Iain Cresswell | Opinion
What was once a well-respected newspaper, “grown from the grass roots” stemming back from just over 2 centuries of British history, today has deteriorated into a globalist propaganda mouthpiece. The Guardian has been viewed historically as the voice of British liberal dissent, judgemental of the perceived excesses of “Western capitalism”.
With that said, it’s not fair to label The Guardian as simply a “left-wing rag outlet” appealing to academics and self-proclaimed Left-leaning intellectuals. It itself has been heavily criticised from many others on the Left and rightfully so, standards are standards regardless of one’s political ideological camping ground.
What has gone so wrong with this newspaper over time? Could the answer be found by The Guardian’s close relationship with the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee? This is the UK Government department responsible for issuing the notorious “D-Notices”, which are special gagging orders issued to curtail any reporting by news editors under the nebulous term of “national security”. The Guardian’s head staff are regular attendees to these meetings; a summary of the minutes of the meetings is made public.
Paul Johnson was the Deputy eEditor for The Guardian between 1995 and 2020. He was thanked and personally congratulated within the minutes of the DSMAC in a meeting on the 15th Dec 2018, thanks to his work during the Assange drama and the Snowden leaks. This is a dangerous precedent, having military intelligence in highbrow meetings with particularly Left-wing media outlets over reporting restrictions. Could this be a clear indicator to where the bias from The Guardian comes from? This will become way more obvious later on, particularly with Julian Assange. It should be noted, it’s not just The Guardian involved in this clique – Huffington Post and Buzzfeed are also present at these meetings.
Trump, Coronavirus and Choloroquine
Ever since Trump had won the election, The Guardian hasn’t been pulling any punches in trying to frame Trump for whatever it can. As reported on Wed 25th March 2020 in Chloroquine: Trump’s misleading claims spark hoarding and overdoses:
“Trump’s intervention has led to at least one death after a man in Arizona took a non-pharmaceutical version intended for use in killing parasites in home aquariums.”
So an Arizona man, who took a non-pharmaceutical derivative of Chloroquine (actually called Chloroquine Phosphate) at unknown dosages, which is used to clean fish tanks, against the public medical warnings of “self-medication”, ends up dead. Yet somehow The Guardian says this is all Trump’s fault!?
The article goes further…
“A study in Virology Journal in 2005 found that chloroquine inhibited the SARS virus in primate cells after infection, as well as inhibiting infection before exposure, successfully reducing the so-called viral load that other recent research suggests may be a predictor of severe cases. The idea is that existing drugs such as chloroquine that could slow or even kill coronavirus could save the lives of severely ill patients and also protect health workers.”
“… the interest in chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine is serious enough that the World Health Organization has identified them as one of four potential therapies to include in a global trial known as Solidarity, along with three other potential drug therapies.”
So they acknowledge that the drug has uses and is accepted as relevant by other bodies such as the WHO, but then they go on to state…
“Despite the interest in chloroquine as an anti-viral treatment, it has proved to be a dead end before in human trials for other viruses, including dengue and chikungunya”
So, one minute the drug is accepted and used for SARS, but they then denounce it because it doesn’t stop all viruses. Both Dengue and Chikungunya are not even respiratory diseases. Let’s compare apples with oranges, then complain about the difference between the two…
There was no claim ever made by Trump that Choloroquine kills ALL viruses; there is no such thing as a general all-encompassing anti-viral drug. That’s like saying Penicillin is a dead end because it doesn’t kill all amoebas or every single pathogen. The drug sees clear success with Malaria and SARS, which itself is a subset of the Coronavirus family.
Chloroquine has been in use since the 1950s in the US and it’s also on the WHO’s Model List of Essential Medicines. The Guardian doesn’t think this is good enough, nor should we pursue saving lives because “Orange man BAD = Arizona man died”.
Democrat senator Steve Sisolak has actually restricted the use of Chloroquine in the State of Nevada for the purposes of hoarding, despite showing skepticism on the drug’s success. We all know that if Trump had followed this course of action, then The Guardian would have responded: “Trump could have saved lives by unrestricting access to Chloroquine”.
The fake concern that The Guardian and the Democrats try to cultivate is that any drug suggested to help with the virus may result in hoarding. Trump is supposedly at fault for this, even though a Democrat Senator has done it. This is a fact of life: the Left don’t understand the reality of supply and demand in economics full stop. Why would they understand it here?
Assange, Russia and the “Secret Plot”
The Guardian has had such a strange and aggressive relationship with Assange over the decades. The newspaper has repeatedly attacked Assange throughout the years, even though it profited massively from the book rights of “The 5th Estate”, the Hollywood re-enactment of the inception of Wikileaks.
Ironically, Assange initially picked The Guardian as one of the first newspapers to drop leaks to in the early days, again allowing them to profit from the unique scoops. Yet they returned the favour by repeatedly accusing him using smear tactics, as well as outright fake news, with nuances such as “Russian Collusion” over the DNC leaks as just one example.
Accusations came to a new low, however, when in September 2018, The Guardian released Revealed: The secret Christmas plan to transfer Assange from the UK to Russia by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding. They claimed that Assange, along with support from Ecuador, had planned an action-packed Mission Impossible-style “secret” plot to smuggle Assange to Moscow directly from the Ecuadorian Embassy. Fidel Narvaez of the Ecuadorian Embassy worked closely with Assange during this turbulent time of Assange’s “voluntary incarceration” to avoid extradition to the US. The only thing true within this absurd smear piece was that Assange and Fidel had looked at Russia as a possible destination and applied for a passport, which was where this concluded, with both Assange and Fidel confirming that Russia was not a suitable destination afterwards and deciding to look elsewhere.
