8 ms·

The article clearly demonstrates that The Guardian has become a shadow of its former self - pro-Establishment, anti-Assange, anti-Corbyn/Labour, all of its trus

The article clearly demonstrates that The Guardian has become a shadow of its former self - pro-Establishment, anti-Assange, anti-Corbyn/Labour, all of its trustworthy intelligence reporters having left. Something of an open secret to be honest, how it now arrogates to pretend to still be "Left"-leaning but is nothing of the sort, under editorship veering from amateurish to clearly complicit.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
Lately it’s also been feeling obvious & creepy how much The Guardian just runs second rate knock off stories that NY Times runs first, even regarding British or European news. Not headline stories that many newspapers would plausibly cover, but even many far lesser stories, entertainment or sports, pop culture, etc. The big exceptions are major Brexit stories, but that’s about it.
- KineticLensman 7y ago
  > The big exceptions are major Brexit stories, but that’s about it. George Monbiot [0] would disagree with you. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    To me that’s just an eyeroll sort of thing. It’s funny because I actually agree pretty significantly with his politics and a lot of his writing, but find the writing itself to be bad, especially at ever seeming fair or balanced, like an even more self-righteous Krugman. I first heard of Monbiot because Radiohead’s lead singer, Thom Yorke, apparently knows him and somewhat promotes his writing. At any rate, no, Monbiot pieces would definitely not be a dent in what I am saying (for me anyway).
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      Your politics are showing. The point is that Monbiot pieces aren't NYT knockoffs, not that Monbiot pieces are "fair and balanced" (a marketing blurb created by Fox News.)
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        What a weird comment. My politics really align closely with Monbiot. But I’m sorry, his pieces seriously are just a knock off Krugman from NYT.
Singletoned 7y ago
I suspect that there going to be a divergence between "left-leaning" and "liberal-leaning" in Britain. The British Labour party isn't inherently liberal (as they have shown with their anti-semitism and resistance to gay marriage). I think they will continue further down a path of non-liberal socialism, alienating a lot of people who hadn't previously considered that "left" and "liberal" were different concepts.
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  [________] anyone who just finished reading the article and checked the references will think you are trolling if you re-accuse the Labour party for anti-semitism... EDIT: removed "Did you even read the article?" per the site guidelines
  - Singletoned 7y ago
    The article is deeply biased in trying to make a point. Nothing in the article actually clears the Labour Party (as opposed to their supporters). An "independent inquiry" that they commissioned has all the weight of every other "independent inquiry" that has ever been commission, ie none. That few members of party have been investigated (by the party) is one of the problems that people are complaining about.
  - irb 7y ago
    The article says Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem and therefore it doesn't? And yes, I checked the references, and they are not wholly convincing. A statement that only 0.06% of the Labour membership have been investigated for anti-semitism (which firstly still seems kind of high to me, and secondly obviously not being investigated for anti-semitism does not mean one is not anti-semitic) and an independent inquiry by the person who was subsequently made Labour's shadow attorney general? I'm not saying Labour is overrun by anti-semitism but let's try not to just believe the last thing we read, ok?
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      Mo, the facts say that Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem. There has been absolutely no evidence provided by any source to prove institutional anti-semitism. There is really no evidence at all that stands up to even the most basic common sense assessment. For example - if Corbyn is an anti-Semite, he's been remarkably quiet about it. In fact he has somehow managed to stay friends with various Jewish individuals and organisations in spite of his alleged burning hatred for them. Perhaps someone should let them know? If you compare Labour's record of "anti-semitism" with the many easy-to-find examples of outright unapologetic racism of the British (and US) Right, there's no comparison. There have however been public statements by Israeli diplomats explaining that "anti-semitism" is used in a calculated and cynical way to undermine politicians who do not support Israeli nationalism. And also evidence of Israeli influencers working to "take down" - their words - British MPs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-plotted-against-mps-set-up-political-groups-labour https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplom... Meanwhile the Labour MPs making the most noise about anti-semitism also happen to be the old Blairites who were horrified when Corbyn was elected leader. As you say - let's try not to just believe everything we read on this topic, ok?
lacampbell 7y ago
Something of an open secret to be honest, how it now arrogates to pretend to still be "Left"-leaning but is nothing of the sort I can always spot a political extremist when they claim that something clearly left-wing is actually (secretly!) right wing, or vice versa. It shows their sense of perspective has clearly left them.
justsee 7y ago
Having been a close reader of The Guardian over many years I'd very much agree with your observations. It still has the shimmer of a left-leaning paper on soft social issues, but on many matters of significance it's clearly being used to influence left-leaning voters towards an acceptance of a right-wing, authoritarian, security-state worldview (the irony being it keeps up a pretence of the reverse when covering Trump etc). The article itself was an outstanding deep dive into the history of The Guardian investigative reporting, appeared to reveal behind-the-scenes information I wasn't aware of, such as the effective disbanding The Guardian's veteran investigate reporting team.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
