All posts filed under: Guardian Watch

Why should cyclists and homeowners have to pay the price for ‘safety’ on a daily basis?

New research says up to 70% of British cyclists have taken steps in their everyday lives to guard against bike theft. From chains and padlocks to D-locks and even removing handlebars as a precaution – the idea that the onus is on us is writ large. Part of our new “Bad things shouldn’t happen, so why should I act like they do?” season, inspired by the Guardian.

Guardian plays Robin to MI5’s Batman

  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 …

Is Nick Cohen “standing up” for Syria?

by Keith Egerton Edited and revised 10/28/16 One of the most remarkable phenomenon in current liberal leaning comment in the liberal leaning Guardian group’s publications, are the often bilious attacks on the ‘left wing’ in British society, and on the current Labour Party in particular. One such article in the Observer (16th October, 2016), titled ‘Who, on the left or right, will stand up for Syria?’, began with the statement, The far left’s ideology is not “left wing” in any sense that a socialist from the 19th or 20th centuries would have understood. Really? Now, I am not formally qualified to objectively examine this statement in detail. My reading list on the history of socialism includes only general histories of the reform movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries. But to anyone with even a little knowledge of the history of socialism, the author’s assertion seems counter-intuitive. Such a general statement surely needs to be challenged and debated, not least because it is presented as an absolute truth. Following on from this opening gambit, …

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #14

This comment, written by one of our editors, was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment removed from “Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton” Snapshot of where it was: It should be noted that every single one of the claims made is objectively and provably true. It’s also interesting to note the title of this article was actually edited after publication – the original title can was “Why Hillary Clinton is so unlikeable”, as can be seen here in this tweet from Deborah Orr: Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton? The story goes far back https://t.co/H9gto1bkby — Deborah Orr (@DeborahJaneOrr) October 18, 2016 UPDATE: Deborah’s tweet has been edited after we published this. It now has the same headline as the amended article. We are wondering how this was done? Anyhow… Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”? Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”? Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”? Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”? Is it “extremely offensive of threatening?”? Is it …

Guardian front page channels Orwell’s 1984

by Jonathan Cook Reading the “liberal” press has become a truly Orwellian experience. What was true yesterday is a lie today. What was black today will be white tomorrow. Two reports on today’s front page of the Guardian could easily be savage satire straight from the pages of the novel 1984. Report one: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the beginning of a full-throttle assault by Iraqi forces, backed the US and UK, on Mosul to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS – an assault that will inevitably lead to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population. Report two: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the US and UK for considering increased sanctions against Syria and Russia. On what grounds? Because Syrian forces, backed by Russia, have been waging a full-throttle assault on Aleppo to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS and Al-Qaeda – an assault that has led to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population. Remember, as was prophesied: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, …

What “community standards” did this comment breach?#13

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment removed from ‘’Spontaneity at the expense of truth’: why it’s time for a new debate format snapshot of where it was: Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”? Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”? Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”? Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”? Is it “extremely offensive of threatening?”? Is it “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”? Is it not “relevant”? If none of the above – why was it taken down? see our archive of censored comments. And if you see any egregious examples of the Guardian censoring its “free” comment sections – email us at editor@off-guardian.org, and send us screen caps if possible

What “community standards” did this comment breach?#12

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment removed from ‘The White Helmets leader: ‘We can anticipate the scale of destruction based on the sound of the plane’ snapshot of where it was: The commenter removed the general criticisms of journalists, as he believed that might have been the reason his comment was removed (though we must note the criticism were pithy but general, and did not specify Guardian journalists as a group or as individuals). His revised comment was, however removed for a second time. Interestingly he notes there were other comments about the White Helmets and the US Peace Corps left to stand, and he wonders if it might be his observations about the good quality of Syrian health care that proved unwelcome? Anyhow… Does it “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”? Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”? Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”? Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”? Is it “extremely offensive of threatening?”? Is it “flame-wars based on …

Guardian sells space to war-profiteers to promote war

It has come to the point where, if the “Our Partners” section of an organization with a vaguely benign-sounding name, along the lines of Middle East Fund for Democracy and Liberty or somethingorother, DIDN’T contain a reference to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation or the World Bank…I just wouldn’t be able to contain my shock.

Checking up on the sources and organisations behind this opinion piece on the Guardian yesterday morning (September 23rd) did not shock me, in the least.

Why are these oligarchs so concerned about African “corruption”?

Anton Du Plessis, of the ISS in South Africa, writes that “we” should no longer tolerate corruption in Africa undermining human rights.

Of course, when he says “we”, he doesn’t mean us. You and I – We don’t “tolerate” African corruption, for it is not in our power to do anything about such things. You know who does tolerate African corruption? Billionaires, oligarchs and corporate monopolies.

