a completely unsourced rant, from the same people that peddled the 'Iraq has WMD's' bullshit.
Some names have been changed.
Was Adrien Zenz one of them?
a completely unsourced rant, from the same people that peddled the 'Iraq has WMD's' bullshit.
Some names have been changed.
Was Adrien Zenz one of them?
For myself, I think that these articles are as real as the Iraqi uranium Powel waved in the Security Council's faces.
Where would you put The Guardian on the spectrum in terms of journalistic accuracy and integrity?
They're the newspaper equivalent of the SocDems. Seemingly sympathetic to the left from the outside, but will almost certainly do everything possible to strangle the revolution in its crib.
How about the journalistic integrity and accuracy of Chinese state media?
All state media everywhere serves the interests of that state, even when it purports not to.
I mean if The Guardian is SocDem, what political classification would you give the monolith that is Chinese state media?
deleted by creator
The same classification I give to the Chinese state itself: a transitional political form that is moving towards socialism.
something like "three parts based, one part cringe"
I think the official CCP position on Mao is 7 parts good, 3 parts bad.
Deng said that
Praxis
I mean it depends. The official party organs tend to be way more based than say the South China Morning Post
When it comes to national security and foreign policy they're expressly a propaganda outlet of the intelligence services and British (ie US directed) state these days.
They were far from perfect before but in the wake of the Snowdon leaks and the intelligence services making a show of not only smashing up their hardrives in the Guardian offices but threatening their journalists, the paper pivoted hard toward doing exactly as it was told. It's no longer a public trust, instead having being ran by a private board, none of whom are journalists anymore and several of which have intelligence ties. They were 'invited' to sit on the advisory panel that the intelligence services use to issue the new version of censorship D-notices, now called the Defense & Security Media Advisory Committee where the intelligence services commented about how much more 'cooperative' they'd become even compared to other leading newspapers like The Times.
Damn, any sources on that?
One need only look at their treatment of Corbyn to come to the conclusion that they are feckless cowards.