So is the guardian. It's standard operating procedure for militant newspapers to express their own opinion by pretending to report on some random third party ex

So is the guardian. It's standard operating procedure for militant newspapers to express their own opinion by pretending to report on some random third party expressing them. Typical example is headline in the style of "minister xx condemned for saying yy". And in the body of the article, "condemned" means some random university professor or political activist or even an anonymous tweet quoted saying they really dislike yy. And if the editor of the newspaper likes yy, the headline will instead be "minister xx praised for saying yy". It's all objective reporting of facts!