3 ms·

PT Barnum knew how profitable this business model was years ago. There's one born any minute. Its a pity, too, because The Guardian used to do real journalism

PT Barnum knew how profitable this business model was years ago. There's one born any minute. Its a pity, too, because The Guardian used to do real journalism. Now its a rag pushing conspiracy theories and MI6 propaganda. Unbelievably, they still haven't retracted their debunked story about Paul Manfort turning invisible and meeting Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy three times. Embarrassing.

threeseed 8y ago
Why would they retract the story ? They had sources whom I am sure they trusted and since it happened in 2016 before the change of the Ecuadorian government it's plausible that there was implicit support for the meeting. Assange was hardly some innocent bystander during the last US election so he definitely has form. Fact is that when you have a situation like this we simply don't know what the truth is so who is it to say that the Guardian is wrong here.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  There was no mention of any meeting whatsoever in the Mueller report. There was no mention of any meeting whatsoever in the indictments and trials of Manafort. There is no video footage or picture of Manafort ever being anywhere near the embassy, or even in London, during any of the three times that the Guardian claimed they met. Your tinfoil hat has to be very, very tight to believe that Manafort could have secretly met with the most watched man in the world, in the city with the densest surveillance network in the world, without anyone seeing him, without a single picture being taken, without any evidence at all that he had every been there. Not only did he do supposedly do this, but he supposedly did this three times!! Its been many months since the story was published, and the Guardian has shown absolutely no evidence of any meeting. The fact is that no matter what you think of Assange, Manafort, Trump, or anyone else, this is a stunning journalistic failure. The fact that the Guardian continues to stand by this story (silently) without offering any evidence of its veracity is a terrible stain on what was once a very good paper.

threeseed 8y ago

Why would they retract the story ? They had sources whom I am sure they trusted and since it happened in 2016 before the change of the Ecuadorian government it's plausible that there was implicit support for the meeting. Assange was hardly some innocent bystander during the last US election so he definitely has form. Fact is that when you have a situation like this we simply don't know what the truth is so who is it to say that the Guardian is wrong here.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago
There was no mention of any meeting whatsoever in the Mueller report. There was no mention of any meeting whatsoever in the indictments and trials of Manafort. There is no video footage or picture of Manafort ever being anywhere near the embassy, or even in London, during any of the three times that the Guardian claimed they met. Your tinfoil hat has to be very, very tight to believe that Manafort could have secretly met with the most watched man in the world, in the city with the densest surveillance network in the world, without anyone seeing him, without a single picture being taken, without any evidence at all that he had every been there. Not only did he do supposedly do this, but he supposedly did this three times!! Its been many months since the story was published, and the Guardian has shown absolutely no evidence of any meeting. The fact is that no matter what you think of Assange, Manafort, Trump, or anyone else, this is a stunning journalistic failure. The fact that the Guardian continues to stand by this story (silently) without offering any evidence of its veracity is a terrible stain on what was once a very good paper.