| More stupidity 12:48 - Apr 20 with 10228 views | stowmarketrange |
I’ve just seen on tv that a report in todays Guardian says that both Manchester clubs should remove the ships from their badges because of the links to the slave trade.
Sorry Clive for starting another 20 page thread,but what a load of old bollox.Where will it all end? |  | | |  |
| More stupidity on 18:44 - Apr 21 with 1035 views | hubble |
| More stupidity on 16:49 - Apr 21 by NW5Hoop |
There are lots of facts in that piece, and then a whole load of supposition to thread them together. A lot of mistaking correlation for causation.
And there are strange and stupid errors, too — the kind so basic that if you are making them, it calls into question a lot of the rest of the reporting: "In the period since Snowden, The Guardian has lost many of its top investigative reporters who had covered national security issues, notably Shiv Malik, Nick Davies, David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Ian Cobain."
Yes, Shiv Malik left. Nick Davies was Rusbridger's best mate. No one was surprised when he stopped writing for the Guardian — aged 64 (he's now 70). David Leigh retired in 2013, when Rusbridger was still editor. RNT is now 78 — he's retired. Ewen retired in 2018, aged 67. Ian has presumably gone to work for Middle East Eye because it reflects his politics. This isn't Kath Viner deliberately destroying things.
The whole thing about Kath not being involved in the Snowden story. Well, no, because as the piece even notes — she was the editor of the Australian edition, and that was a US-UK co-production. Of course she had nothing to do with it.
I am sure the Guardian took less risks after Snowden. Having your laptops destroyed under MI5 supervision because you've broken the law to print a story tends to leave an institutional mark. That does not make your assertion it is a tool of power any less ridiculous. I gave you other big investigations that had been done since the time you said the paper stopped doing investigations: you just ignore that. |
Yeah, okay, I'll grant you those mistakes regarding the journalists who left - although that's half of the story, as the article states, they "were replaced [or] succeeded by less experienced reporters with apparently less commitment to exposing the security state. The current defence and security editor, Dan Sabbagh, started at The Guardian as head of media and technology and has no history of covering national security.
“It seems they’ve got rid of everyone who seemed to cover the security services and military in an adversarial way,” one current Guardian journalist told us."
The article is building a picture about how the Guardian changed tack significantly after the Snowden revelations and under Viner's stewardship. The article does not make the allegation that you cite that "Kath Viner was not involved in the Snowden story" - what it actually says is "she showed much less leadership during the Snowden affair than Janine Gibson in the US," while she was editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia.
It goes on to say: "...during the last two years of Rusbridger’s editorship, The Guardian published about 110 articles per year tagged as MI6 on its website. Since Viner took over, the average per year has halved and is decreasing year by year."
It also cites the fact that after the Snowden revelations and the intervention of the security services, deputy editor Paul Johnson became the first ever Guardian journalist to join the D-Notice committee, and from that point on, published a series of exclusive articles by the chiefs of MI5 and MI6 respectively. And also from that point on, under Viner's stewardship, there were orchestrated campaigns that backed the security services position on both Assange and Corbyn, both of which contained at times highly dubious journalistic practices, for example, the campaign against Assange: "culminating in a front-page splash, based on anonymous sources, claiming that Assange had three secret meetings at the Ecuadorian embassy with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
This “scoop” failed all tests of journalistic credibility since it would have been impossible for anyone to have entered the highly secured Ecuadorian embassy three times with no proof. WikiLeaks and others have strongly argued that the story was manufactured and it is telling that The Guardian has since failed to refer to it in its subsequent articles on the Assange case. The Guardian, however, has still not retracted or apologised for the story which remains on its website.
The “exclusive” appeared just two weeks after Paul Johnson had been congratulated for “re-establishing links” between The Guardian and the security services. "
It also cites the huge campaign of vilification against Corbyn and his alleged anti-semitism, which can't be news to you, it has been cited by so many people as being an orchestrated campaign.
What the article does is build a compelling picture of collusion with state security services.
Regarding the Pandora Papers - yes, I did actually intend to say, perhaps with the exception of the Pandora Papers. However, firstly, the Pandora Papers was not by any means a Guardian exclusive like the Snowden revelations - far from it - the Guardian was part of an international consortium of over 140 media organisations worldwide, and what is telling about the way the Guardian handled the Pandora Papers revelations is that it took a decidedly anti-Russian slant (as it has in many other ways under Viner) from the get-go, with Guardian journalist and serial anti-Russian propagandist* Luke Harding to the fore, who published a lead claiming they revealed a trail that led to Putin (whilst then admitting he wasn't ever mentioned) and at the same time completely ignoring the revelations about then PM Cameron's father's involvement.
(As an interesting aside, the Pandora Papers themselves revealed the millions Zelensky had stashed in offshore bank accounts.)
You say everything in the article "does not make your assertion it is a tool of power any less ridiculous." I would argue the contrary, that in fact it makes a compelling case for it.
