4 ms·

>Katherine Viner is a liar. Am I missing something here? After reading the article I've been unable to see how this relates (or necessarily is correct, but th

>Katherine Viner is a liar. Am I missing something here? After reading the article I've been unable to see how this relates (or necessarily is correct, but that's another matter) to the link. Could you please elaborate?

contingencies 5y ago
Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.
markx2 5y ago
The Guardian promoted everything Assange said / did. Then all of a sudden The Guardian forget all about Julian. Their coverage has been pathetic. Why? Because the UK Govt will have told them to Shut Up. And it's not just The Guardian. It's the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Sun, Mail and more. So when Katherine Viner spouts forth that: "the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth" That is bollocks. "Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders." Also bollocks. Viner lies.
- damagednoob 5y ago
  I think it's more likely that in light of the #MeToo movement, it became untenable for them to defend an accused rapist, regardless of if he was innocent or not.
  - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
    That should not be happening in a healthy, democratic society. If it does then it means anyone can be silenced based solely on an accusation of an action highly despised and criminalized by society.
- tootie 5y ago
  That sounds like a load of baseless accusations. Printing WikiLeaks leaks doesn't mean they have to defend Assange for his behavior. Assange is also a well established liar.
atdrummond 5y ago
The Guardian posted this article, claiming WikiLeaks released the entire cache of cables unredacted: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publ... This was true but revealed in a way that was purposely misleading and to deflect from the Guardian's role in putting intelligence workers at risk. That is, the Guardian's poor OpSec had made all those cables available to anyone without any kind of protections in place. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wikileaks-was-right-to-release-raw-cables/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wik...) The Guardian does not protect it's sources. The Guardian does not own up to it's mistakes. The Grauniad does not spellcheck.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  Minor, but since you did it twice and criticize the Guardian's spelling .. https://www.dictionary.com/e/its-vs-its/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/its-vs-its/
harry8 5y ago
They continue to employ Luke Harding which seems mystifying. Maybe it's a really subtle false flag? The spooks have them where they want them so they can't publish the truth meaning they have to publish ridiculous lies which get publicised, then fall over due to contrary evidence and so actually undermine the state's case while seeming to support it? This comically bad example they haven't even bothered to try and salvage their reputation with corrections. Merely added "sources say" in a submarine edit to the headline. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

contingencies 5y ago

Their actions in Wikileaks' case and subsequently show they are not acting in the public interest, therefore this public appeal is false and deliberately misleading, and this is known to and actively supported by Katherine Viner.

markx2 5y ago

The Guardian promoted everything Assange said / did. Then all of a sudden The Guardian forget all about Julian. Their coverage has been pathetic. Why? Because the UK Govt will have told them to Shut Up. And it's not just The Guardian. It's the Telegraph, Times, Independent, Sun, Mail and more. So when Katherine Viner spouts forth that: "the Guardian remains open to all and fiercely independent, and can continue chasing the truth" That is bollocks. "Because of our independence, we are able to investigate boldly, putting the truth ahead of the agenda of an owner, investors or shareholders." Also bollocks. Viner lies.

damagednoob 5y ago
I think it's more likely that in light of the #MeToo movement, it became untenable for them to defend an accused rapist, regardless of if he was innocent or not.
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  That should not be happening in a healthy, democratic society. If it does then it means anyone can be silenced based solely on an accusation of an action highly despised and criminalized by society.
tootie 5y ago
That sounds like a load of baseless accusations. Printing WikiLeaks leaks doesn't mean they have to defend Assange for his behavior. Assange is also a well established liar.

atdrummond 5y ago

The Guardian posted this article, claiming WikiLeaks released the entire cache of cables unredacted: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publ... This was true but revealed in a way that was purposely misleading and to deflect from the Guardian's role in putting intelligence workers at risk. That is, the Guardian's poor OpSec had made all those cables available to anyone without any kind of protections in place. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wikileaks-was-right-to-release-raw-cables/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wik...) The Guardian does not protect it's sources. The Guardian does not own up to it's mistakes. The Grauniad does not spellcheck.

jjgreen 5y ago
Minor, but since you did it twice and criticize the Guardian's spelling .. https://www.dictionary.com/e/its-vs-its/ https://www.dictionary.com/e/its-vs-its/

harry8 5y ago

They continue to employ Luke Harding which seems mystifying. Maybe it's a really subtle false flag? The spooks have them where they want them so they can't publish the truth meaning they have to publish ridiculous lies which get publicised, then fall over due to contrary evidence and so actually undermine the state's case while seeming to support it? This comically bad example they haven't even bothered to try and salvage their reputation with corrections. Merely added "sources say" in a submarine edit to the headline. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...