13 ms·

"“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-c

"“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp..." Uh, ok, I'm not saying the Guardian is perfect or anything, but I lived in the U.S. when it was ruled by neocons, and read the Guardian from time to time (then and now). For all I know Katherine Viner is neo-con, but the Guardian is not a neo-con paper. I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriously after that part.

Udik 8y ago
I can tell you that the Guardian shifted noticeably to the right, attacking Corbin, insisting that the British left is full of antisemites, blindly supporting Israel and generally subscribing to US interventionism and a "us vs them" mentality. Now, I can imagine it's still far from being a neo-con newspaper in US terms, but for a newspaper that was considered the voice of the left, in a European context, that's more than enough.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  I feel like there should be more to right and left than pro- and anti-Israel.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    It's more about easy, polemical attacks than accuracy.
- orf 8y ago
  > I can tell you that the Guardian shifted noticeably to the right I don't see that at all in their reporting. The opinions section is of course a free for all of different ideologies, but in their actual bread and butter reporting I haven't seen anything like that.
  - toyg 8y ago
    Simply by covering "manufactured" diatribes in a seemingly-detached manner for a long time, a newspaper is de-facto endorsing the instigating side. The famous "let him deny it" mechanism is well-known. The amount of space the Guardian dedicates to specific topics is very telling in itself. (This said, I personally don't see it as a "neocon paper" by any stretch. They are simply positioned in the "blairite consensus", an area that might occasionally overlap with some US neocon positions -- mostly because some neocons do move from an ideological progressive position.)
- wafflebear 8y ago
  The Guardian has always been a newspaper with politics most closely aligned with the Lib Dems. In the past, this meant that they were left of Labour. Labour has shifted waaay to the left[1][2], past the Lib Dems and past the Guardian, so the Guardian no longer finds themselves in political alignment with Labour. I don't think the Guardian have changed their political stance substantially. [1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uk2015.png https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uk2015.png [2] https://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2017 https://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2017
  - Udik 8y ago
    It's an interesting observation, particularly for the fact that according to those charts UK's left party has been for the past decades a right-wing party, both on the economics and the liberal/authoritarian axes. However, I'm not British and I've never followed the politics of any British party, nor my political views have changed substantially in the past few years, so I don't think my perception of the turn to the right of the Guardian in international politics might have been influenced by the shift in Labour's position.
AlexCoventry 8y ago
Viner is co-author of My Name Is Rachel Corrie, a 2005 play about the protestor killed during nonviolent resistance in the Gaza Strip by an IDF bulldozer. Thirteen years is a long time; I know my values have changed a lot in that time. But that play doesn't seem like the output of someone committed to the mainstream narrative on Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie
tom_mellior 8y ago
> For all I know Katherine Viner is neo-con, but the Guardian is not a neo-con paper. Agreed, but... > I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriously after that part. What does this mean? Are you saying he is lying about his photo being removed from his Wikipedia entry by Philip Cross, for example? How the *#%)&$ did we end up in a world in which "I disagree with your characterization of some subjective things" has become synonymous with "I flat out refuse to believe anything you claim about easily verifiable objective facts"?
- dhimes 8y ago
  Easy there. Let's extend the Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) and assume that he means, "Since you are incorrect on something I can verify, I am skeptical on the things you say that I cannot." I'm sure he's fine on the stuff he can verify.

Udik 8y ago

I can tell you that the Guardian shifted noticeably to the right, attacking Corbin, insisting that the British left is full of antisemites, blindly supporting Israel and generally subscribing to US interventionism and a "us vs them" mentality. Now, I can imagine it's still far from being a neo-con newspaper in US terms, but for a newspaper that was considered the voice of the left, in a European context, that's more than enough.

nerdponx 8y ago
I feel like there should be more to right and left than pro- and anti-Israel.
- rhizome 8y ago
  It's more about easy, polemical attacks than accuracy.
orf 8y ago
> I can tell you that the Guardian shifted noticeably to the right I don't see that at all in their reporting. The opinions section is of course a free for all of different ideologies, but in their actual bread and butter reporting I haven't seen anything like that.
- toyg 8y ago
  Simply by covering "manufactured" diatribes in a seemingly-detached manner for a long time, a newspaper is de-facto endorsing the instigating side. The famous "let him deny it" mechanism is well-known. The amount of space the Guardian dedicates to specific topics is very telling in itself. (This said, I personally don't see it as a "neocon paper" by any stretch. They are simply positioned in the "blairite consensus", an area that might occasionally overlap with some US neocon positions -- mostly because some neocons do move from an ideological progressive position.)
wafflebear 8y ago
The Guardian has always been a newspaper with politics most closely aligned with the Lib Dems. In the past, this meant that they were left of Labour. Labour has shifted waaay to the left[1][2], past the Lib Dems and past the Guardian, so the Guardian no longer finds themselves in political alignment with Labour. I don't think the Guardian have changed their political stance substantially. [1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uk2015.png https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uk2015.png [2] https://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2017 https://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2017
- Udik 8y ago
  It's an interesting observation, particularly for the fact that according to those charts UK's left party has been for the past decades a right-wing party, both on the economics and the liberal/authoritarian axes. However, I'm not British and I've never followed the politics of any British party, nor my political views have changed substantially in the past few years, so I don't think my perception of the turn to the right of the Guardian in international politics might have been influenced by the shift in Labour's position.

AlexCoventry 8y ago

Viner is co-author of My Name Is Rachel Corrie, a 2005 play about the protestor killed during nonviolent resistance in the Gaza Strip by an IDF bulldozer. Thirteen years is a long time; I know my values have changed a lot in that time. But that play doesn't seem like the output of someone committed to the mainstream narrative on Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie

tom_mellior 8y ago

> For all I know Katherine Viner is neo-con, but the Guardian is not a neo-con paper. Agreed, but... > I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriously after that part. What does this mean? Are you saying he is lying about his photo being removed from his Wikipedia entry by Philip Cross, for example? How the *#%)&$ did we end up in a world in which "I disagree with your characterization of some subjective things" has become synonymous with "I flat out refuse to believe anything you claim about easily verifiable objective facts"?

dhimes 8y ago
Easy there. Let's extend the Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) and assume that he means, "Since you are incorrect on something I can verify, I am skeptical on the things you say that I cannot." I'm sure he's fine on the stuff he can verify.