The Guardian’s coverage of Clinton’s health

by Kit OffGuardian has been quiet on the issue of Clinton’s health, about which there has been a whole lot of speculation in the alt-news in recent weeks, and a whole lot of denial in the MSM. Discussing someone’s health can be tricky, you have to tread a fine line between journalism and voyeurism. You have to have a baseline of respect for privacy that, one would hope, would be applied to oneself by others. However, this isn’t about a private citizen, this is about the physical and mental fitness of the (notionally) most powerful person on the planet…and the absurdity of the current narrative cries out for a response. Stories about Clinton’s health in the Guardian or on CNN simply say “there is no evidence Clinton is sick!” and complain about Trump’s campaign stoking “conspiracy theories” (I was not aware that “Gosh, that old lady doesn’t look well!” was a conspiracy theory…but that’s the media for you). The problem with the argument that “there’s no evidence Clinton is ill” is, pretty simply, that there’s …

Guardian “Facebook fact-check ” on 9/11 – every bit as poor as you would expect

by Catte The Guardian is no better at telling the truth about the nature of the 9/11 debate than about Syria, Ukraine or indeed anything. Its recent bid at being both social-media savvy and weirdly Orwellian, “Facebook Fact Check”, has this little snippet up atm: The paper they are referring to is On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapses, which we have published here, and the “professor” who, according to them, “left Brigham Young University in disgrace” is of course physicist Steve Jones, who was the subject of a hostile media campaign after he and his BYU research team claimed to have discovered evidence of nanothermite in tiny “red gray chips” found in the dust from the WTC explosions. For the record, Jones’ research work on the red gray chips has been challenged, but never debunked, and his experiments have been replicated successfully by independent researchers elsewhere in the world, such as Mark Bazile. Jones was suspended from his teaching duties and then offered “early retirement” by BYU in 2006 in the midst of …

Larry King and Donald Trump Follow-up: The Guardian keeps on lying

Following our story regarding The Guardian’s coverage of Donald Trump’s interview with Larry King on RT, we feel the need to point out the increased dishonesty on this issue. From this article in The Guardian this morning [our emphasis]: Trump’s comments followed a series of embarrassing links to the Kremlin, including an appearance by Trump on a Russian state propaganda television channel, where Trump defended Putin and criticized US foreign policy. Trump’s campaign later said television personality Larry King had somehow tricked the candidate into accidentally appearing on the Russian channel The fact is that, in the interview (which you can watch in its entirety here), neither man mentions Putin’s name once, let alone “defends” him. Nobody who’d seen the brief interview (it’s only 9 minutes long) could possibly make that mistake. So either the Guardian writers/editors are publishing stories about videos they have not even bothered to watch, or they are simply straight lying to try to paint Trump as some kind of Russian spy. Either is ethically indefensible for a “proper” news outlet.

Neo-McCarthyism in the Media: Donald Trump, Larry King and RT

by Kit Larry King is an old man now, 82, and has been doing interviews for decades, including 25 years doing his nightly show “Larry King Live” on CNN. He has interviewed actors, politicians, athletes, moguls, singers, soldiers and scientists, won countless awards, received half a dozen honorary degrees and done charity work all over the United States. And now he broadcasts on RT. This has always been a sticky issue for the MSM, who try so desperately to portray RT as some kind of neo-pravda propaganda mouthpiece, as opposed to a state funded news service akin to the BBC. He is a respected figure in the industry, and by the general public, and to attack him for his presence on RT would only draw attention it. So, for the most part, they don’t mention it. But now he has interviewed Donald Trump (see above video), and the Clinton campaign’s bizarrely desperate need to paint Trump as some kind of Manchurian Candidate means that Larry King’s and Donald Trump’s presence on RT is now centre-stage …

Neoliberalism is not dead: A Response to Martin Jacques

by Darryl S.L. Jarvis Martin Jacques (The Guardian, August 21) recent comments on the ‘death of neoliberalism’ are important, not least because he was one of the first analysts in the early 1980s to identify the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the West. This reversal of fortunes for neoliberalism, due to what Jacques identifies as a wave of political developments in the two countries which were its main champions, the UK and USA, is thus significant – indeed for many a cause for celebration. To borrow a line from Mark Twain, however, reports of the death of neoliberalism are greatly exaggerated. Jacques’ analysis is an overly optimistic reading of current political developments — developments which are still formative and which may yet challenge neoliberalism but through inherently nationalist and reactionary ways. Jacques’s assertion, for example, that ‘A wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US’ is questionable. The populist politics of Trump and UKIP can equally be read as race politics, or …

Guardian deletes 45% of comments BTL to control its Syria agenda

The Guardian wasted no time in further exploiting the al Nusra promotional vid it already splurged on its front pages without bothering to check the source. Hardly was it uploaded to the servers before the Graun was using it as a platform to promote – yet again – the (current) official western narrative on Syria, viz that it’s all about Assad and his Russian allies brutalising civilians and some lovely vaguely-defined “rebels”, and if only they could be made to stop everything would be fine. We have to say “current” narrative because it changes, frequently. Yes, Assad was indeed previously the premier bad guy du jour, but after the failure to get approval for airstrikes against him, the official narrative  started saying ISIS was the problem and no.1 threat to western civilisation, remember? And that remained the line until Russia intervened and started bombing ISIS, which unexpectedly blew that official narrative to bits. Now we have version three, or a reboot of version two. Now suddenly and inexplicably, ISIS has gone from threatening the world …

