John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE UNZ REVIEW
“The New Russian Government, A much-needed evolution but not a revolution”
___________________
Response to a comment which referred to the Guardian newspaper as very “left wing”
The Guardian is a terrible newspaper nowadays.
But it is not accurate to describe it as “left wing,” not at all.
Using that description is playing the Guardian’s own game.
The newspaper uses a great deal of window dressing that makes it appear “leftish” and progressive, features and filler material about minorities and women and the unfortunate. I suppose it’s intended to connect with the newspaper’s historic past and to provide a kind of sugar coating for what it truly advocates.
The Guardian’s heart and soul are pretty close to Tory in spirit. That is revealed through its choice of news stories covered, the slant given the stories, its editorials, the various public figures given regular favorable publicity, and even its highly-controlled and restrictive comment policies. Liberals don’t censor. The Guardian does, heavily.
It virtually led the howling mob attacking Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn, and it used some really underhanded techniques, like running little human-interest items about British Jews who were afraid and were going to leave Britain to take up residence somewhere else. It did this several times in the course of its campaign. Once, the person’s destination was even Germany. Of course, any Jewish person who had anything unpleasant to say about Corbyn was given space to say it.
The paper raised no objections to direct interference in British domestic politics by several Israeli politicians, including Netanyahu, who chimed in on Corbyn and anti-Semitism, and he was even mistaken in the facts he cited.
The Guardian is staunchly pro-Israel and pro-American empire, the two, of course, being tightly associated.
The Guardian has supported all of America’s bloody Neocon Wars and coups. It never raises any doubts or questions about matters like the externally-induced horrors in Syria. President Assad is always treated with disdain. Syria, in the Guardian’s manufactured reality, uses poison gas against its own people and deserves cruise missile attacks.
It has no problem with America’s torrent of invective and threats and sanctions against Iran, a country which has done in fact nothing wrong. It has no problem with severe war-like sanctions being used against tens of millions of innocent people to cause starvation and to deprive them of medications, vicious actions taken by the United States against Iran and Venezuela.
It despises Putin and Russia. It literally sometimes prints gutter-quality literature on those topics. It stands shoulder-to-shoulder with those who insist Putin has virtually invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea. And of course, he or his henchmen shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine, even though the Prime Minister of Malaysia says that is not the case.
It has no problem with NATO, closely under American direction, running tanks up against the Russian border, sending risky, intrusive spy flights towards Russian airspace, doing armed cruises on the Black Sea, and carrying on with large-scale practice sea battles in the Baltic.
As far as The Guardian is concerned, the Salisbury Skripal Affair with Putin directly responsible for it – that indigestible mass of Theresa May accusations containing not a single proven fact – is a settled matter of history. It occasionally makes an effort to warm up the kettle, burning new bits flogged by security service outlets.
The Guardian played a sizable role in building up the public-relations image of that good friend of Netanyahu’s, the tyrant Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He was to be a dynamic and progressive new force in the Middle East. It even used chirpy little features about a few upper-class women being allowed to drive now to emphasize his fine qualities between executions, kidnappings, and launching wars.
It has attacked and lied about Julian Assange, one of the truest heroes of our time and a great investigative reporter/editor. But you see, Assange’s work works against America’s appalling injustices, and that just isn’t allowed. And it worked against candidate Hillary Clinton, world’s leading purveyor of Russophobia, killer of Libyans and Syrians as Secretary of State, and a favorite of Guardian editors.
I could cite many examples of how dreadful the Guardian has become, but here is my favorite:
CHUCKMAN'S WORDS ON WORDPRESS: COMMENTS FROM THE WORLD'S PRESS 
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JOE LAURIA IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Guardian has claimed Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at the Ecuador embassy. John Pilger visited Assange and tells CN’s Joe Lauria Assange strongly denied any such meeting”
The Guardian, under its present direction, serves pretty much as a crypto-Tory propaganda outlet.
It tries covering its trail with loads of stuff about the disadvantaged and minorities, but these are puff pieces of no real substance. Indeed, many of them strike the reader as forced and not terribly sincere.
When it comes to the big issues of the day – Assange, Russia, Corbyn, America’s military, Israel’s behavior, Saudi Arabia’s murderer Prince, Ukraine, and others – The Guardian view is virtually indistinguishable from some Tory Party house organ under the direction of Theresa May.
It is an amazing phenomenon that anyone still gives The Guardian any credibility. Its extreme bias and willingness to run what can only be called disinformation disqualify it entirely from being taken seriously, at least by serious people, and certainly on serious issues.
Its bias shows in many ways, notably in the way it handles comments from readers. It is very controlling, starting with big limits on what story topics are even allowed comments to removing (non-abusive) comments to banning people from commenting.
It still lives off its old reputation from decades ago when it was a (somewhat dull) publication genuinely concerned with working-class and progressive matters.
Today, on the Internet, the main page resembles a pop magazine with its mix of personalities, movies, fads, pop books, television, promotions, pop singers, and travel with a spot of local interest. This all goes to trying to draw a younger audience.
That is all enmeshed with numberless light articles about the unfortunate, women achieving things, and people with unusual sexual identity problems. This kind of material provides the paper’s only claim to being progressive or liberal today.
Under this outer skin, as it were, comes the red meat of The Guardian.
I could give dozens of examples, but here, below, is my favorite, analyzed as what I call a celebration of Hate Russia Day. It is propaganda and disinformation and just plain hate on a grotesque scale. An old 1950s Soviet publication might even have been ashamed to pile it on so thickly.
But The Guardian is not ashamed, not in the least, and it does comparable things, week-in and week-out, about Assange as Russian tool, Russia as an imminent threat to “the West,” Corbyn as anti-Semite, the good work of America’s military, Iran as the root of evil, celebrating Saudi Arabia’s murderer Prince as progressive, Ukraine as a victim of aggression, and others.
Along the way, it manages to heap praise and give continued publicity to the likes of Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton, a couple of the most dishonest and murderous figures of our time.
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/