Guardian Watch, latest
Comments 12

Guardian plays Robin to MI5’s Batman


MI5.jpg

Screencap from a page of MI5’s website.

 

Jonathan Cook, “an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel”, writes in his eponymous blog:

Today the Guardian offers decisive confirmation that it is only too willing to serve as an establishment mouthpiece. It proudly announces that it is the venue selected by Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain’s FBI, to receive the agency’s first-ever newspaper interview [link].

If the Guardian were a proper independent newspaper, it would regard this interview as a stain. Instead it bills it as a front-page “exclusive”. Exclusively, the Guardian has been given the chance to regurgitate MI5’s propaganda – propaganda designed to help stoke a new Cold War with Russia.

In fact, this is not an “interview” as the Guardian claims, for the simple reason that the paper’s two “interviewers” – one of them its deputy editor, Paul Johnson – have no basis on which to question the quality of the “classified” information they are being fed.
Everything Parker tells them could have been guessed at without the interview:

● the Russians under Vladimir Putin are an evil empire;

● Islamic jihadists are everywhere but MI5 is brilliant at foiling their terror attacks;

● the increased budget MI5 has received is entirely justified because it is doing such a brilliant job of foiling terror attacks;

● MI5’s extra powers to surveil us all are necessary to foil those terror attacks;

● whatever happens with Brexit, MI5 will continue doing a brilliant job protecting the British people;

● MI5 is determined to become a friendlier place for women and minority ethnic applicants.

This isn’t journalism, it’s the very definition of stenography.

Even the Guardian seems to sense that its readers might wonder why this interview is being published in their newspaper. But rather than discuss why the Guardian would want to publish an interview with Parker, the paper asks the opposite question: why has MI5 chosen the Guardian? This is framed in a way to make it look as though Parker has entered a combative environment in coming to the Guardian. The paper reminds us that it broke the Edward Snowden story.

In fact, the Guardian’s Snowden revelations seem like another era. Remember that the Guardian got access to Snowden’s documents only via their star columnist Glenn Greenwald, who has since departed after what appeared to be an increasingly troubled relationship, especially after the Snowden revelations. Instead Parker is once again given an opportunity to attack Snowden, accentuating the “damage that was done to the work of British and allied intelligence agencies” by Snowden’s efforts to bring to public attention the systematic and secretive invasions of our privacy.

The Guardian is in far more comfortable territory playing Robin to MI5’s Batman.

So why has Parker selected the Guardian rather than, say, the more obviously establishment London Times?

Because the Guardian’s articles are not behind a paywall and so are easily accessible to anyone online? Because it has become the preferred British news source for American elites, whose own media are even more servile to power? Because the Guardian’s (unjustified) reputation for leftwing and critical journalism will bestow on this MI5 press release the necessary pretence that Parker has been subjected to tough questioning from the Guardian? Or because Parker knew that the Guardian would be as docilely accepting of his propaganda as any rightwing outlet of the corporate media?

Draw your own conclusions.


12 Comments

  1. Colonel Bagel says

    The Guardian of Judea has been compromised since day one. This is published as part of their War of Terror propaganda for the Israeli state who control Western Governements. Commonly called ZOG.

    Like

  2. Bailed says

    The quickest airbrushing of a comment I experienced was when I suggested that The G’s new tone was part of a deal to exculpate its sinful copulation with Snowden. That The G may have agreed to act as a mouthpiece to avoid further government censure.

    Like

  3. This Guardian spookfest was a day late for Halloween. With its “trick or treat” style journalism, promoting evil as good and vice a versa has become the stock in trade of the liberal rag.

    However as Cook says it’s a sign of how the establishment views its news outlets, or the media fire wall as many now think of it.

    The media fire wall fronted by the Graun, auntie Beeb etc. behind which the real news lurks.

    To wear this spook-scoop as a badge of honour tells us all we need to know about how the Guardian has fully bought into to this subterfuge.

    Like

  4. “Guardian plays Robin to MI5’s Batman” should read “Guardian plays Harley Quinn to MI5’s Joker”.

    There, if you don’t mind, Off-Guardian, I fixed the headline and the Batman fans can rest more easily. More apt too as Harley Quinn originally was the Joker’s psychologist.

    Who knows why Andrew Parker chose to speak to The Guardian rather than The London Times? Any one or even all the reasons Jonathan Cook suggests could apply. Maybe the possibility that The Guardian has a larger online audience which is younger and more international than the audience for The London Times should be considered. The Guardian is also heavily into identity politics and its audiences for identity politics issues are a captive market. Not to mention the fact that not all of The Guardian’s regular writers and columnists are all that bad, and some of the better ones have their own fan followings who themselves are opinion leaders in their online or other networks. In the end, it’s about spreading the influence far and wide.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joseg G. says

      Considering what antics Batman laid on Robin in the Bat Cave, I’ll stay with the former headline…

      Like

  5. james carless says

    The snivelling Gaurdian playing the part of the Jocker to the fat MI5 Penguin controller might be more apt description.

    Like

  6. paulcarline says

    Readers may remember that former MI5 agents Annie Machon and David Shayler resigned from the service after blowing the whistle on the MI6-funding of Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda members to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.
    Both services are suspected of involvement in both the entrapment of ‘patsies’, who can then be accused of plotting to commit acts of terrorism, and the planning and execution of some of the false flags which have helped to create the myth of an Islamic jihadist terrorism which threatens the West.
    As Webster Tarpley suggested in his classic “9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA”: “We must stress the idea, unfamiliar and suppressed as it is, that the vast majority of international terrorism conducted on a spectacular scale is indeed state-sponsored terrorism”.
    Encouragingly, radical alternative media such as the superb Off-Guardian have made the idea far less unfamiliar and suppressed than it was in 2005, when Tarpley’s book was published.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ultra909 says

      It’s up there in black and white:

      What we do: terrorism, international terrorism

      Nuff said.

      Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s