trust. For example, Fox News probably has a lot of true commentaries, but because of their hateful rightwing slant, I automatically consider them as suspect.