Click to confirm you are 18+

The Globalist Pravda Network

basil_hallwardMay 4, 2018, 4:07:55 PM

Fake News is a phrase that is never far from the lips or fingertips of journalists and television pundits who are supposed to keep us informed about what is happening in the world. But how reliable are those who have appointed themselves the guardians of journalistic integrity.
Not very reliable it seems, if The Guardian, a highbrow UK newspaper is anything to go by.

The paper's founder C. S. Scott coined the phrase "Comment is free, facts are sacred," but now the people who write and edit The Guardian's output don't seem to know the difference.

During the 2016 US Presidential election campaign Ben Jacobs published an article at The Guardian titled, “Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview.” Both of these claims are provably false within The Guardian’s own article and are a blatant misrepresentation of Assange’s statements.

Jacobs’ article is not in fact a report of a personal interview with Assange, but is comprised of quotes from an interview that Assange did with La Republica, an Italian newspaper (full transcript from Repubblica English edition). Either Jacobs or an editor then mixed and matched quotes in order to construct the desired narrative.

Assange did not actually praise or state his support for President-elect Donald Trump. Assange was not even asked his personal opinion on Trump; he was asked what he believed the consequences of a Trump victory would be, as you can read, along with the Wikileaks founder's views on the other candidate at the linked page.

The Guardian was guilty of similar misreporting of the alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria, being quick to join the babble of political and media voices condemning the Assad regime before any evidence was available, citing as proof of Assad's guilt reports from the groups trying to overthrow him. Recently the paper reported "Syria: chemical weapons inspectors barred from Douma site" giving the impression that Russian and Syrian military officials had prevented OPCW (Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons) inspectors from reaching the site of the latest alleged incident and the remains of what US and NATO officials said were chemical weapon making facilities destroyed by airstrikes as part of an attempt to cover up the war crime.

It later became clear that United Nations mediators had advised the inspectors to stay away from the sites because with rebel units still active in the area their safety could not be guaranteed. When the inspectors did get to the sites they found no evidence of gas attacks on civilians, local doctors said they had treated no patients for the effects of chemical weapons and there was no evidence of toxic nerve agents being manufactured at sites hit by coalition missiles.

The Guardian's left wing editorial staff regulrly take it upon themselves to warn readers that "right wing organisations" are the only generators of Fake News.

Although the terms left and right have little meaning in political terms these days, they two sides being almost indistinguishable economically and politically and only differing on social policy (in which the left tends to be more authoritarian that the right,) what we see in the news is supporters of the globalist agenda lining up against those who favour localism, those who think diversity is only about skin colour versus those who value individuialism and cultural diversity.

Apparently such ideas are catching on, in alt_media at least:

From The Skripals To Douma, The Globalist Pravda Network Reveals Its True Face

by Rob Slane, The Blog Mire

People living in the Soviet Union had a wonderful phrase to describe the two biggest circulation state-controlled newspapers, Pravda (meaning “truth”) and Izvestia (meaning “news”). There’s no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia, was the oft-repeated expression. It is unfortunate that the mainstream media in the Western nations these days don’t have similar sorts of names, since it deprives us of an endless source of amusement in coming up with similarly apposite phrases about them.

It is, however, increasingly clear that on the great issues of the day, you are about as likely to find the truth in them as you would have done in Pravda, although I expect their sports and gardening sections are still relatively reliable. As for the important political and geopolitical issues of the day, I tend to imagine that on the walls next to the desks in the offices of many of these papers and broadcasters are the following instructions:

Rules for Reporting on Global Affairs

Repeat Government line unquestioningly.

If Government line is questioned, accuse those doing the questioning of being Bots, Kremlin-trolls and useful idiots.

If the persistent questioning won’t go away and the Government line is seen to be contradictory and full of holes, bury the issue completely and start posing deep questions, such as “What will Meghan wear?” or “Is there a gender pay gap in midwifery?” or “How much sugar is really bad for you?”