1940GMT 13 Sept 2014 The London Guardian's Alan Rusbridger (who has erased the Manchester bit almost without trace) has announced a raft of measures that take him much nearer to Murdoch than would have been previously thought. In justifying the move, Rusbridger has resorted to complacently quoting Mr Scott, the very overly triumphed longest serving Editor of a Century ago. But Mr Rusbridger is, typically, being over the top in his boasts.
How would the little people cope with such
wonderful support!
They can only fantasise, of course.
That a giant organ of the British Liberal Intelligentsia
the Guardian, would stand by them!
One little person made an almost realised
bid three years ago to enlist the support of the
very same Guardian.
How did it go?
Short answer: It didn’t?
Q: Meaning?
Ans: Meaning the Guardian didn’t materialise!
As thedrum.com reports the Guardian's boasts, the lead boast line is "aware-winning journalism":
"Guardian News & Media is inviting its readers to join a new membership scheme which aims to “bring readers closer to the Guardian’s award-winning journalism” as well as generate new revenues for the loss-making group.
That is very different from the experience of the family of the little person who contacted the Guardian in 2011.
The Guardian has been relentless lampooned and mocked by the so-0called Rightwing Press in Britain for being a platform for PC, the varieties of left and other causes including all manner of Muslim..
So what is the truth?
Is the Guardian really a real platform for such tendencies?
Or is the Guardian as false and as corrupt as the rest of Fleet Street and the mainstream British Media?
In the package promoting Rusbridger’s latest announcement, they have included a name called Mehdi Hasan and billed him along with Jonathan Freedland as a star intellectual as they have slotted him for a Guardian Show allegedly about Islamophobia!
They have not explained why the only “award winning journalism” that they can really boast about is either linked with the USA Spy operation Snowden or the hacking trial done by Nick Davies.
There isn’t any explanation on why it was the Times and not the Guardian that exposed Rotherham!
The Guardian may be coy about the reason.
But it is well known that the Guardian has been complicit in Councils’ criminality for decades.
This is to do with “commercial reasons”.
The Guardian has been doing a good bit of “commerce” with the Councils in England.
As part of the de facto terms of the deal, the Guardian shall see no evil, hear no evil!
As far as the Guardian is concerned, Councils up and down England could not possibly do any wrong!
Except if they were under political controls hostile to the Guardian or if the scandals of Council abuses and corruption reached the levels of Haringey and or of Rotherham that the Guardian merely reported the scandal as news already being led by other titles and Media.
Not quite the behaviour of a Group that Alan Rusbridger markets as “award winning journalism”, is it?
wonderful support!
They can only fantasise, of course.
That a giant organ of the British Liberal Intelligentsia
the Guardian, would stand by them!
One little person made an almost realised
bid three years ago to enlist the support of the
very same Guardian.
How did it go?
Short answer: It didn’t?
Q: Meaning?
Ans: Meaning the Guardian didn’t materialise!
As thedrum.com reports the Guardian's boasts, the lead boast line is "aware-winning journalism":
"Guardian News & Media is inviting its readers to join a new membership scheme which aims to “bring readers closer to the Guardian’s award-winning journalism” as well as generate new revenues for the loss-making group.
That is very different from the experience of the family of the little person who contacted the Guardian in 2011.
The Guardian has been relentless lampooned and mocked by the so-0called Rightwing Press in Britain for being a platform for PC, the varieties of left and other causes including all manner of Muslim..
So what is the truth?
Is the Guardian really a real platform for such tendencies?
Or is the Guardian as false and as corrupt as the rest of Fleet Street and the mainstream British Media?
In the package promoting Rusbridger’s latest announcement, they have included a name called Mehdi Hasan and billed him along with Jonathan Freedland as a star intellectual as they have slotted him for a Guardian Show allegedly about Islamophobia!
They have not explained why the only “award winning journalism” that they can really boast about is either linked with the USA Spy operation Snowden or the hacking trial done by Nick Davies.
There isn’t any explanation on why it was the Times and not the Guardian that exposed Rotherham!
The Guardian may be coy about the reason.
But it is well known that the Guardian has been complicit in Councils’ criminality for decades.
This is to do with “commercial reasons”.
The Guardian has been doing a good bit of “commerce” with the Councils in England.
As part of the de facto terms of the deal, the Guardian shall see no evil, hear no evil!
As far as the Guardian is concerned, Councils up and down England could not possibly do any wrong!
Except if they were under political controls hostile to the Guardian or if the scandals of Council abuses and corruption reached the levels of Haringey and or of Rotherham that the Guardian merely reported the scandal as news already being led by other titles and Media.
Not quite the behaviour of a Group that Alan Rusbridger markets as “award winning journalism”, is it?
Comments
Display the following comment