51–60 of 87 posts
Guardian's "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" Documentary: Guardian hacks continue PR war against WikiLeaks wikileaks.org/Guardian-s-WikiLeaks-Secrets-and.html
That Guardian's treatment of Assange has been awful. I collected a bunch of attack-pieces and lies about Assange published by them here: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/assange/
No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?
Media Lens have done great work analysing the Guardian's output over the years, particularly their support for wars: https://www.medialens.org/?s=guardian I think anyone really interested in the Guardian's failings will learn more from Media Lens than any self-critical piece published by the paper itself. Their books Guardians of Power and Propaganda Blitz examine the Guardian's output too. (Disclosure: I'm currently…
Ah, the eternal question. How do you respond to this? Applaud and encourage even more thorough self-reflection, or criticize because the self-reflection was not thorough enough?
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
Personally I think the Guardian deserves support as the only real opposition or left newspaper in the UK. It's really flawed and the lies are harder to see but it fulfils an essential role in society.
No mention of your support for the invasion of Iraq then?
What do you mean? Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia were mistakes? I thought the only mistakes were that the public found out what human rights abuses happened and that the facts were made up. /s These publications all have blood on their hands. "We made a mistake" that isn't even honest doesn't cut it. The only real unfortunate thing here is that people like Trump get to use these peoples lies to push even greater lies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My impression of Glenn Greenwald is that he is either paranoid, or willing to stoke his readers' paranoia in order to attract attention. This seems like standard behavior for Greenwald: https://twitter.com/themattdimitri/status/138969371391236917... It's the same refrain as always: 'everyone is out to get me!'
I don't care for Glenn too much but he's better than a lot of the other crappy grifters out there like the tool in the thread you linked to.
but he's better than a lot of the other crappy grifters
If the person whose tweet I linked is truly a 'tool' (and I'm open to that possibility), then Greenwald could just have left it at calling him a 'worm'. That's fair game since it's a matter of opinion.
Ah, the eternal question. How do you respond to this? Applaud and encourage even more thorough self-reflection, or criticize because the self-reflection was not thorough enough?
You will notice that the errors they chose to list are ones that accentuate their current political agenda. It is therefore not self-reflection at all. It is merely doubling down on existing dogma by recasting contradictory prior politics as "wrong". It actually highlights exactly what's wrong with "journalism". The Guardian doesn't report, it advocates. It intentionally provides biased views in order to sway readers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine many would be, so long as sufficient time had passed. If you’re apologising for a 20 year old mistake, the person who made that mistake probably left the newspaper a while ago. You don’t have to interact awkwardly with them. Nor are they in a position of power from where they can prevent the apology from being printed. The NYT once published a hilarious apology 49 years after they made a mistake. The origin…
> Iraq, in other words, is doing well. Some will argue that this justifies America’s invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein (which we supported). It does not. Too much blood was shed along the way in Iraq and elsewhere. That's not an apology, that's disclosure. If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people saying "which you supported" everytime they talk about the war.
> If they didn't add that you would get a stream of people
A stream of people where? Only subscribers read this. Folks who have issues like you do wouldn't be subscribers to begin with. If they hadn't printed the mea culpa, few would have noticed.
If the same pattern holds, then radical leftist positions of today will be again the mainstream positions in the future.
The lag time has been considerable though. I think even into the 90’s the guardian would not have approved of the suffragette’s direct action methods.
In some ways though things have stagnated for almost a century; Bernie Sanders public health care plan is something that was being pushed for a century ago, and the forces of private capital have managed to hold back the tide for a hundred years.
So it might be that my prediction that the radical left of today is the mainstream of tomorrow is totally wrong, and things could actually regress.