It's not about the newspaper quality, it's about signaling that the speaker is not a card-carrying supporter of the political faction the newspaper is traditionally associated with. So for the Guardian it translates to "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian".
With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russian Oligarchs Living In London.
This pretty much matches my intent in the OP (whether that came across clearly is, of course, another matter...)
In a possibly vain attempt to try and avoid being trapped inside an echo-chamber of my own views I try and make myself read both the Guardian and the Telegraph alongside the BBC. Similarly CNN and Fox News for US news. Just to try and be exposed to alternate views.
It's possible to find interesting (again, not necessarily ones that I agree with) articles from all of the above media outlets. Some days this is harder than others. Some days I find an article hilarious at first reading, only to think a little, and then feel slightly terrified that someone might actually hold the stated opinions.
(And I realise that the above aren't all encompassing by any means, just more than I might otherwise look at).
>> "please don't assume I'm a Labour/Green supporter just because I read the Guardian"
So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read.
I think it is very important for everyone to be confronted with opinions that don't fit into ones already established narratives. And nobody should ever issue an apology for that. The alternative would be to renounce your intellectual curiosity and feed of a self-reinforcing feedback loop...
[0]: The leading conservative newspaper in Germany.
> Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read.
I think it's a natural state: sources inevitably influence your view of the world, and most people only consume one source for any given media, so it's not illogical to desume that you will be influenced primarily by that one source.
I completely agree that consuming a multiplicity of sources is a Good Thing.
many Guardian opinion articles are designed to provoke the sort of people that read that guardian. To get them angry, or riled up, or uncomfortable.
As a result, in the same way that some right wing newspaper editorials (e.g. katie hopkins) are much more extreme than normal readers of those papers, Guardian editorials often make fairly left wing people uncomfortable. This is to encourage sharing and try to create viral articles that people will tweet about.
At the same time, the British left is in a phase where different factions are tearing eachother apart (which is why the current government is able to survive). For example the current debate around antisemistism. Or the anti-transexual feminist group that invaded the london gay pride march. Both sides of these debaes are reflected in the newspapers editorials, and few people would want to be assosiated with both sides at the same time.
In short Guardian oppinion articles are devisive, both for buisness reasons and reflecting social issues. People might distance themselves from them for reasons other than what you suggest.
With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russian Oligarchs Living In London.