3 ms·

I think Graeber's point is that occasionally publishing writers like this gives the Guardian a kind of fake left cred that then makes their attacks on the left

by k1m 6y ago

I think Graeber's point is that occasionally publishing writers like this gives the Guardian a kind of fake left cred that then makes their attacks on the left (which can be relentless, as in the case of Corbyn) much more powerful. Below his pinned tweet on the Guardian is this tweet from him, mentioning the writer of the opinion piece you link (Aditya Chakrabortty): > this is the "cred" they built up by publishing people like me, .@OwenJones84, .@GeorgeMonbiot, .@chakrabortty - all of whom I very much respect. They used us so no one would believe they would simply lie to destroy any chance of a left gov't. But that's exactly what they did. - https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210323190402162704 https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210323190402162704 I actually respect David Graeber a whole lot more than the others he mentions here because he didn't let his access to the Guardian stop him from calling them out. Going as far as to say he wouldn't write for them again.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
So much this. The anti-Corbyn smearing was practically Soviet in its intensity, and directly contributed to the appalling political situation the UK finds itself in now. You expect it from the right, but when it's also coming from the supposed left - in sync with obvious social media astroturfing - it's impossible not to question what's really going on. I know a number of people who will never trust the Guardian again. Unfortunately I know more who simply believed the lies. I'm glad Graeber said all this because he confirmed what a lot of people suspected was the case. So an especially sad loss, as well.
- Brakenshire 6y ago
  Corbyn actually got an easy ride in many ways, notably in the 2017 election where he inexplicably was able to stand as effectively the main Remain candidate without challenge, despite his record of Eurosceptism. All of the accusations of antisemitism were dismissed by his supporters out of hand, but some were legitimate, likely not in any personal antisemitism but in a willingness to turn a blind eye to antisemitism in ideological allies. David Graeber seems an impressive guy, but that doesn’t mean he’s right in everything.
  - simoom22 6y ago
    I just watched a video where Graeber points out that Boris Johnson himself wrote a novel promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but not a single article was written about Tory anti-Semitism in prominent papers during the height of that controversy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oOj7BzciA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oOj7BzciA
  - simoom22 6y ago
    What's inexplicable about it? They're called the Labour party, not the Remain party.
  - fao_ 6y ago
    Corbyn got invited to a Jewdas passover party - it's in literally no dispute that he was against anti-semitism. Labour's systematic problems were under investigation at the time and it was fair of him to not say anything until that investigation completed, however that itself was turned by the press into being viewed as an avoidant strategy, rather than an act of prudence. And as far as anti-semitism goes, the Tories have a much longer and much deeper history of islamaphobia. But at no point did it recieve the same 24/7 press attention, even though many of the incidents were happening concurrently. It was generally only ever mentioned as a sidenote to the Labour anti-semitism scandal. Hell, for a practical sample, just look at this article by the bbc[1], chosen at random (keywords: tory party islamaphobia general election), it is about Tory islamaphobia but the majority of the content present, per paragraph, is devoted to the anti-semitism accusations against Labour. Even at the end of the year, the Tory party had failed to address it in any meaningful sense[2] In no way did he get an easy ride. Every single tabloid and media outlet was, on the whole, against him from the start. There was a London School of Economics study a number of years back, showing definively that press coverage of Corbyn was nowhere near balanced[3]. That's not even to take into account that during the election debate, the BBC edited out laughs, by the audience, directed at Johnson's comments[4]. The bbc committed a number of "editorial mistakes" that represented themselves as Tory bias. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561043 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561043 [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islamophobia-conservative-party-racism-boris-johnson-muslim-inquiry-a9207191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islamophobia-conservati... [3]: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/rese... [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/bbc-admits-mistake-in-editing-out-laughter-at-johnson-in-tv-debate https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/bbc-admits-mis...
jimnotgym 6y ago
>I think Graeber's point is that occasionally publishing writers like this... > this is the "cred" they built up by publishing people like me, .@OwenJones84, .@GeorgeMonbiot, .@chakrabortty - I will challenge on the term 'occasional'. George Monbiot writes a weekly column Owen Jones writes a regular column Aditya Chakrabortti writes a regular column and is their senior economics commentator. This reduces your opening paragraph to, "By regularly publishing left wingers, by employing them on its staff, by publishing left wing material, the Guardian seeks to pass itself off as a left wing paper. " Well...yes. I should also say that the idea that the Labour anti-semitism scandal was a plot to smear Corbyn, is not universally acknowledged even amongst left wingers.
- k1m 6y ago
  Perhaps "occasional" wasn't the right choice of word. They have regular columns, yes, but when the Guardian goes into attack mode against the left, these writers either don't appear or are drowned out by others in the paper. I spent some time helping collect examples of the Guardian's output during its obsession with attacking Jeremy Corbyn. Try to find comparable coverage in support of Corbyn in the Guardian to offset these attack pieces published between 2015 and 2017: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org https://theguardian.fivefilters.org (note that Owen Jones, far from being a dissenting voice, joined in with the attacks here, later apologising). David Graeber tweeted a link to this at the time - after all the Guardian's doomsayers were proven wrong. https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/874853587880423426 https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/874853587880423426 After some time the Guardian intensified its attacks, this time focusing on spurious claims of antisemitism. They refused to run Graeber's piece defending Corbyn. Again, see if you can find comparable coverage defending Corbyn in the Guardian compared to ones trying to tar him with the antisemite brush: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ And that's of course not mentioning the study that found the Guardian to be one of the most innacurate in reporting claims of antisemitism (more so than even the Sun and the Daily Mail). That little fact is still the pinned tweet on Graeber's Twitter account, which must really annoy the Guardian when his name's trending on Twitter. https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912 https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912