This, however, was not what The Guardian had reported – instead a covert plan was born to “smuggle” Assange out late in the night of Christmas Eve with supplied transport, thanks to the helping hand of a mysterious “Russian businessman”, according to four well placed “Russian sources” who were “revealed exclusively” to The Guardian.
No corroboration, no specific details given, or anything concrete to back up such claims. Fidel Narvaez complained and filed a review under the Press Complaints Commission Code of Conduct, on the grounds that it was all nonsense. The Guardian subsequently re-edited the article and published the findings of the review with a full edit and redaction done to avoid any “obfuscation created mby inappropriate language” used in the article. Fidel demanded an apology at the end of the review for defamation, but The Guardian refused due to it going beyond the scope of the review.
This was just one of many examples of claims from The Guardian over Assange’s rumoured endless relationship with Russian intelligence.
Even the hard-Left leaning The Canary compiled a full list of instances of where The Guardian failed to specify any evidence on the allegations of Russian Intelligence being responsible for the DNC hacks and the aggregate Russian allegations.
“Simply referring to ‘unnamed sources’ (as in the article about the supposed Manafort visits) is just not good enough in the age of fake news. For this reason, The Canary followed up the Guardian story on Manafort by suggesting likely sources: namely private intelligence contractors organised by Ecuadorian intelligence (Senain), reportedly with some help from Villavicencio. The Guardian, meanwhile, has largely failed to defend its claims.
[…] The Canary contacted the Guardian for comment. But it hadn’t responded by the time of publication.”
Even other Left-wing media outlets see through and acknowledge the fabrications and twisting of half truths. Even ex-Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald criticised the newspaper’s establishment toe-tugging.
The Brexit Referendum
Nothing beats the outstanding bed-wetting and rage-writing of certain well-established authors at The Guardian over the Brexit referendum. Nick Cohen and Polly Toynbee’s coverage was both sad and amusing at the same time. The op-eds would complain about the viceral abuse and “negative tone of debates” of the Leave front, while at the same schizophrenically doing the same back simultaneously. Enter Nick Cohen’s article Take your country back from those who seek to destroy it.
“You get a measure of the unashamed charlatanry of the men who ask for your votes, if you remember that the leaders of the Leave faction once posed as compassionate conservatives.” Nick misses the point that a lot of Leave voters were Left-wing liberal Labour voters, and instead he strikes the tone from the onset that Brexit was uniquely a “Right-wing” project as a result of “paranoid populism”, a term he uses repeatedly throughout to imply all who disagree with him are intrinsically “paranoid”.
He only mentions Farage, Gove and Boris Johnson as the apparent architects of this “paranoid populism”, referencing immigration concern again as somehow uniquely a Right-wing issue. This error should have been the first lesson learnt for Remainer journalists.
“I can think of no other time in our history when a secretary of state could get away with dismissing every informed objection with: ‘I think people in this country have had enough of experts’.” Ironically though for Nick, the experts were indeed wrong on practically every aspect over Brexit, especially more so on the economy. The absurd models of George Osborne’s treasury reports, 36 billion loss of tax revenue, house price apocalypse, Britain’s debt downgrade, 500,000 jobs lost, etc. Nick simply can’t accept that the “experts” were wrong and criticises Michael Gove for merely speaking the truth.
“Vote Leave began by insisting it wanted nothing to do with a UKIP that echoes the propaganda of fascist Europe.” Nick fails to say why the division in the Leave camp “echoes of fascist Europe” other than to say that it just does. Unless UKIP were too busy with plans to invade Poland at some point, he clearly doesn’t understand that Brexit was about much more than just whatever UKIP alone represented. A failed attempt to play the “fascist” card without any sound grounding whatsoever, but he continues…
“You only have to see the neurotically relentless coverage of immigration in the Daily Mail and Express or the antisemitism on the left to see the final mobiliser of paranoid opinion: racism, the oldest and most effective recruiting sergeant there is.”
But then later on states…
“… you can accept, too, that there are good reasons to scream with rage. Britain has had the largest immigration in its history, after all, and not only racists worry about the consequences.“
So, which is it, Nick? Is the Daily Mail/Express being racist and neurotic over immigration? Or is there a potential problem with the largest amount of immigration in Britain’s history? To which he simply admits that “not only racists worry about the consequences”. It’s like he is not even aware of his own contradictions when he writes this stuff.
Unfortunately, this isn’t just contained to Nick Cohen – Polly Toynbee equally lacks any logic or sound arguments. Admittedly, these articles are just op-ed pieces, but it really shows the quality (or lack thereof) of the thinking. Why these “journalists” are given so much credit for their poorly-placed opinions, whether this is deliberate, or not is another matter.
In her “hit piece” Remainers won these elections – and they’d win a second Brexit referendum, Polly basically summarises the result of the last and final MEP election thus:
The first Brexit referendum was a disaster. The MEP Elections were also a disaster because Farage won again. That isn’t really democracy because more voters voted to remain. A remain split vote isn’t really democracy… but a second referendum is democracy… because reasons.
Thankfully, the election of Boris Johnson put this whole fake argument to bed once and for all, as the country was given ample choices on the type of Brexit desired. Once again, the newly Brexit-focused Conservative Party remained in power, with a leader who seemed willing to go for a hard Brexit if necessary taking the lead.
It doesn’t end there, however. It would be too lengthy and time-consuming to go much further on the inaccuracies, fake news and warping of outcomes and facts to fit their world view on everything from Trump to the Tory Party, foreign policy, marriage courts and so on and so forth. For those of us on the Right, we have to be diligent and make sure The Guardian is held accountable.
As of today, 23rd April 2020, The Guardian currently has 137 entries at the Independent Press Complaints Commission. How many more will there be?