Four days ago, on September 24, we published an item about the use of multiple identities on The Guardian‘s CIF pages by people presenting avidly pro-Western, and aggressively anti-Russian and anti-Syrian views. The irony of the situation, as we pointed out, is that the use of such multiple identities is being tolerated by a newspaper which, only 3 years ago, broke the news about the troll army the US had by then unleashed in cyberspace, and which has since then instituted a draconian policy of censorship of reader comments critical of the US and EU foreign policy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, including Ukraine.
One of our readers has now provided us with fresh evidence that The Guardian does more than merely tolerate a practice characteristic of Western government agents on the Internet.
The screenshots below are taken from the article Putin says he can work with Obama despite trading barbs on Syria and ISIS. They show the moderators actively censor readers’ posts which point to the practice and to the fact that it’s already been documented. Here’s what happened today, when the mysterious commenter “Omniscience” surfaced again — and another commenter called him/her out.
The incident began when the reader who goes under the moniker gawain9 posted a comment insinuating that the rise of IS has benefited the Syrian government. The imputation of collusion on the part of the Assad government was immediately met with rebuttals by three other Guardian readers.
It was at that point that “Omniscience” stepped in with a non-sequitor intended to deflect attention from the argument. Another commenter (Karoline Louise), one of the three people who’d responded to gawain9’s original imputation, then called Omniscience on it, asking him whether he/she also posts as ‘GreatMountainEagle’.
The reader who passed these screenshots on to us then rounded off the discussion by responding to Karoline Louise and confirming her suspicion.
The last screenshot in this series shows how the Guardian’s moderators chose to react to the fact that someone posting anti-Syrian-government comments on CIF is using multiple identities. Instead of going after the obvious troll, the newspaper removed our reader’s comment, with its link to the article in which we first outted its tolerance of multiple identities of pro-Western commentators, thus removing from the public’s view evidence of the Guardian’s complicity in a practice it once critiqued as part of an underhanded propaganda war waged by the US.
Evidence of such propaganda practices by the West is now being deliberately axed, while Guardian’s CIF pages remain open to pro-western trolls, some of whom are no doubt part of that cyber-army the paper told us about in 2012.
Our thanks to seamuspadraig for alerting us to this incident and providing the screenshot evidence presented here.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
Is the Guardian not aware that such things as screenshots exist?
The Grauniad was, after all, the paper that perpetrated the lie that Saddam kicked the arms inspectors out of Iraq. So they’re still lying? How about that?
Look no further than George Soros when dealing with the Graun They use US State department NGOS to back up their stories/fantasies
An article by Anna Neistat that i and others brought into question got me banned, an article in regards to Assads rape rooms, arguably as poor a piece of foreign journalism as iv’e had the misfortune to read They removed the article from their history .We slaughtered it
I got put into ‘pre moderation’ on CIF because I called Luke Harding a whining Russophobe during his live commentary of the UN speeches. needless to say I haven’t been back since despite being a regular poster for the last 3 years, can’t be arsed with their corporate right wing wank anymore.
I was banned for repeatedly stating the obvious: That the Western reaction to the beheading videos last year (bomb them bomb them bomb them!) was a strange one for ISIS to be encouraging with their videos. Therefore perhaps it was not ISIS making the videos, as it was working against their interests (IE getting the West to bomb them.
Yes, a theory, and yes a conspiracy one, but surely journalists should at least ask these questions. What is the motive? Does the stated motive make any sense?
Guardian stopped asking these questions long ago.
I thought gov shills at first, but now… maybe the Guardian themselves? Lefties really are that pathetic so I wouldn’t put it past them. Either way it’s amusing.
The Guardian isnt left wing, it’s neo liberal on a good day and neo conservative on a bad one.
How is this the action of a left winger? Are you truly that stupid? Honestly, people like you should just be removed from the country. Fucking UKIP moron.
I think there’s an argument to be made that the entire left/right paradigm has become largely meaningless in the face of the seismic shift during the Reagan/Thatcher/Bush/Blair years. “Liberal-fascism” has replaced genuine left-leaning or liberal thinking. And many who think of themselves as “right wing” embrace the kind of freedom of thought and expression that was once deemed an essential part of liberalism.
But let’s be polite. People can get left behind or confused without being morons.
If I was working for JTRIG, Brigade 77 or any of the lesser known affiliates that are polluting cyberspace, I would try to get an insider employed as a ‘moderator’ at The Guardian (or similar). We know that state propagandists have for a long time been embedded in media organisations as journalists, why not as censors of other ‘content’?
Is that paranoid thinking, or, considering what we all now know, just common sense?
Do you have the link that seamuspadraig gave, that transgressed the “unwritten law” ? Thanks
Hi – good reminder. We added a link to the article and to SP’s deleted post
Just use the first link in the text above: it takes you to the article seamuspadraig’s deleted comment had linked to.
The Guardian is a business which, over time, built up a brand with a reputation for decency and progressiveness, (if not always one for good typesetting). It’s now betting the house on a worldwide neo-liberal win, with some diversionary progressive personal politics thrown in. Being a business transferring from print to
digital media, the last thing it can afford to do is lose its reputation for honesty, since the money from Autotrader’s gone.
Reblogged this on wgrovedotnet and commented:
The Guardian is nothing more than a puppet media supporting the likes of Blair and Cameron, very anti Putin and Assad.
Why not ‘they’ being Guardian employees/writers? .
What difference whose troll they are? It is just garbage either way.
Of course it matters. You can’t develop an effective strategy until you know who the enemy is.