Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Nov 15, 2017.
Can you make the title something other than a dot, its almost impossible the open the thread on a mobile.
What do we believe? This is the crucial democratic question. Without informed choice, democracy is meaningless. This is why dictators and billionaires invest so heavily in fake news. Our only defence is constant vigilance, rigour and scepticism. But when some of the world’s most famous crusaders against propaganda appear to give credence to conspiracy theories, you wonder where to turn.
Sorry, that opening statement put me off reading any further.
Brexit caught your tongue?
I'm bidin' my time, sunshine.
"it’s crucial not to fuel far-right conspiracy theories"
It is also crucial not to fall for leftist ideologies, post modernism, political correctness and social justice/equity nonsense. The guardian is not a paper I have any respect for.
Tell us, Bodge, that the Guardian is the lefty equivalent of, say, the Mail. Or Sun. Or Express. Or even the Telegraph.
Why do you feel the need to call me names? And use a label instead of a reason? You haven't provided any argument whatsoever. This is typical behaviour of those on the far left...anyone not agreeing to their views is viewed as "right wing" and labelled a Nazi/bigot/racist/Islamophobe/homophobe or a twit in this case.
I don't like the Guardian as its too lefty, there are plenty of other papers I don't like for other reasons too. Just because I don't like a particular paper (a) doesn't make me a "twit" and (b) doesn't mean you can assume any specific political view I might hold.
I might also add that any one considered to be "on the right" isn't a bad person either.
'Twit' was almost a term of endearment
Hey, if you had said "I don't like the Guardian as its too lefty..." then I would have said 'amen' to that as well as your other point.
But you didn't. You said you didn't have any respect for it.
That is an appalling thing to say about a truly respected quality newspaper. Which is what it is.
As for me calling anyone a Nazi/bigot/racist/Islamophobe/homophobe, I only do this when they have provided the evidence.
Yes, as I see it...
Respect has to be earned, they haven't earned it so I don't have any respect for them. That's not the same as saying I disrespect them. So you could say I'm neutral towards them.
I don't like them...but I don't hate them either.
It's a bit of a 'nothing article' really, so a professional body concludes that Assad launched the attack whilst at the same time conceding that " While in the fog of war, there will always be some doubt, as the OPCW’s report acknowledges, there is no evidence to support the competing theories of what happened at Khan Shaykhun. Propaganda by one side does not justify propaganda by another."
Anyway, haven't we had enough of experts concluding one thing or another about 'weapons of mass destruction' or who should be 'removed', Gadaffi, Hussein etc, they do seem to have a remarkable track record of getting it completely wrong.
I'm more intrigued by the authors attempt to discredit John Pilger.
The author, George Monbiot, a champagne socialist, Guardian Columnist, former Respect Party member and the man who wrongly called Lord McAlpine out as a paedophile, and for which he had to publish the most grovelling of apologies and pay compensation (McAlpine settled for Monbiot doing 3 years unpaid charity work), The Guardian refused to help him with his legal bill. Hardly a reliable witness for the prosecution.
Then you have John Pilger, reputedly the finest investigatory journalist the world has seen. He cut his journalistic teeth as a war correspondent in Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Biafra. After his documentary 'year zero', some $45 million was raised, unsolicited, in mostly small donations, including almost £4 million raised by schoolchildren in the UK. This funded the first substantial relief to Cambodia, including the shipment of life-saving drugs such as penicillin, and clothing to replace the black uniforms people had been forced to wear.
He is a giant among journalists, in fact, when other journalists mention his name, it's usually in hushed reverent tones.
So, why would the Liberal Elite suddenly be hell bent on discrediting John Pilger?
Oh!, I Know.
Thank you, Longs - case made.
(John Pilger, reputedly the finest investigatory journalist the world has seen? Oh my...)
You're not still clinging on to the hope of, TRH (that's a delusion in itself) kier Starmer, riding in to save the day, are you?
I like your style.
It's better to remain quiet and be presumed a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
What does, EIS, mean?
Is your definition of a truly respected quality newspaper based on circulation figures marginally higher than 'The Beano'?
Is your definition of humour comparing the Guardian newspaper to the Beano Comic, then uploading a picture of Desperate Dan, the mascot for the Dandy Comic?
Separate names with a comma.