*I use the word propagandist advisedly in Harding's case, ever since he was busted by Aaron Mate in a car-crash interview (please google it if you wish) and furthermore Harding's leading role in pushing the whoie 'Russiagate" story, which in the end proved to have been entirely fabricated. A stain on not just Harding and the Guardian but many other MSM outlets, which forms just another piece in the jigsaw that backs up the articles claims about the Guardian's involvement with the state security services. |  |
| |
| More stupidity on 19:09 - Apr 21 with 1000 views | ngbqpr |
Hubble vs NW5 proving far more entertaining & enlightening than most recent Rangers games. |  |
| |
| More stupidity on 19:33 - Apr 21 with 970 views | kensalriser |
| More stupidity on 19:09 - Apr 21 by ngbqpr |
Hubble vs NW5 proving far more entertaining & enlightening than most recent Rangers games. |
Indeed - albeit admittedly a low bar! |  |
| |
| More stupidity on 21:33 - Apr 21 with 937 views | NW5Hoop |
| More stupidity on 18:44 - Apr 21 by hubble |
Yeah, okay, I'll grant you those mistakes regarding the journalists who left - although that's half of the story, as the article states, they "were replaced [or] succeeded by less experienced reporters with apparently less commitment to exposing the security state. The current defence and security editor, Dan Sabbagh, started at The Guardian as head of media and technology and has no history of covering national security.
“It seems they’ve got rid of everyone who seemed to cover the security services and military in an adversarial way,” one current Guardian journalist told us."
The article is building a picture about how the Guardian changed tack significantly after the Snowden revelations and under Viner's stewardship. The article does not make the allegation that you cite that "Kath Viner was not involved in the Snowden story" - what it actually says is "she showed much less leadership during the Snowden affair than Janine Gibson in the US," while she was editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia.
It goes on to say: "...during the last two years of Rusbridger’s editorship, The Guardian published about 110 articles per year tagged as MI6 on its website. Since Viner took over, the average per year has halved and is decreasing year by year."
It also cites the fact that after the Snowden revelations and the intervention of the security services, deputy editor Paul Johnson became the first ever Guardian journalist to join the D-Notice committee, and from that point on, published a series of exclusive articles by the chiefs of MI5 and MI6 respectively. And also from that point on, under Viner's stewardship, there were orchestrated campaigns that backed the security services position on both Assange and Corbyn, both of which contained at times highly dubious journalistic practices, for example, the campaign against Assange: "culminating in a front-page splash, based on anonymous sources, claiming that Assange had three secret meetings at the Ecuadorian embassy with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
This “scoop” failed all tests of journalistic credibility since it would have been impossible for anyone to have entered the highly secured Ecuadorian embassy three times with no proof. WikiLeaks and others have strongly argued that the story was manufactured and it is telling that The Guardian has since failed to refer to it in its subsequent articles on the Assange case. The Guardian, however, has still not retracted or apologised for the story which remains on its website.
The “exclusive” appeared just two weeks after Paul Johnson had been congratulated for “re-establishing links” between The Guardian and the security services. "
It also cites the huge campaign of vilification against Corbyn and his alleged anti-semitism, which can't be news to you, it has been cited by so many people as being an orchestrated campaign.
What the article does is build a compelling picture of collusion with state security services.
Regarding the Pandora Papers - yes, I did actually intend to say, perhaps with the exception of the Pandora Papers. However, firstly, the Pandora Papers was not by any means a Guardian exclusive like the Snowden revelations - far from it - the Guardian was part of an international consortium of over 140 media organisations worldwide, and what is telling about the way the Guardian handled the Pandora Papers revelations is that it took a decidedly anti-Russian slant (as it has in many other ways under Viner) from the get-go, with Guardian journalist and serial anti-Russian propagandist* Luke Harding to the fore, who published a lead claiming they revealed a trail that led to Putin (whilst then admitting he wasn't ever mentioned) and at the same time completely ignoring the revelations about then PM Cameron's father's involvement.
(As an interesting aside, the Pandora Papers themselves revealed the millions Zelensky had stashed in offshore bank accounts.)
You say everything in the article "does not make your assertion it is a tool of power any less ridiculous." I would argue the contrary, that in fact it makes a compelling case for it.
*I use the word propagandist advisedly in Harding's case, ever since he was busted by Aaron Mate in a car-crash interview (please google it if you wish) and furthermore Harding's leading role in pushing the whoie 'Russiagate" story, which in the end proved to have been entirely fabricated. A stain on not just Harding and the Guardian but many other MSM outlets, which forms just another piece in the jigsaw that backs up the articles claims about the Guardian's involvement with the state security services. |
Where to begin …
1/ Of course a swathe of reporters who retired were replaced by less experienced reporters. Should they have gone out and got some octogenarians instead?
2/ That's how newspapers work. People move from job to job, sometimes disastrously (as when the deputy sports ed was made business ed and lasted two months). But national security experts aren't just born. They learn on the job.
3/ The article takes a load of facts, some of which —Â as we have ascertained - aren't facts, and uses them to claim that since these facts exist, these suppositions about them must be true.
