Guardian

In a nutshell: Why Guardian readers shouldn’t be so smug


Cross posted by Dan Coen at Trending Central

pic

The Guardian has a track record of gladly giving jobs to enemies of the state and fifth columnists.

In the mid-90′s, KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky identified prominent Guardian Editor Richard Gott as one of his agents. While Gott denied that he received cash, he confessed taking benefits from the KGB on a visit to the Soviet Union.

Gordievsky commented on the newspaper: “The KGB LOVED the Guardian. It was deemed highly susceptible to penetration.

More recently, following the 7/7 London bombings, the Guardian published an article by Dilpazier Aslam who is a member of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir radical Islamist group which regularly denigrates “non-believers” as sub-human, calls for a caliphate, and extreme sharia law across the world. Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s acolytes have regularly been imprisoned for terror offences.

Let’s not pretend it is the paper of the working class either. C.P. Scott’s (the Guardian’s most famous editor) son said: its “a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last”. Max Hastings wrote in 2005: “I write for the paper because its read by the new establishment.”

Let’s also not pretend it addresses the concerns of working class people – which tend to be things like unease over immigration and its knock on effects vis-a-vis the allocation of council housing, abuse of the welfare system and increased competition for low skilled jobs. Here is Assistant Editor Michael White speaking in 2011 and admitting just that:

“I have always sensed liberal, middle class ill-ease in going after stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive TRIBAL habits of the working class, which is more easily IGNORED altogether. Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets.”

So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth – it’s a paper which self-identifies as bourgeois, yet was a supporter of Soviet Russia (also known as champagne socialism), says it stands up for freedom but publishes freedom hating Islamists, says it stands up for racial tolerance but gives a platform to Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, says its stands up for the working class but thinks they are “tribal” and admits it “ignores” them.

You can’t get more clear-cut than that.

5 replies »

  1. Victoria Brittain who (naturally inadvertently) did some moneylaundering for a massmurderer agent of the Lybian secret service.
    The Guardian said she would not be disciplined for her role.
    Why should she?

  2. has anyone any knowledge about The Guardian’s coverage of India?

    It is a country with a list of domestic problems, including severe problems like the widespread ill-treatment of women but it is also a country routinely attacked by Islamists because it is a Hindu-majority country.

  3. The Guardian has a track record of gladly giving jobs to enemies of the state and fifth columnists.

    What a preposterous opening line!

    Let’s also not pretend it addresses the concerns of working class people – which tend to be things like unease over immigration and its knock on effects vis-a-vis the allocation of council housing, abuse of the welfare system and increased competition for low skilled jobs.

    OK. So the author’s a Guardian-hating Tory. Nice.

    • So if someone criticises The Guardian for not addressing the working class people’s uneasiness about immigration which comes with increased competetion over jobs, he’s Guardian-hating Tory?!