There are a lot of "tankie" pro Corbyn Journalists working for the Guardian.
- 9q9 7y ago
  Whom have you got in mind? For those unfamiliar with British political discourse, the term "Tankie" is often used in British left-wing circles to refer to supporters of Stalin (including his approach to political change through violence), and is usually used in contradistinction from "Trots" (= follower of Leon Trotsky's -- who disagreed with Stalin on several things, but not on the use of violence). Whatever one might think of Corbyn and his supporters, "Tankie" is probably not as exact as might be desirable. [1] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/what-exactly-are-trots-and-tankies https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/what-...
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    "Tankie" has (on the internet) become a term that the center-left uses to refer to the left. It's replacing "alt-left" and even getting traction in some circles that identify as "socialist."
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      On the internet "ROTFL" no "tankie" is a 1950's labour party slang term for the Communist Party members that didn't leave after Hungary in 56. A tankie is the sort that sells the papers with editorials praising Assad for crushing the counterrevolutiony scum beneath the wheels of tanks.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    tbf whilst I completely agree the "tankie" label doesn't fit Corbyn and his average supporter particularly well, one of the more interesting properties of Corbyn is his ability to maintain very good relationships with both the "Stalinist" and "Trotskyist" factions of the British radical left (who tend to hate each other and have little more regard for the Labour Party) I think the "tankie" description is pretty fair when applied to likes of Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray, though of course Milne stopped being the Guardian's comment editor to work for Corbyn and Murray hasn't written for them since 2013.
Angostura 7y ago
> The article clearly demonstrates that The Guardian has become a shadow of its former self It certainly says that - I'm not sure that it manages to demonstrate it, though. The Guardian has always been soft-left. If you compare its coverage of (the let's face it, ineffective) Corbyn to say Michael Foot, you'll not find much difference.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The Guardian has never been full left, or organ of the Labour party, always centre-left more where the old Liberal Party once sat. They don't seem that much moved, if anything they are more "of the left" today than they've ever been, just not necessarily Corbyn's left. Being so negative on Corbyn in the run up to 2015 may well have damaged many folk's views of them.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  You're wrong IMHO. I used to read a rotating selection of the guardian, the independent and the telegraph when I still bought a newspaper in the 2000s. I now mainly read the guardian and occasionally scan the BBC, telegraph, ft, fox news and CNN. Putting aside opinion pieces, the guardian has moved from hard left, to left of the centre, in its reporting. You just don't get the sort of bombastic, hard left, 'news' articles some of their old reporters used to write in the print version. I would say they often had pretty biased reporting back in the print days, but not now. The telegraph website has moved from centre right to hard right. The independent website hurts my eyes last I checked with ads, ads, ads, videos, videos, videos, which is a shame as I loved that paper. Personally I'm nervous of the guardian having so much power now (and some semi-stable funding from a trust), but they're being pretty responsible with it.
  - r721 7y ago
    The Independent is owned by Saudi/Russian investors now: >Owner(s) >Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel >Alexander Lebedev >Evgeny Lebedev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent Related articles: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40762906 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40762906 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/19/independent-deal-with-saudi-publisher-back-under-spotlight https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/19/independent-de...
    - dTal 7y ago
      Friendly reminder that the UK government once leaked material about foreign spying activities through the Independent and pretended it was Snowden's fault in an attempt to discredit him. I considered them to have zero journalistic ethics after that. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s-secret-mid-east-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Why does the political direction it leans matter at all? There's plenty of reasons to be critical of the intelligence and security apparatus regardless of which way you vote.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Criticizing the security services in the UK is an intrinsically left-wing act. Nobody on the right ever bothers to do it, and it won't get published - unless for over partisan reasons.
shellac 7y ago
The article is a curates egg. The d-notice stuff is interesting, although mostly well known I thought (?). The Assange and anti-semitism parts are evidence light re-heats of Canary-level reports with added "it's the spooks". Like almost all his partners Assange fell out with the Guardian pretty badly. If MI5 operatives were being paid to do this, well I hope they enjoyed the free holiday. I especially enjoyed the statistic that "0.06% of the Labour membership has been investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts."
SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
It seems The Guardian is trading on the reputation it built up in years gone by, but no longer lives up to its own high standards. I respected The Guardian before, nowadays it just seems to be the left equivilent of Breitbart - at least as far left as Breitbart is far right.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

Lately it’s also been feeling obvious & creepy how much The Guardian just runs second rate knock off stories that NY Times runs first, even regarding British or European news. Not headline stories that many newspapers would plausibly cover, but even many far lesser stories, entertainment or sports, pop culture, etc. The big exceptions are major Brexit stories, but that’s about it.