by k1m 6y ago

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

So much this. The anti-Corbyn smearing was practically Soviet in its intensity, and directly contributed to the appalling political situation the UK finds itself in now. You expect it from the right, but when it's also coming from the supposed left - in sync with obvious social media astroturfing - it's impossible not to question what's really going on. I know a number of people who will never trust the Guardian again. Unfortunately I know more who simply believed the lies. I'm glad Graeber said all this because he confirmed what a lot of people suspected was the case. So an especially sad loss, as well.

Brakenshire 6y ago
Corbyn actually got an easy ride in many ways, notably in the 2017 election where he inexplicably was able to stand as effectively the main Remain candidate without challenge, despite his record of Eurosceptism. All of the accusations of antisemitism were dismissed by his supporters out of hand, but some were legitimate, likely not in any personal antisemitism but in a willingness to turn a blind eye to antisemitism in ideological allies. David Graeber seems an impressive guy, but that doesn’t mean he’s right in everything.
- simoom22 6y ago
  I just watched a video where Graeber points out that Boris Johnson himself wrote a novel promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but not a single article was written about Tory anti-Semitism in prominent papers during the height of that controversy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oOj7BzciA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oOj7BzciA
- simoom22 6y ago
  What's inexplicable about it? They're called the Labour party, not the Remain party.
- fao_ 6y ago
  Corbyn got invited to a Jewdas passover party - it's in literally no dispute that he was against anti-semitism. Labour's systematic problems were under investigation at the time and it was fair of him to not say anything until that investigation completed, however that itself was turned by the press into being viewed as an avoidant strategy, rather than an act of prudence. And as far as anti-semitism goes, the Tories have a much longer and much deeper history of islamaphobia. But at no point did it recieve the same 24/7 press attention, even though many of the incidents were happening concurrently. It was generally only ever mentioned as a sidenote to the Labour anti-semitism scandal. Hell, for a practical sample, just look at this article by the bbc[1], chosen at random (keywords: tory party islamaphobia general election), it is about Tory islamaphobia but the majority of the content present, per paragraph, is devoted to the anti-semitism accusations against Labour. Even at the end of the year, the Tory party had failed to address it in any meaningful sense[2] In no way did he get an easy ride. Every single tabloid and media outlet was, on the whole, against him from the start. There was a London School of Economics study a number of years back, showing definively that press coverage of Corbyn was nowhere near balanced[3]. That's not even to take into account that during the election debate, the BBC edited out laughs, by the audience, directed at Johnson's comments[4]. The bbc committed a number of "editorial mistakes" that represented themselves as Tory bias. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561043 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561043 [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islamophobia-conservative-party-racism-boris-johnson-muslim-inquiry-a9207191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islamophobia-conservati... [3]: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/rese... [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/bbc-admits-mistake-in-editing-out-laughter-at-johnson-in-tv-debate https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/bbc-admits-mis...

jimnotgym 6y ago

>I think Graeber's point is that occasionally publishing writers like this... > this is the "cred" they built up by publishing people like me, .@OwenJones84, .@GeorgeMonbiot, .@chakrabortty - I will challenge on the term 'occasional'. George Monbiot writes a weekly column Owen Jones writes a regular column Aditya Chakrabortti writes a regular column and is their senior economics commentator. This reduces your opening paragraph to, "By regularly publishing left wingers, by employing them on its staff, by publishing left wing material, the Guardian seeks to pass itself off as a left wing paper. " Well...yes. I should also say that the idea that the Labour anti-semitism scandal was a plot to smear Corbyn, is not universally acknowledged even amongst left wingers.

k1m 6y ago
Perhaps "occasional" wasn't the right choice of word. They have regular columns, yes, but when the Guardian goes into attack mode against the left, these writers either don't appear or are drowned out by others in the paper. I spent some time helping collect examples of the Guardian's output during its obsession with attacking Jeremy Corbyn. Try to find comparable coverage in support of Corbyn in the Guardian to offset these attack pieces published between 2015 and 2017: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org https://theguardian.fivefilters.org (note that Owen Jones, far from being a dissenting voice, joined in with the attacks here, later apologising). David Graeber tweeted a link to this at the time - after all the Guardian's doomsayers were proven wrong. https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/874853587880423426 https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/874853587880423426 After some time the Guardian intensified its attacks, this time focusing on spurious claims of antisemitism. They refused to run Graeber's piece defending Corbyn. Again, see if you can find comparable coverage defending Corbyn in the Guardian compared to ones trying to tar him with the antisemite brush: https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ https://theguardian.fivefilters.org/antisemitism/ And that's of course not mentioning the study that found the Guardian to be one of the most innacurate in reporting claims of antisemitism (more so than even the Sun and the Daily Mail). That little fact is still the pinned tweet on Graeber's Twitter account, which must really annoy the Guardian when his name's trending on Twitter. https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912 https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912