All posts tagged: CiF

End free speech and save the minorities! (will anyone really fall for this?)

by Blackcatte The current – and frankly bizarre even by recent standards – Guardian campaign “the web we want” seems to be driven by two main agendas. The first, and probably the major one is the long-simmering plan to “regulate” (i.e. control and censor) free speech on the Web. That the Graun’s effort is part of a co-ordinated new offensive in that department is pretty conclusively illustrated by the fact the ex minister for “equality”, Maria Miller delivered her own diatribe agains the “problem” of internet “abuse” just days after the Guardian’s new campaign took off. The similarity between her invective and that employed by the Guardian’s tame journos puts it beyond question that this is an Establishment-wide move. A concerted plan to use exaggerated claims of “abuse” and its alleged impact on minorities, to mobilise well-meaning liberals in support of internet censorship. In fact, unlike the feeble Apologists at Graun HQ, Miller at least has the guts to pretty much say so out loud: “We need better laws and we need better enforcement. Government …

“They have a cave troll…”

In the ongoing war for human consciousness that is the Guardian’s CiF, accusations of state-sponsored trolldom and of multiple identities operated by a single individual are the currency of debate. In fairness it must be said both sides indulge, though the majority of such accusations do stem from one side – viz those who like to claim that anyone expressing doubts about western/NATO policies must be in the pay of the Kremlin. And indeed this more than slightly paranoid POV seems to be shared by the Guardian moderators themselves. Enjoy the delicious irony then, in the fact one of the few pieces of hard evidence showing just such multiple IDs in operation belongs to two accounts run by avidly, if not aggressively, pro-western identities. Mark Nesop, of the wonderful Kremlin Stooge blog sent us some caps of a recent exchange on CiF between a commenter called “ColinJones2014” and an individual identifying himself as “Omniscience“, who suddenly switches mid-convo into being “GreatMountainEagle“, without breaking the flow of the exchange. Here’s the cap, with the relevant parts …

When did the Graun’s “Comment is Free” become “Opinion”?

by BlackCatte Some time over the last few months, while the hated new version was coming out of Beta, a funny thing happened at the Guardian. With almost no announcement or explanation the famous, vaunted “Comment is Free” section changed its name to “Opinion.” It kept the old URL, and even kept Scott’s proud declaration (in smaller type), but the name itself vanished like the erstwhile ethical reputations of it’s journalists – without ceremony or acknowledgment. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree Here’s the old site, screencapped last autumn: And here’s the new improved version: What does this IngSoc style rebranding imply? Are they sending a message? Or is it just a pragmatic acceptance that you can’t allow Comment to be Free any longer when you’ve allied with the Kyiv Post and Radio Free Europe and are openly propagandising for neo-nazis, WW2 revisionists and the military industrial complex.

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #10

These comment were censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did they breach? Comments removed from: Fifa’s Sepp Blatter says 2018 World Cup in Russia will… Comments removed from: Russia has more right to Crimea than Britain to Falklands… Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” do they breach? Do they “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”? Are they “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”? Are they “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”? Are they “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”? Are they “extremely offensive of threatening?”? Are they “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”? Are they not “relevant”? If none of the above – why were they taken down? see our archive of censored comments

How I was censored by The Guardian for writing about Israel’s war for Gaza’s gas

Read full article on Nafeez Ahmed’s website After writing for The Guardian for over a year, my contract was unilaterally terminated because I wrote a piece on Gaza that was beyond the pale. In doing so, The Guardian breached the very editorial freedom the paper was obligated to protect under my contract. I’m speaking out because I believe it is in the public interest to know how a Pulitizer Prize-winning newspaper which styles itself as the world’s leading liberal voice, casually engaged in an act of censorship to shut down coverage of issues that undermined Israel’s publicised rationale for going to war. Gaza’s gas I joined the Guardian as an environment blogger in April 2013. Prior to this, I had been an author, academic and freelance journalist for over a decade, writing for The Independent, Independent on Sunday, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among others. On 9th July 2014, I posted an article via my Earth Insight blog at The Guardian’s environment …

Guardian’s US Ed-in-Chief takes over the UK affiliate

Katharine Viner, and editor with a strong background in American and Australian journalism reform, as well as British Sunday newspapering, has been appointed Editor-in-Chief of the global Guardian operation. Let us join in the congratulations she certainly deserves, by sharing a selected few from under her Guardian welcome. Godspeed, Ms. Viner. May truth and fairness be your best friends during your tenure.  

What “community standards” did this comment breach? #9

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Corrupt, cash-strapped and lacking skill: the Ukraine army Britons come to train Which of the Guardian’s “community standards: does it breach? 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 a “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

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #8

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Is Putin Ill? ‘Everything is fine’ despite cancelled meetings and old photos Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” did it breach? 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 a “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

Natalie Nougayrède admits to failing humanity

Did you see Natalie Nougayrède’s latest humanity failure? After bringing us the latest rumours about Putin’s health, the Guardian serves us with another bunch of hearsay, which carries as much credibility as the newspaper has managed to preserve since it became a neocon mouthpiece. What is Ms. Nougayrède’s column based on? A SINGLE PR event by a “highly disinterested speaker” (“stark and eloquent defender of the Syrian revolutionaries”), providing unverifiable claims, wishful “what ifs”, and just plain misinformation. Like the suggestion that had Assad been ousted, the rag-tag opposition would have stabilized the country (by probably killing hundreds of thousands of alawites and Christians). Back to “The west is appeasing Assad while he massacres Syrian civilians and spares the butchers of ISIS”. Read “Washington’s stooges can’t even stage a semblance of authenticity” as a viable and supportable opposition. With Assad forces mounting ever more successful action against ISIS*, retaking cities from the terrorists, the lies in Western media grow stronger. Now that Aleppo seems the next anti-Assad fortress to fall, the drumbeat gets as deafening …