KineticLensman 7y ago
> The big exceptions are major Brexit stories, but that’s about it. George Monbiot [0] would disagree with you. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  To me that’s just an eyeroll sort of thing. It’s funny because I actually agree pretty significantly with his politics and a lot of his writing, but find the writing itself to be bad, especially at ever seeming fair or balanced, like an even more self-righteous Krugman. I first heard of Monbiot because Radiohead’s lead singer, Thom Yorke, apparently knows him and somewhat promotes his writing. At any rate, no, Monbiot pieces would definitely not be a dent in what I am saying (for me anyway).
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    Your politics are showing. The point is that Monbiot pieces aren't NYT knockoffs, not that Monbiot pieces are "fair and balanced" (a marketing blurb created by Fox News.)
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      What a weird comment. My politics really align closely with Monbiot. But I’m sorry, his pieces seriously are just a knock off Krugman from NYT.

Singletoned 7y ago

I suspect that there going to be a divergence between "left-leaning" and "liberal-leaning" in Britain. The British Labour party isn't inherently liberal (as they have shown with their anti-semitism and resistance to gay marriage). I think they will continue further down a path of non-liberal socialism, alienating a lot of people who hadn't previously considered that "left" and "liberal" were different concepts.

DoctorOetker 7y ago
[________] anyone who just finished reading the article and checked the references will think you are trolling if you re-accuse the Labour party for anti-semitism... EDIT: removed "Did you even read the article?" per the site guidelines
- Singletoned 7y ago
  The article is deeply biased in trying to make a point. Nothing in the article actually clears the Labour Party (as opposed to their supporters). An "independent inquiry" that they commissioned has all the weight of every other "independent inquiry" that has ever been commission, ie none. That few members of party have been investigated (by the party) is one of the problems that people are complaining about.
- irb 7y ago
  The article says Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem and therefore it doesn't? And yes, I checked the references, and they are not wholly convincing. A statement that only 0.06% of the Labour membership have been investigated for anti-semitism (which firstly still seems kind of high to me, and secondly obviously not being investigated for anti-semitism does not mean one is not anti-semitic) and an independent inquiry by the person who was subsequently made Labour's shadow attorney general? I'm not saying Labour is overrun by anti-semitism but let's try not to just believe the last thing we read, ok?
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Mo, the facts say that Labour doesn't have an anti-semitism problem. There has been absolutely no evidence provided by any source to prove institutional anti-semitism. There is really no evidence at all that stands up to even the most basic common sense assessment. For example - if Corbyn is an anti-Semite, he's been remarkably quiet about it. In fact he has somehow managed to stay friends with various Jewish individuals and organisations in spite of his alleged burning hatred for them. Perhaps someone should let them know? If you compare Labour's record of "anti-semitism" with the many easy-to-find examples of outright unapologetic racism of the British (and US) Right, there's no comparison. There have however been public statements by Israeli diplomats explaining that "anti-semitism" is used in a calculated and cynical way to undermine politicians who do not support Israeli nationalism. And also evidence of Israeli influencers working to "take down" - their words - British MPs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-plotted-against-mps-set-up-political-groups-labour https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplom... Meanwhile the Labour MPs making the most noise about anti-semitism also happen to be the old Blairites who were horrified when Corbyn was elected leader. As you say - let's try not to just believe everything we read on this topic, ok?

lacampbell 7y ago

Something of an open secret to be honest, how it now arrogates to pretend to still be "Left"-leaning but is nothing of the sort I can always spot a political extremist when they claim that something clearly left-wing is actually (secretly!) right wing, or vice versa. It shows their sense of perspective has clearly left them.

justsee 7y ago

Having been a close reader of The Guardian over many years I'd very much agree with your observations. It still has the shimmer of a left-leaning paper on soft social issues, but on many matters of significance it's clearly being used to influence left-leaning voters towards an acceptance of a right-wing, authoritarian, security-state worldview (the irony being it keeps up a pretence of the reverse when covering Trump etc). The article itself was an outstanding deep dive into the history of The Guardian investigative reporting, appeared to reveal behind-the-scenes information I wasn't aware of, such as the effective disbanding The Guardian's veteran investigate reporting team.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

There are a lot of "tankie" pro Corbyn Journalists working for the Guardian.

