Thank you for including the UK press attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. They had the backing of the Israeli Embassy who objected to Corbyn's support of the Palestinians.
Though he had been a dignified member of the Labour Party for 40 years and was elected Leader in 2015, the bought off press smeared his character. He is now running as an Independent in Islington and, l sincerely hope he retains his seat.
I'll be glad to see the back of the Conservative Party after 14 years and 5 different PMs but, the thought of Kier Starmer makes my skin crawl.
Why am I NOT surprised by the cheap, sleazy, and unprofessional behavior shown by The Guardian newspaper and its gutless reporters.
It seems that The Guardian did not mind being the world's most courageous and popular newspaper when it ran stories about Edward Snowden and his NSA exploits that represented tremendous courage.
The Guardian, though, almost didn't publish the Snowden disclosures. They almost lost their nerve under US pressure.
But, this time, they did, when it came to Julian Assange and the Wiki-Leaks disclosures, The Guardian clearly did lose its composure and nerve.
Instead of admitting that the US & British governments clearly intimidated them into silence.
Instead, The Guardian wrote fraudulent stories that were produced with only ONE thing in mind, to destroy a courageous journalist's life; a kind of journalist that The Guardian will never possess.
Julian Assange is free now. The real story remains unwritten.
Anything, for now on, The Guardian writes concerning international affairs should be ignored. Period.
The newspaper shamed itself. It is a woeful stain that will not be forgotten for many years.
Julian Assange is free now. Back home in Australia. The Guardian compromised everything a newspaper should do. Write the truth to the best of its ability. They didn't. Period.
The Guardian chose to be a mouthpiece for the US and British security agencies.
The Guardian can rationalize every decision they made, but, in the end, they betrayed themselves, their readers, and their profession.
Simply put, The Guardian lost its honor and integrity as a newspaper.
Julian Assange represents everything The Guardian and its reporters used to represent.
There is NO doubt the whole ugly event and situation will soon come to the surface.
In the meantime, Julian Assange survived the grotesque ordeal by the skin of his teeth.
Betrayed by many. But he never lost his commitment to being a real journalist.
The British and Americans imprisoned Assange's body, but not his soul. Not his spirit.
The Guardian is left to being a disgraced and humiliated newspaper. Not much of a legacy, huh!
There needs to be more clarity regarding the terms media, journalists, shill (spineless, money grubbing, corporate, etc), reporter, teleprompter, commentator, journalist, alternative & corporate media, MSM, alternative media owned by a billionaire, remember yellow journalism?
Thanks once again for a beautifully written and thought-out piece. I divorced the corporate media 34 years ago, and it was one of the best decisions of my life. Turning off the establishment propaganda machine is life-changing in a very good and important way. When I mention to others that I've unplugged from Big Brother I always get strange looks. But maybe here and there I planted a seed...
You can accuse the Guardian of many things - indeed almost everything nefarious would hit the mark - but being 'Tory-loving' isn't one of them. They are the hideous flatulence of the neo-Fabian Islington Big Femma Media Industrial Complex. That 50% of their print output goes directly to the BBC says it all.
The same MSM that have from day one only peddled the narrative that Covid “vaccines” are safe and effective and have NEVER once given voice to dissenting narratives. Not surprising as both big pharma and big media (and defense / finance / agribusiness) are controlled by the usual suspects : Blacktock / Vanguard / State Street / Fidelity
Endangering and sacrificing millions of innocents including US/UK troops. War Criminals George W. Bush & Co (never charged) waged ILLEGAL WAR on Iraq. THREE years BEFORE truth-teller Julian Assange launched Wikileaks in 2006.
Rightly reported by Assange in 2010, a 2012 international Court in Malaysia found U.$. War Criminals Bush & Co GUILTY (contemptuously ignored by U.$. War Criminals).
"GEORGE W. BUSH War Criminal?" by Professor Michael Haas.
Wasting TRILLIONS in much needed public money diverted to PROFIT the unelected Military Industrial Complex endangering and sacrificing his own U.S. Troops and millions of innocents "GEORGE W. BUSH, WAR CRIMINAL? The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes" - by Professor Michael Haas.
Eminent jurists, professional legal organizations, and human rights monitors in this country and around the world have declared that President George W. Bush may be prosecuted as a war criminal for his overt and systematic violations of such international law as the Geneva and Hague Conventions and such US law as the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws.
Professor Michael Haas identifies and documents 269 specific war crimes under US and international law for which President Bush, senior officials and staff in his administration, and military officers under his command are liable to be prosecuted.
Professor Haas divides the 269 war crimes of the Bush administration into four classes: 6 war crimes committed in launching a war of aggression; 36 war crimes committed in the conduct of war; 175 war crimes committed in the treatment of prisoners; and 52 war crimes committed in postwar occupations.
For each of the 269 war crimes of the Bush administration,
Professor Haas gives chapter and verse in precise but non-technical language, including the specific acts deemed to be war crimes, the names of the officials deemed to be war criminals, and the exact language of the international or domestic laws violated by those officials. The author proceeds to consider the various US, international, and foreign tribunals in which the war crimes of Bush administration defendants may be tried under applicable bodies of law. He evaluates the real-world practicability of bringing cases against Bush and Bush officials in each of the possible venues.
Finally, Professor Haas weighs the legal, political, and humanitarian pros and cons of actually bringing Bush and Bush officials to trial for war crimes.
The Guardian certainly was no friend of Assange.
Glenn Greenwood?
Thank you for including the UK press attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. They had the backing of the Israeli Embassy who objected to Corbyn's support of the Palestinians.
Though he had been a dignified member of the Labour Party for 40 years and was elected Leader in 2015, the bought off press smeared his character. He is now running as an Independent in Islington and, l sincerely hope he retains his seat.
