9 Comments

Totally agree Andy and in our system could it be any other way :-(

Expand full comment

The Guardian lost the moral high ground but maintained its advertising income stream.

Expand full comment

I’d just like to add this, it was a review of the Guardian app that the Apple Store wouldn’t publish because it had the terrible word ‘Palestine’ in it:

“The Guardian is very pleased with itself and smiles as it mines your data just as enthusiastically as some of the big tech boys. Of course it does, it’s part of the same ecosystem. Yes, you can read it for free,(but on the app only a restricted number of times per month) in exchange, you have to sell your soul to their impressive list of legitimate interest vendors. Hence, like most advertising-dependent media, it cannot be truly ‘independent’ and is often compromised on what it can say and how it can say it. Their editorial often leaves a lot to be desired; they can tiptoe around glaring injustices, weak on Palestine and the lobbying in the UK and US political system for example (I think you may get my drift) Although with writers like Monbiot, Owen Jones and others there are exceptions. They were on the wrong side of history on such a fundamental issue as press freedom; their spat with Assange/WikiLeaks could have been characterised as childish if the issue wasn't so vital to all of us. They threw the baby out with the bathwater due to editorially siding with their journalists whose opportunistic book actually compromised WikiLeaks and jeopardised journalism. Also, their position on Corbyn made unbiased coverage of his leadership of Labour almost impossible.

Good on sports writing with Roney and Glendenning, poor with too many lightweight fluff pieces whose often embarrassing clickbait titles can be opportunistic, poorly thought out and researched.

Like the majority of British media, it is tainted due to a London-centric culture and deeply embedded consumerism.

There are worse offenders though, especially in the UK.”

Expand full comment

Lest no forget the media is owned or driven by the ruling class and represents it

ideology and values!!

Expand full comment

Erasure from the record is not exclusively reserved for the shitstream media and their excuses for 'journalists' - it is also a tactic which continues to be employed regarding the US coup on Kiev in 2014 and the later bombing of the Nordstream pipeline, other examples are shrouded in the mists of history. We are dealing here with recidivist liars who would sell their mothers for a price. The British journalistic establishment is infested with these Eichmann types. As Hannah Arendt said - it is the banality of evil. At least we can challenge those whose evidence-free assumptions are boldy printed up for mass consumption, however, when dealing with those who display an indifference regarding the injustices meted out upon others, we can do no more than warn them that they are sleepwalking into fascism.

Expand full comment

Excellently written.

Expand full comment

It also was revealed yesterday by Yanis Varoufakis that Assange had refused two deals, one of them from Trump, that would have pardoned him - because they were conditional on him revealing his sources. Unlike the Starmer-endorsing Guardian who joined all the finger-pointing, Assange has maintained his integrity.

Expand full comment

Yes, it's said he told them to f off on at least one of those occasions. Australian Legend.

Expand full comment

I have been saying this for 14 years

Expand full comment