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #6

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Britain Should Arm Ukraine Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” does it breach? 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 a “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

What “community standard” did this comment breach? #5

This comment was censored by the Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach? Comment Removed from: Britain Should Arm Ukraine 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 a “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

The Guardian’s Tory Donor of Salo Cries Wolf

“And don’t forget to arm Ukraine!” (A. Temerko – left) At some point on the cusp of the centuries American television invented and quickly proliferated the idiotic genre of a talk show where the participants, rather than exchange views and ideas, get into a rabid shouting match. I remember one of these stage constructs, Greta van Susteren (before the facial upgrade) just screeching in the midst of a relatively calm and non-confrontational discussion. And no, it was not on Fox. It was on CNN, which has moved very much Fox-side since. It was specifically tormenting to watch at the early stages of forcing this “innovation” onto the audience, because the actors followed the script but failed to convince. Maybe they were not very much convinced themselves. Well, nothing beats beautification surgery as a confidence-builder. Ask Renée Zellweger. Why would the Guardian salo-botox itself to the improbable advertorial Britain should arm Ukraine, says Tory donor, is slightly beyond me. Why would you destroy the message of an obviously rich and generous contributor by immediately associating it …

Readers Dissect The Guardian over US Venezuela Sanctions

Umberto Eco describes the resistance to the new totalitarianism of colluding media and cleptocratic elites, as a “semiological guerrilla warfare“. As in most colonial wars, the abused and exploited millions have almost no chances against an enemy, which is vastly superior in terms of technology, war chests and, remember, willingness to step over any laws and ethical norms to achieve its goals and silence its critics. Eco suggests that a thinking person has to resist such an occupation in smart, tactical way, prioritize survival, rather than strategic victory. And in this fight one definition of survival is to not let words change their meaning. To remember what is evil and what is good. Discern hypocrisy and manipulation. Even if one cannot react openly to these, knowing what truth is, is already effective resistance. If we cannot control the message in terms of its production, coding, distribution channels, we can always control it at the decoding stage, Eco says. Therefore we have the power and the responsibility to do so. One cannot deny one great effect …

The Guardian’s Latest Attempts at PR for the Ukraine Nazis

This profile of the females in the infamous Aidar Battalion appeared on the Graun front page today,
though it didn’t stay there long, being swiftly removed and hidden away in the Ukraine section. It would be nice to think the reason for this was some sort of residual shame on the part of a one-time great liberal newspaper, being suddenly less than comfortable doing PR photo features on Neo-Nazi chic. It would be great to think that they were not happy showing sympathetic pix of white-supremacists Hitler-fans, even if they did have bewbs.

But no.

Bryan Macdonald: Guardian vs. RT. The spoiled child is losing it.

Bryan Macdonald, an Irish journalist, comments on the Guardian’s latest attack on RT. While UK press regulators consistently find the Russian broadcaster’s practices fair and acceptable, the self-anointed guardians of the free press resort to cheap verbal assaults and distortions. “We are living in a strange period of history where the, outwardly, liberal press is arguing for censorship. Not for ideological reasons, but because RT’s success frustrates a gang who’ve had the field all to themselves for far too long. They are behaving like a spoilt child who doesn’t want to share their football with other children.” But, hey, is this news anymore? Find out more about Bryan Macdonald here Here you can follow the discussion on the Guardian

There goes The Guardian, censoring us away…again!

There goes The Guardian, censoring us away…again! Earlier today, I experienced yet another of The Guardian‘s acts of political censorship: this time on the topic of Greece. Since the comment I was replying to as well as my own reply were disappeared — wiped out without a trace — by whoever moderates The Guardian‘s CiF pages, and since I did take a screenshot of my comment as well as a copy of both texts, I can now reproduce them here. In doing so, I also wish to raise this question: which of The Guardian‘s Community Guidelines did my reply to Maria Mixalis Hagifoti violate? Maria Mixalis Hagifot: February 22, 2015 – 24:18 “The k.Varoufakis forced to take responsibility because of communication failure of government, so he had to understand realistically what you can get and give … ??? Without political experience and neutral on the responsibility of imposed, situations and impasses developments, decided to bridge the gap of the requirements in the eurozone, shifting the negotiations to a completely radically different basis negotiating perception … …

CiF = “Censorship is Final”

The Guardian, today, is featuring an article by European editor Ian Traynor claiming, per the headline: Putin tried to delay Ukraine ceasefire deal, EU summit told Unfortunately, Mr. Traynor’s entire piece is built around unsourced quotes and other dubious attributions, is written largely in the passive voice, and overall constitutes yet another propaganda offering thinly disguised as a news item.  When poster ‘MaxOvon’ pointed out some of these journalistic deficiencies (to describe them charitably), her/his comment was deleted within minutes. This sort of heavy-handed ‘moderation’ has become standard operating procedure for the Guardian as it endeavours to silence participants who challenge its corrupt and fundamentally dishonest approach to the Ukraine crisis.