[kev009]

I had some level of respect for The Guardian vis a vis Glenn Greenwald. But wow, the brazen seed on current events "Might Trump have been recruited by Putin?" and "right wingers are easier to convert". First class journalism right there folks, way to be taken hook line and sinker by the intelligence community while doing an article on the intelligence community. Pretty comical.

[jimnotgym]

With the Guardian I think more about the individual writer rather than paper as a whole, as it is run rather differently from most news outlets [0].

And of course a journo is going to try and use current events to shoehorn in a half written story they have had for a while. A bit like how almost every piece of software now has a cloud version.

But the Guardian is critical to the landscape of UK news. It is one of very few newspapers not controlled by a press baron like Murdoch or the 'Weird Twins'. The UK press as a whole is much much more right wing (notably on immigration and the EU) than properly fits the UK IMHO and the Guardian is an important antidote. As well as Snowden, it also broke the important 'phone hacking' scandal, where some tabloids were getting their stories with very questionable ethics. It was also the only newspaper to cover the 'Snoopers Charter' legislation, that allows random parts of the UK government to look at users browsing history (and share it with the US gov).

It shows up so much on HN for its other important trait, no paywall.

[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

[pbz]

Greenwald has been at the Intercept for quite some time now: https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

[arkades]

I lost my respect for the Guardian a while back. They were reporting on hostilities in Israel.

They had a side-bar for "Related Articles", which were one after the other - critical of Israel as being an unprovoked aggressor. Fine, if that's the truth, except:

Every article I opened had a long lead-in about Israeli aggression, its consequences, etc. Every article had buried in the last paragraph, practically mumbling under its breath, "The IDF moved in because they were repeatedly being attacked by RPGs &tc." Nothing was provided to suggest the IDF was lying or incorrect about being provoked - so why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression?

I was done. It's fine to be critical of Israeli policies and military posturing; it's another to essentially lie through your teeth and then cover your ass in postscript.

[hibikir]

I was born and raised in Spain, and now live in the US. In my experience, the coverage of news about Israel in the US and Spain are about as different as black and white. What you describe about The Guardian seems like normal coverage in Spain.

The experience mase me understand that, in practice, all sources have major amounts of spin where you might not expect it, and that it is very difficult to figure out which spin, if any, is closer to reality. It's not about fake news, but about how wide the journalist's sources are, and how much did they care about digging for what is real.

[quirkafleeg]

> why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression?

That's hard to say, since you haven't provided any examples of it.

[markdown]

Israel is occupying Palestine. When Palestinians fight back, Israelis can't claim to have been provoked, when their occupation is the original provocation.

It's like claiming Hitler just justified in killing 6 million jews because after he killed 1 million, a few jews tried to fight back, and he had to kill another 5 million because he was provoked.

[angry_octet]

I think "original provocation" is a little hard to claim when we are talking about Jerusalem. Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave.

Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless.

[markdown]

> Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave.

If you're going that far back, why not just a handful of years earlier? Palestine getting flooded with immigrants whose sole purpose was to replace the incumbent population and establish their own state.

The American far right is terrified that muslims are going to take over an establish sharia law... all based on nonsense. The Palestinians actually had that happen to them, and you don't think they were justified in feeling invaded?

> Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless.

Of course it was. That was why it was said. I find your defence of the Israeli apartheid and their continued occupation of Palestine and brutal oppression of a hopeless people to be just as tasteless.

EDIT: In any case, thank you for explaining the original downvote, unlike the others.

[angry_octet]

The Jewish flight from Europe and concurrent Zionism is significantly different is character to the current Israeli behaviour, which is undoubtedly seeking to illegally expel Palestinians from the West Bank. But to say that the Palestinians and their allies had no role in this process is also absurd. The plight of the Palestinians is dire, but their actions must also be weighted. In many ways they have the Israelis they deserve, and the Israelis have the Hamas they deserve.

The American far right is so disconnected from reality and humanity as to render their arguments null and void. I am not arguing their positions.

I don't think though that any mass migration of a persecuted people is an invasion, no matter how much the current inhabitants don't like them.

When the state of Israel was attacked by an existential threat it defended itself, and it now occupies the terrain required to defend itself. The continual threat from Syria more than justifies holding the Golan Heights. The rocket attacks from Gaza on heavily populated areas (and control by Hamas) certainly justify some blockade. The West Bank territory squeezes so close to Tel Aviv that ceding it to a regime that might rocket them is impossible.

The Israelis use of heavy weapons on Gaza is indefensible, as are the continued growth of West Bank settlements. But they fall short of being comparable in any way with the Holocaust.

[markdown]

Well argued. Thank you for sharing your opinions on what is obviously a very complex issue.

[twblalock]

Unlike the American press, which generally tries to promote a naive concept of objectivity, the UK press is not shy about taking a side. It's the reader's job to decide what to believe, and that's true in the US as well -- even though many Americans want to believe in an objective press, that's clearly not the case. At least the Brits are honest about it. You can't outsource your critical thinking to journalists.

[corndoge]

I didn't see anything in the article text that references what you are talking about. Did I miss it?

[nl]

Yes.

I ask what he thinks of the unverified allegations that President Trump was compromised during visits to Russia. The dossier of claims, compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, was published just a day before we meet. “Clearly, blackmail is a weapon in the KGB arsenal,” Barsky shrugs. “If they could use it, they would. The only question is whether our new president was foolish enough to do any of that stuff.” Today’s Russian security services seem to think in much the same way as his old handlers in the KGB, he says. “That’s the thing with big organisations anywhere: they’re very resistant to change.”

And

In the 1980s, Barsky’s most interesting potential recruits were radical rightwing ideologues; here, Soviet agents would pose as activists from the radical right. “There was one individual I reported on who I’m convinced would have fallen for that, because he was so strongly rightwing,” he says.

I think it would be unusual not to have asked at least the first (and I don't think Trump is a Russian agent).

[77pt77]

> I had some level of respect for The Guardian vis a vis Glenn Greenwald

Are you familiar with Sam Harris' objections to his character?

[lern_too_spel]

Or that he continues to claim that his PRISM reporting was correct, despite lacking any evidence to support his claims and having seen irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

[77pt77]

I don't know much about him or his work but he does seem to be a very polarizing figure.

[dgrealy]

What do you think of the american intelligence agencies who say the same thing?