4/ Oh don't give me that bollocks about orchestrated campaigns against Assange and Corbyn. In the first case, the grievance was Assange's —Â when he erupted with fury at the Guardian refusing to print names of people whose lives might be endangered. If you look at Guardian leader columns you'll find that despite the fact a lot of people at the paper never want to hear his name again, they have criticised the legal procedures against Assange. As for Corbyn, I must have imagined all those columns in support of him from Owen Jones and others, and that Seumas Milne was, incredibly, allowed to go on leave to be his head of comms.
5/ Panama Papers, not Pandora, one of several big investigative stories (you know the Guardian set up an actual investigative unit two years ago, right) broken in the last few years. That, as you say, was part of a coalition of investigative papers. Just like Snowden was done with the NYT.
6/ What kind of leadership do you think the Australian editor would have over a US-UK story? That is not how newspapers work. I also know Janine, and know she was fighting like mad to keep ownership of the story.
7/ The minute you are saying there are problems with a slant against a mad dictator who starts wars, then you lose all my sympathy. The fact is, if you don't support Putin, you are opposed to him. Luke was thrown out of Russia because he wouldn't kowtow.
6/ The two unnamed former Guardian journalists … Well, without knowing who they are I wouldn't be able to say how well informed they are. But that phrasing includes downtable subs on the arts desk, not just investigative people. There are lots of former employees with grudges - every change of editor at every paper creates a cadre of people who don't get on with the new regime, and often say so in public.
7/ Why not just accept I know an awful lot more about how newspapers in general — and the Guardian in particular — work. And take off your tinfoil helmet. [Post edited 21 Apr 2023 21:37]
|  | | |
| More stupidity on 22:00 - Apr 21 with 898 views | hubble |
| More stupidity on 21:33 - Apr 21 by NW5Hoop |
Where to begin …
1/ Of course a swathe of reporters who retired were replaced by less experienced reporters. Should they have gone out and got some octogenarians instead?
2/ That's how newspapers work. People move from job to job, sometimes disastrously (as when the deputy sports ed was made business ed and lasted two months). But national security experts aren't just born. They learn on the job.
3/ The article takes a load of facts, some of which —Â as we have ascertained - aren't facts, and uses them to claim that since these facts exist, these suppositions about them must be true.
4/ Oh don't give me that bollocks about orchestrated campaigns against Assange and Corbyn. In the first case, the grievance was Assange's —Â when he erupted with fury at the Guardian refusing to print names of people whose lives might be endangered. If you look at Guardian leader columns you'll find that despite the fact a lot of people at the paper never want to hear his name again, they have criticised the legal procedures against Assange. As for Corbyn, I must have imagined all those columns in support of him from Owen Jones and others, and that Seumas Milne was, incredibly, allowed to go on leave to be his head of comms.
5/ Panama Papers, not Pandora, one of several big investigative stories (you know the Guardian set up an actual investigative unit two years ago, right) broken in the last few years. That, as you say, was part of a coalition of investigative papers. Just like Snowden was done with the NYT.
6/ What kind of leadership do you think the Australian editor would have over a US-UK story? That is not how newspapers work. I also know Janine, and know she was fighting like mad to keep ownership of the story.
7/ The minute you are saying there are problems with a slant against a mad dictator who starts wars, then you lose all my sympathy. The fact is, if you don't support Putin, you are opposed to him. Luke was thrown out of Russia because he wouldn't kowtow.
6/ The two unnamed former Guardian journalists … Well, without knowing who they are I wouldn't be able to say how well informed they are. But that phrasing includes downtable subs on the arts desk, not just investigative people. There are lots of former employees with grudges - every change of editor at every paper creates a cadre of people who don't get on with the new regime, and often say so in public.
7/ Why not just accept I know an awful lot more about how newspapers in general — and the Guardian in particular — work. And take off your tinfoil helmet. [Post edited 21 Apr 2023 21:37]
|
Yeah, you see when you get into the personal insults "take off your tinfoil helmet" "I know better than you." I'm afraid that's where you lose me and your credibility. You've lowered it to the level of an internet brawl.
I could equally say to you: take off your blinkers, your bias and your presumption are glaring. Your rhetoric is convincing, I'll grant you that, but it's specious as well (and arrogant), and reductive: "It's all down to Assange", "either you're for or against Putin," with non sequiturs like: "Harding was thrown out of Russia because he wouldn't kowtow" - so what? That makes his central role in the whole Russiagate BS okay then, does it? Come on mate. And of course, always, the Guardian is innocent of all charges guv. Pure as the driven snow. All those MI5 and MI6 articles, just normal editorial. But you know more than me, so there you go, you've won! Well done. In truth, you haven't refuted the central arguments of that article one jot.
. [Post edited 22 Apr 2023 10:19]
| |
| |
| More stupidity on 22:15 - Apr 21 with 869 views | Lblock |
I’ve heard a rumour they’re removing a word from our badge due to the trade description act and also altering another to reflect the player’s priorities
“Queens Park Rangers Clubbers”
It’s got a ring to it |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
