It is unfortunate, the world has to be seen in black and white terms. The hit piece on The Guardian misses the mark here, yet the more you know about The Guardi

It is unfortunate, the world has to be seen in black and white terms. The hit piece on The Guardian misses the mark here, yet the more you know about The Guardian the more you realise what the paper 'guards' and for whom. There is no guarding of the truth in the abstract sense plus there is definite lying by omission. The paper is a left-wing gatekeeper, giving out enough of the truth to keep people doing things like going to anti-Trump rallies but not thinking that actual change is possible. In this context of gatekeeping you can expect the paper to be 'clickbaiting' the readers with lots of Assange stuff. Supporting Assange and wanting him to get fairly treated is popular with the readers, none of whom would dare advance a controversial truth themselves. When push comes to shove the Guardian are on the warmonger side, which is unfortunate if you have been a life long reader of the paper. They get orders from on high about what they can and cannot say, if there is a D-notice they will oblige rather than go front page. It is not that hard to research examples of this, for a while 'off-guardian' did a good job of doing so. But even then they did not get into the D-notice stuff, where, incredible as it seems for a democracy, you can have facts and stories vanish into thin air on the government's say so. This is also the case in the U.S. where Special Administrative Measures can be used to make a story completely disappear. By the time this happens to a story you really do have a 'revolutionary truth' out of place with the times and deeply taboo. For this reason no examples can be cited, but this is something to bear in mind next time there is something weird like the Scripal incident. My point being that although this is not a helpful article, The Guardian are not whiter than white, they fulfil a very important role in public diplomacy.