I'll be glad to see the back of the Conservative Party after 14 years and 5 different PMs but, the thought of Kier Starmer makes my skin crawl.
Thank you Jonathan for distilling the truth of the lies of The Guardian et al. May Julian and his family finally have peace and healing.
Why am I NOT surprised by the cheap, sleazy, and unprofessional behavior shown by The Guardian newspaper and its gutless reporters.
It seems that The Guardian did not mind being the world's most courageous and popular newspaper when it ran stories about Edward Snowden and his NSA exploits that represented tremendous courage.
The Guardian, though, almost didn't publish the Snowden disclosures. They almost lost their nerve under US pressure.
But, this time, they did, when it came to Julian Assange and the Wiki-Leaks disclosures, The Guardian clearly did lose its composure and nerve.
Instead of admitting that the US & British governments clearly intimidated them into silence.
Instead, The Guardian wrote fraudulent stories that were produced with only ONE thing in mind, to destroy a courageous journalist's life; a kind of journalist that The Guardian will never possess.
Julian Assange is free now. The real story remains unwritten.
Anything, for now on, The Guardian writes concerning international affairs should be ignored. Period.
The newspaper shamed itself. It is a woeful stain that will not be forgotten for many years.
Julian Assange is free now. Back home in Australia. The Guardian compromised everything a newspaper should do. Write the truth to the best of its ability. They didn't. Period.
The Guardian chose to be a mouthpiece for the US and British security agencies.
The Guardian can rationalize every decision they made, but, in the end, they betrayed themselves, their readers, and their profession.
Simply put, The Guardian lost its honor and integrity as a newspaper.
Julian Assange represents everything The Guardian and its reporters used to represent.
There is NO doubt the whole ugly event and situation will soon come to the surface.
In the meantime, Julian Assange survived the grotesque ordeal by the skin of his teeth.
Betrayed by many. But he never lost his commitment to being a real journalist.
The British and Americans imprisoned Assange's body, but not his soul. Not his spirit.
The Guardian is left to being a disgraced and humiliated newspaper. Not much of a legacy, huh!
The shitbags at The Guardian revealed their true colours at the slightest sign of pressure. The fucking rag is just as bad as the rest of Fleet St.
The media are the folks in tge office offended by the guy who works too hard.
There needs to be more clarity regarding the terms media, journalists, shill (spineless, money grubbing, corporate, etc), reporter, teleprompter, commentator, journalist, alternative & corporate media, MSM, alternative media owned by a billionaire, remember yellow journalism?
Thanks once again for a beautifully written and thought-out piece. I divorced the corporate media 34 years ago, and it was one of the best decisions of my life. Turning off the establishment propaganda machine is life-changing in a very good and important way. When I mention to others that I've unplugged from Big Brother I always get strange looks. But maybe here and there I planted a seed...
Brilliant 👏👏👏
Excellent analysis, Jonathan. I despair at our supine, Tory-loving media.
You can accuse the Guardian of many things - indeed almost everything nefarious would hit the mark - but being 'Tory-loving' isn't one of them. They are the hideous flatulence of the neo-Fabian Islington Big Femma Media Industrial Complex. That 50% of their print output goes directly to the BBC says it all.
The same MSM that have from day one only peddled the narrative that Covid “vaccines” are safe and effective and have NEVER once given voice to dissenting narratives. Not surprising as both big pharma and big media (and defense / finance / agribusiness) are controlled by the usual suspects : Blacktock / Vanguard / State Street / Fidelity
Thank You Jonathan
Endangering and sacrificing millions of innocents including US/UK troops. War Criminals George W. Bush & Co (never charged) waged ILLEGAL WAR on Iraq. THREE years BEFORE truth-teller Julian Assange launched Wikileaks in 2006.
Rightly reported by Assange in 2010, a 2012 international Court in Malaysia found U.$. War Criminals Bush & Co GUILTY (contemptuously ignored by U.$. War Criminals).
https://countercurrents.org/kfcw120512.htm
"GEORGE W. BUSH War Criminal?" by Professor Michael Haas.
Wasting TRILLIONS in much needed public money diverted to PROFIT the unelected Military Industrial Complex endangering and sacrificing his own U.S. Troops and millions of innocents "GEORGE W. BUSH, WAR CRIMINAL? The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes" - by Professor Michael Haas.
Eminent jurists, professional legal organizations, and human rights monitors in this country and around the world have declared that President George W. Bush may be prosecuted as a war criminal for his overt and systematic violations of such international law as the Geneva and Hague Conventions and such US law as the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws.
Professor Michael Haas identifies and documents 269 specific war crimes under US and international law for which President Bush, senior officials and staff in his administration, and military officers under his command are liable to be prosecuted.
Professor Haas divides the 269 war crimes of the Bush administration into four classes: 6 war crimes committed in launching a war of aggression; 36 war crimes committed in the conduct of war; 175 war crimes committed in the treatment of prisoners; and 52 war crimes committed in postwar occupations.
For each of the 269 war crimes of the Bush administration,
Professor Haas gives chapter and verse in precise but non-technical language, including the specific acts deemed to be war crimes, the names of the officials deemed to be war criminals, and the exact language of the international or domestic laws violated by those officials. The author proceeds to consider the various US, international, and foreign tribunals in which the war crimes of Bush administration defendants may be tried under applicable bodies of law. He evaluates the real-world practicability of bringing cases against Bush and Bush officials in each of the possible venues.
Finally, Professor Haas weighs the legal, political, and humanitarian pros and cons of actually bringing Bush and Bush officials to trial for war crimes.
https://www.abc-clio.com/products/c8109c/
Assange should be more worried now. He pissed off a lot of governments. They will neither forgive, nor forget.