9q9 7y ago
Whom have you got in mind? For those unfamiliar with British political discourse, the term "Tankie" is often used in British left-wing circles to refer to supporters of Stalin (including his approach to political change through violence), and is usually used in contradistinction from "Trots" (= follower of Leon Trotsky's -- who disagreed with Stalin on several things, but not on the use of violence). Whatever one might think of Corbyn and his supporters, "Tankie" is probably not as exact as might be desirable. [1] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/what-exactly-are-trots-and-tankies https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/what-...
- pessimizer 7y ago
  "Tankie" has (on the internet) become a term that the center-left uses to refer to the left. It's replacing "alt-left" and even getting traction in some circles that identify as "socialist."
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    On the internet "ROTFL" no "tankie" is a 1950's labour party slang term for the Communist Party members that didn't leave after Hungary in 56. A tankie is the sort that sells the papers with editorials praising Assad for crushing the counterrevolutiony scum beneath the wheels of tanks.
- notahacker 7y ago
  tbf whilst I completely agree the "tankie" label doesn't fit Corbyn and his average supporter particularly well, one of the more interesting properties of Corbyn is his ability to maintain very good relationships with both the "Stalinist" and "Trotskyist" factions of the British radical left (who tend to hate each other and have little more regard for the Labour Party) I think the "tankie" description is pretty fair when applied to likes of Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray, though of course Milne stopped being the Guardian's comment editor to work for Corbyn and Murray hasn't written for them since 2013.

Angostura 7y ago

> The article clearly demonstrates that The Guardian has become a shadow of its former self It certainly says that - I'm not sure that it manages to demonstrate it, though. The Guardian has always been soft-left. If you compare its coverage of (the let's face it, ineffective) Corbyn to say Michael Foot, you'll not find much difference.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

The Guardian has never been full left, or organ of the Labour party, always centre-left more where the old Liberal Party once sat. They don't seem that much moved, if anything they are more "of the left" today than they've ever been, just not necessarily Corbyn's left. Being so negative on Corbyn in the run up to 2015 may well have damaged many folk's views of them.

mattmanser 7y ago
You're wrong IMHO. I used to read a rotating selection of the guardian, the independent and the telegraph when I still bought a newspaper in the 2000s. I now mainly read the guardian and occasionally scan the BBC, telegraph, ft, fox news and CNN. Putting aside opinion pieces, the guardian has moved from hard left, to left of the centre, in its reporting. You just don't get the sort of bombastic, hard left, 'news' articles some of their old reporters used to write in the print version. I would say they often had pretty biased reporting back in the print days, but not now. The telegraph website has moved from centre right to hard right. The independent website hurts my eyes last I checked with ads, ads, ads, videos, videos, videos, which is a shame as I loved that paper. Personally I'm nervous of the guardian having so much power now (and some semi-stable funding from a trust), but they're being pretty responsible with it.
- r721 7y ago
  The Independent is owned by Saudi/Russian investors now: >Owner(s) >Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel >Alexander Lebedev >Evgeny Lebedev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent Related articles: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40762906 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40762906 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/19/independent-deal-with-saudi-publisher-back-under-spotlight https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/19/independent-de...
  - dTal 7y ago
    Friendly reminder that the UK government once leaked material about foreign spying activities through the Independent and pretended it was Snowden's fault in an attempt to discredit him. I considered them to have zero journalistic ethics after that. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s-secret-mid-east-internet-surveillance-base-is-revealed-in-edward-snowden-leaks-8781082.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Why does the political direction it leans matter at all? There's plenty of reasons to be critical of the intelligence and security apparatus regardless of which way you vote.

pjc50 7y ago
Criticizing the security services in the UK is an intrinsically left-wing act. Nobody on the right ever bothers to do it, and it won't get published - unless for over partisan reasons.

shellac 7y ago

The article is a curates egg. The d-notice stuff is interesting, although mostly well known I thought (?). The Assange and anti-semitism parts are evidence light re-heats of Canary-level reports with added "it's the spooks". Like almost all his partners Assange fell out with the Guardian pretty badly. If MI5 operatives were being paid to do this, well I hope they enjoyed the free holiday. I especially enjoyed the statistic that "0.06% of the Labour membership has been investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts."

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago

It seems The Guardian is trading on the reputation it built up in years gone by, but no longer lives up to its own high standards. I respected The Guardian before, nowadays it just seems to be the left equivilent of Breitbart - at least as far left as Breitbart is far right.