As Bob H points out above, it's a very strange thing that The Guardian -- which used to be a fairly reliable if vanilla mainstream news source -- was overtly commandeered and turned into a propaganda outlet.
I *wondered why the Guardian recently went to a "donations only" financial model. That showed me that suddenly they REALLY wanted to get that paper out there, even if they were obliged to GIVE it away !
Mike Tomasky used to have his own daily blog on the Guardian before the Daily Beast. He's a DNC foot soldier, but it was a little corner where Americans of all political stripe could hang out. The rest of the US section of the paper was pretty ludicrous.
I've often wondered why anything posted online by foreign owned media isn't considered "interference by a foreign power." The Russian thing was primarily social media, yet we see foreign "meddling" online all the time. As an example, the British parliament held a vote to ban Trump before he was elected...that and the reporting on it got far more mileage than anything the Russians did. Given that the internet isn't contained within territorial boundaries, this line of attack should be abandoned alltogether.
It is a sordid "vaccine nationalism" (actually "big pharma boosterism") smear piece about the russian vaccines, with among others claims that "An EU study released this week accused Russian and Chinese media of systematically seeking to sow mistrust in western vaccines", as if the piece itself were not seeking to sow mistrust in russian vaccines.
"The Guardian" has debased an important public health issue turning it into into an occasion for anti-russian smears.
The Guardian sucks now. Frank doesn't though...
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/thomas-frank
As Bob H points out above, it's a very strange thing that The Guardian -- which used to be a fairly reliable if vanilla mainstream news source -- was overtly commandeered and turned into a propaganda outlet.
@ grisha koshmarov
I *wondered why the Guardian recently went to a "donations only" financial model. That showed me that suddenly they REALLY wanted to get that paper out there, even if they were obliged to GIVE it away !
In fairness, i think it might be in their charter that they can't charge. But they also blew through a lot of their endowment too.
Frank used to write a column in Harper's too. Some quite good ones.
https://harpers.org/author/thomasfrank/
Mike Tomasky used to have his own daily blog on the Guardian before the Daily Beast. He's a DNC foot soldier, but it was a little corner where Americans of all political stripe could hang out. The rest of the US section of the paper was pretty ludicrous.
I've often wondered why anything posted online by foreign owned media isn't considered "interference by a foreign power." The Russian thing was primarily social media, yet we see foreign "meddling" online all the time. As an example, the British parliament held a vote to ban Trump before he was elected...that and the reporting on it got far more mileage than anything the Russians did. Given that the internet isn't contained within territorial boundaries, this line of attack should be abandoned alltogether.
┬лThe Guardian sucks now.┬╗
Of all the vulgar propaganda that "The Guardian" has been publishing I think this is pretty much the worst, however small the issue is:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/30/is-russias-covid-vaccine-anything-more-than-a-political-weapon-sputnik-v
It is a sordid "vaccine nationalism" (actually "big pharma boosterism") smear piece about the russian vaccines, with among others claims that "An EU study released this week accused Russian and Chinese media of systematically seeking to sow mistrust in western vaccines", as if the piece itself were not seeking to sow mistrust in russian vaccines.
"The Guardian" has debased an important public health issue turning it into into an occasion for anti-russian smears.