MSM promotes dodgy docs as well as child-exploitation in drive for war

by Catte Overshadowed by the recent attempts to create a faux media storm out of an unverified video produced by the pro-terrorist “Aleppo Media Center”, a recent article in the Guardian by Patrick Wintour reminds us that, when it comes to war-propaganda, the media doesn’t just do child-exploitation to order – it also promotes dodgy documents without question or analysis. Wintour’s piece focuses on the – as usual – uncorroborated open  letter to President Obama allegedly written by a group of doctors in terrorist-controlled eastern Aleppo, calling for US “intervention” to “stop the bombardment of hospitals in the besieged city by the Russian-backed Syrian air force”, and is another shining example of spineless obedience to an intellectually bankrupt narrative. The article doesn’t give the text of the letter in full, but here it is: Dear President Obama, We are 15 of the last doctors serving the remaining 300,000 citizens of eastern Aleppo. Regime troops have sought to surround and blockade the entire east of the city. Their losses have meant that a trickle of food …

Guardian: “yes media is weighted against Trump” because he’s “rubbish”

by Catte As a female writer I often cringe at the embarrassing collection of beaming, smooth-faced young women the Guardian fields to wrap dangerous political extremisms in lipsticky identity-politics. There’s a touch of exploitation in it, intended or not. Here’s the latest example, by Lucia Graves: The article sets out the case that Trump does not deserve unbiased press coverage. The media would love to be fair to him, of course, because fairness is their watchword – but they just can’t do it, because they have to protect their audience from his lies. Censorship is actually a sort of duty, Lucia tells us in her elementary-school prose, because Trump is “rubbish”. His campaign is indeed a place where journalistic objectivity meets its limits, but it’s not because we’re deliberately gunning for him. There simply is no fairness in presenting both sides of a story when one side is consistently rubbish, to put it kindly, or a dumpster fire, in this cycle’s parlance. Trump changes his mind like it’s the weather and tells a lie every …

Crimea and Ukraine: Luke Harding goes off his meds

by Kit Modern mass-media is replete with instances of cognitive dissonance. However none can so perfectly encapsulate the madness of the pretend world so many “journalists” now live in better, than these two offerings from the always entertaining Luke Harding. It has been reported that Russia has beefed up security on the Ukraine-Crimea border, in response to an apparent attack by SBU agents that resulted in the deaths of 2 Russian servicemen, there are also fears Kiev may try to disrupt the September 18th parliamentary elections. Luke’s reaction to this, on twitter, was as balanced and reasonable as anybody who reads his articles would expect (at least, the ones he hasn’t stolen from other people): #Russia now accusing #Ukraine of armed #Crimea incursion. Classic fakery – but to what end? https://t.co/lA4dlA9jUG — Luke Harding (@lukeharding1968) 10 August 2016 Yes, he declares the Ukrainian attacks are “classic fakery”, when asked he would not provide evidence for this assertion. But then evidence isn’t really Luke’s thing. The strange thing is that, in his other writings, such as …

The Guardian’s master of cognitive dissonance

by Jonathan Cook, July 30, 2016 Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian proves himself once again the master of cognitive dissonance. He berates the progressive left for its failure to match the emotional power of the political right’s slogans. The left lacks an answer, he says, to the rise of a Donald Trump. It is hard (for once) not to agree with Freedland when he writes that the left must have: …a response to the globalisation and automisation [sic] that has left so many millions feeling as if they, and the once flush towns they live in, have been consigned to the scrap heap. It means taming globalisation so that both its costs and benefits are shared more evenly. Right now, those at the top get the rewards while those at the bottom pay the price. There are policy answers, starting with putting people back to work in jobs that pay decent wages. Spending billions to repair the fabric of the country – whether that be the bridges, tunnels and roads that are falling apart in the US or giving …

The Killings of Tony Blair

by Craig Murray, July 27, 2016 Tonight I am appearing at a panel discussion following the screening of the long-awaited film by George Galloway, The Killings of Tony Blair. I shall have the dubious pleasure of debating with John McTernan, who has never lacked brass neck but does deserve some credit for appearing to represent the forces of darkness before what I imagine will be a very hostile audience. The other panel members are Michael Mansfield and Lauren Booth. The film has been predictably lambasted by the mainstream media. But it does include some very essential first hand evidence – myself apart, two other British Ambassadors tell what they themselves witnessed, as do Cabinet members. Noam Chomsky adds some important perceptions. This cannot just be dismissed by cries of “Oh look! George Galloway’s in a hat!! Remember when he was on Big Brother!!” The mainstream media’s response to this film has been unanimously puerile. The Blair-loving Guardian gave the film two stars and called it “sanctimonious”. If one cannot express moral condemnation of a man …