All posts tagged: guardian watch

Idlib chemical attack: A sign no change of policy is on the horizon

The alleged chemical attack, reported yesterday, is the latest in a series of atrocities notionally carried out by the Syrian government (“The Regime”, in the partisan parlance of the press). There has not been time, as yet, to fully examine and analyse all the evidence – the claims and counter claims, the photographs and videos – but it would be a massive mistake to view it in a vacuum.

Global Laundromat update: “Bank did bank things with famous person”

Perhaps this is the beginning of a new series for the Guardian? Maybe in the future we can expect stories entitled “Man who voted Brexit regularly beats wife” and “Angela Merkel lives in the same city Adolf Hitler called home”. I think the “Global Laundromat” scandal might not be having the massive impact that The Guardian expected it to (personally, I blame the rather silly name). When it was launched yesterday it was meant to be a splash, but it has landed more like a ripple, so far failing to even repeat the short-lived intensity of the Panama Papers. Todays article is simply a readjustment of all same talking points mentioned several times each yesterday, only chopped up into a different order. Like that episode of the Simpsons where Marge keeps chopping up one Chanel suit into a variety of different outfits. You can tell they are desperate to get people clicking, because they’ve tried to tie it into an actual talking point: Donald Trump’s “Russia connections”. The entirety of this “new information” is contained …

Libyan Labels: a journey through the Guardian’s coverage of the Libyan disaster

In this analysis we examine Libya’s recent history looking through the eyes of the Guardian, the flagship of liberal western outlets, and its reporting. As with most other western media, the Guardian was an enthusiastic supporter of the NATO intervention that overthrew Gaddafi and threw the country into the disaster that we are about to describe. Faithful to western interests then, the Guardian remains faithful afterwards as well. But imperial designs are laden with contradictions and sometimes drastically change course, but the Guardian dutifully follows.

The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

by Craig Murray I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions …

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.

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 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.

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 …

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 …

Labour Coup falls back on dishonesty, identity politics and smears

The Labour Coup just won’t die. It has become the masked killer from a b-list horror film. Lurching from one unlikely scenario to another, staunchly surviving an endless series of assaults, each one alone capable of felling a lesser being. Most observers knew it was all over the moment Corbyn refused to resign, if it survived that it was only by clinging to faint hope that they could keep him off the ballot. The NEC’s vote effectively put a stake through its heart. It is over.

Guardian Watch: Insults fly in post-Brexit hysteria

The world is still reeling from the referendum results – there is uncertainty in the air, real uncertainty, a rare creature in the modern era of controlled media consensus and carefully directed narrative. Again and again the thoughts are echoed: nobody expected this to happen. David Cameron was positive his side had won. Oliver Imhof wrote an article threatening to leave “Brexit Britain”, comfortable in the knowledge that “at no point did I think it could really happen.” You get the impression even Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage never expected to win.

Guardian wastes no time in turning tragedy into politcal capital

Less than 24 hours after the violent death of the Labour MP Jo Cox, the Guardian has unleashed two editorials that seek to pin the blame, not on the suspect currently in custody, but on the people campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. The first, by Polly Toynbee, is closed for comments (for the author’s sake, you would think…but we’ll get to that later) – it is tasteless, evidenceless and manipulative: It’s wrong to view the killing of Jo Cox in isolation.” …she says, and having quickly and efficiently removed the need to talk about the specifics of the murder, or any of the tragic details, she proceeds to use the killing of a 42 year old mother as a platform for attacking her political opponents and ramming home some Guardianista agenda. This poor woman was not killed by the apparently mentally ill man, currently in police custody, but by the “mood of the country” in which we are “encouraged to mistrust elected officials”. In a sense, Polly Toynbee says, everyone who doesn’t like …

The Agenda is Set: Elect the War-Hawk for the Sake of “Progress”

With the democratic nomination now officially all but certain (Sanders, quite obviously, never had a chance), the Guardian has thrown their full editorial weight – such as it is – into a pre-emptive defence of Hillary’s record and an hysterical celebration of the “progress” that the election of this particular bank-backed, corporate-bought, war-hawk would (apparently) demonstrate.

Guardian Editor Weighs in on War on Free Speech

by Kit Katherine Viner has waded into fray, waving a battle standard, The Guardian, she says ultra-po-faced, admits to having a “problem with abuse”. She is lying. Their own shoddy statistical analysis says that 1 in 50 comments is removed, which means 98% of Guardian comments are non-abusive. That is no problem. Of course that implies that every single moderated post on CiF is abusive, which is obviously not the case. That they moderate for opinion and content is well established. Check these moderated comments here, here and here. Just yesterday a reader sent us this comment, which was removed. Hell, we have a whole category devoted to Cif censorship. Do these posts seem “abusive” to you? The Guardian claim that, of their top ten “abused” authors, 8 are women, 3 are gay and 6 are non-white. This statement, never backed up with evidence, is used by Viner to offer up “proof of what we have long suspected”….that CiF is a hot-bed of racism, homophobia and misogyny…in the 2% of comments that require moderation. The …

Freedland: “I, for one, welcome our Corporate American Overlords”

American lawmakers are a global force for good, one for which we should all be grateful…according to the Guardian. Too often, according to Jonathan Freedland, the term “self-appointed global policeman”, when applied to America, is used in derogatory fashion because: …it serves as shorthand for the arrogance of American power, invading countries and imposing regime change, charging about the world heedless of everyone’s needs but its own. A war here or there, a fascist coup every now and then, these are just little foibles. The geo-political equivalent of putting the milk back empty, or clicking your knuckles.

Luke Harding’s: A Very Heavily Discounted Book

by TUTISICECREAM The unexceptional account of a discredited inquiry The Guardian’s Book of the Day [here today gone tomorrow?] masquerading as a “True Crime” story, is an attempt to give the Alexander Litvinenko inquiry further credence, thereby helping keep it in the Public eye. A crime it certainly is, in journalistic terms, taking the statements of the Owen inquiry [we cannot call them facts because they are all probabilities] and trying to get us to believe it all over again is like, well, trying to make money from old rope. This leads us to think, can we believe anything anymore written by Guardian hacks? The simple answer to this question regarding the Litvinenko murder inquiry and things Russian is most definitely no. But will this book or the so call findings of the Owen inquiry, to quote the Bard, “…last out a night in Russia, When nights are longest there*”? Probably not, to use the overworked Owenesque ad verbal. The review of the grandly entitled Luke Harding book, “A Very Expensive Poison” by Oliver Bullough …