Guardian Watch, latest
Comments 8

What a difference a decade makes

From our Facebook…


  1. Alieu says

    Shaun Walker is clearly an agent for the British Government. It’s so blatantly obvious you think they’d get someone else in to do the anti-Russian stories to give them a bit more credibility. My guess is MI6. You can pick your alphabet agency here…

  2. Shaun Walker is truly becoming an embarrassment and it is clear that the Guardian can no longer afford to open his articles up for public comment, since it puts a strain on their etiquette police and they just cannot afford to pay them for overtime.

    As a result, in those few articles about Russia or the Ukraine which remain open for comments, the Guardian has chosen to eliminate the bulk of the dissenting voices (i.e., those that would note that the US and NATO brought on the current crisis or otherwise have the temerity to point out that Putin is not the aggressor in the Ukraine).

    Nowadays the few open threads are populated by people that agree with whatever drivel the Guardian has posted. Rather than question the articles, these people spend their time commenting about how the Guardian Threads are infested with paid Russian Trolls when, in fact, if they would just read through the thread, they might find that anyone and everyone that ever voiced an effective counter-argument has long since been removed.

    I really wonder why this has happened and, in the larger I-love-a-conspiracy fashion, if it doesn’t purport a more sinister form of control being exerted over our friends at the Guardian. Methinks it didn’t necessarily end with the destruction of the Snowden Disks in their basement and it would seem that the changes have accelerated under the new editor.

  3. This was an interesting document. I must be a hybrid troll, since my posts frequently meet the criteria established for all of the different trolls identified (although the contractor is careful to explain that meeting the identification criteria that they have established does not necessarily mean that the person is actually a “hybrid troll”).

    The definition for the Wikipedia Troll is also interesting. If one read between the lines, it says that the Wikipedia Troll provides factual information, but that the information is taken out of the proper context. Apparently this means that factual information is disruptive to the Western Viewpoint (i.e., the facts are getting in the way of the official story) and is therefore a very difficult issue for the NATO propagandists.

    • Obviously this reply referred to the NATO Document, which was posted by spellingcat. Sorry for any confusion created.

  4. Vano says

    Could you post this as a proper article instead of embed from your facebook? Its easier to read

  5. Guest says

    No wonder the turned off the comments. This really is out right lies.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole