I know the Guardian intends to be balanced and offer its readers opinion from across the entire political spectrum – but when neoconservative, war hawks are regularly given column inches to fill, I think it’s worth documenting.
John Robert Bolton’s latest article is entitled “We cannot verify and must not trust Iran’s promises on nuclear weapons”.
The subheading reads; “Ignore the ‘moderate’ smokescreen. Sanctions have failed, so our choice is stark: use military force or let Tehran get the bomb”
Some of the other headlines written by Bolton during his employment by the Guardian include…
Edward Snowden’s leaks are a grave threat to US national security – 18 Jun 2013
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies – 26 Feb 2013
It’s reassuring to see almost all of the readers comments disregard Bolton’s article. Only the briefest of searches online illustrates that Bolton is clearly a paid propagandist for the neoconservatives inside America.
Taken from wikipedia –
Bolton has long spoken in favor of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK), “an armed Islamic group with Marxist leanings” which has long been on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. According to the State Department, the MEK “[f]ollow[s] a philosophy that mixes Marxism and Islam.”
Also from wikipedia
Bolton has been a prominent participant in some “neoconservative” groups such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG). But Bolton disputes the label “neo-conservative” attached to him, pointing out that he was a conservative since high school, when he worked on the 1964 Goldwater campaign.
Bolton was formerly involved with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Federalist Society, National Policy Forum, National Advisory Board, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New Atlantic Initiative, Project on Transitional Democracies.
In conclusion – WTF Guardian?
It was Wednesday the 26th of September 2012 and The Guardian were running a live blog about the UN general assembly. By the end of the day one of their numerous headlines/subheadings read “Ahmadinejad avoids controversy in low-key speech”. So why, given this headline, did the Guardian treat Ahmadinejad’s speech with such contempt whilst dealing with all other aspects of that day in a reasonably fair and balanced manner?
Here is a link to the blog
As you can see – from the 4:08pm update until the 4:47pm update – the entire blog is dedicated to childishly mocking the Iranian president and his speech. Using a combination of random tweets from pundits and the Guardians own writers they have all contributed to what some analysts call “dehumanizing the enemy”.
Looking at the comments section below the blog/article it is apparent that many Guardian readers have their own opinions on what is trying to be passed off as mature, modern, liberal journalism. Below I have highlighted some choice comments;
meffisto:“When did the Guardian sell its soul? It is so sad to see a newspaper that was held in such high esteem transformed into a crass propaganda tool. So very, very sad.”
arlcf01: “Can we have some balanced reporting from the Guardian please? We get the point- you don’t take Ahmadinejad seriously but this is meant to be a news site, so can you stick to reporting what is actually being said? If we wanted your personal opinions we would follow you on twitter”
Icarusty: “Very interesting to read the western media and readership’s response to his speech, how they are automatically dismissive and cynical, and how the US and Israeli delegates didn’t even bother to listen…. just when Obama made his speech about “doing what we must” to stop Iran having nuclear power, his Iranian counterpart talks about peace. We talk about other parts of the world being brainwashed…. what about us?”
Nivedita: “Irresponsible reporting. Sheer propaganda. Some credible evidence to back up baseless allegations will be helpful”