The Guardian: the gaffe that keeps on gaffing

A guest post by Joe Geary.

The Guardian is so full of gaffes that its nickname is “the Grauniad”: the paper that can’t get anything right, not even its own name.

Latest in this illustrious series is “PainGate” in which one of the newspaper’s top writers accused David Cameron of suffering only “privileged pain” over the prolonged death of his handicapped son. Tories don’t feel pain. Only complex, sensitive, profound Guardian readers feel real suffering – the pain of gendered pronouns or the sheer angst of being mansplained. Editor-in-chief Kath Viner, apologised for “falling short of our standards”; not the sort of thing the Guardian should write. Think, yes, just not put down in ink.

Or instead of “gaffe” should that be “gap”? This last weekend alone some 70 protesters have been killed by Iraqi security forces, with the threat of future explosion of sectarian violence. Luckily not one was shot by an Israeli so it all gets relegated to the “who cares?” pages.

And what to make of the Guardian’s adulation of Sadiq Khan; ardent anti-Trumpian, keen to protest Trump’s visit to London and to allow the puerile Trump baby blimp? Keen too – in stark contrast – to host, well, a veritable host of top Chinese officials including the mayors of Shenzhen (twice), Guandong, and Shanghai, the Communist Party secretaries of Beijing and Guandong (see Private Eye #1506) – all top members of the Chinese Communist Party and complicit in heinous human rights abuses. Trump might have tried to ban a few people from flying to the US, but he hasn’t put a million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps and allegedly harvested their organs, as the Chinese regime does. Does any of this temper the Guardian’s worship of the Great Khan? Not one bit. It’s latest love letter to him is here.

And what of that other paragon of human rights, the Iranian regime? The Guardian will dutifully report on the seizure of a dual-national Brit, but who is to blame? Not the murderous apocalyptic mullahs or the Mafiosi of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, just nameless “international relations”. But there is far worse. The Guardian will follow its favourite fetish and issue report after report on the arrest of a Palestinian teenager by Israeli police  for repeated violent conduct (just like any other police force in the world). But how would the average Guardian reader ever know just how many children are executed every year in Iran?  Seven last year alone, according to UN experts, and 90 more children are on Iran’s death row.

We may well ask Ms Viner what are the Guardian’s standards. Double standards for sure.


Categories: Guardian

Tagged as:

6 replies »

  1. Strange you should choose to highlight Khan’s efforts to promote London’s commercial links with China. Any friendly relations with undemocratic nations are open to criticism but the country more guilty than most in this respect is Israel. As The Times of Israel reported recently:

    “In October, Netanyahu and China’s Vice President Wang Qishan co-hosted a high-profile trade and innovation conference in Jerusalem. Netanyahu announced at the time that the two countries would complete a free trade agreement in 2019, and that China plans to invest heavily in Israeli infrastructure, including new ports and a light rail.”

    • You write “the country more guilty than most” and then identify Israel. While your comparative is a bit vague, it would presume some equivalency among countries to make the comparison at all useful. I fail to see the equivalencies.

      Are you arguing that Israel is comparable in size, either in population, in GNP or in geostrategic realities each faces, to the UK? Do you think Israel has the same leisure as the UK to choose among foreign countries with which to score political points? Just recall Jeremy Corbyn’s stated view of how he would handle relations, economic and political, with Israel were Labour to come to power, and compare that to the EU’s attitude in negotiating Brexit and granting extensions while Parliament attempts to sort things out internally.

      Your attempt to make Israel (of all the nations in the world to pick) worse than the UK on this particularly issue seems more an effort at deflection by comparing apples to oranges than one geared at putting the UK’s actions in a useful light.

      • Hi Charlie
        The simple point is that Khan was criticised for meeting with Chinese ministers on a pro-Israel board when Netanyahu was doing the same thing on a larger scale only a few days ago. Israel has a terrible record for dealing with objectionable regimes, particularly concerning arms sales (the British record isn’t much better). I will give some details later if I have time.

        • Sencar, Like all zionophobes, you are a selective reader and even more selective thinker. You willfully missed the point.

          Khan is a Muslim and poistions himself as champion of Muslims. He started a feud with Trump because Trump wanted to have more control over who flew into the US from Muslim countries where terrorism is rife, like Yemen. But Kan is happy to do deals with Chinese Muslim-mudererers. It’s called hypocrisy.

          Israel claims no brief to be special defender of Muslims everywhere. That would be Saudi, who’ve just signed billion-dollar agreements on a trade trip there.

          Your singling out of Israel tells us all we need to know about *you*.