On May 4, 2014, the Guardian’s readers editor penned this inflammatory post essentially accusing those of highlighting its anti-Russia and pro-Western government line as “Kremlin bots”.
This comment I wrote below was eventually deleted after it had garnered enough positive votes.
My Comment in the Guardian
Wow!! Insulting readers who disagree with the tone of your editorial stance as paid Kremlin bots.
The Guardian is very aggressive in its anti-Russia propaganda and it’s interesting that given two scenarios for the “abuse” heaped upon its “news” stories:
1. The kremlin pays all these people to write pro-Russian propaganda
2. There are many readers around the world who look to the Guardian to provide some semblance of objective coverage admist the shrill one-sided Western media propaganda and disappointed that the Guardian sticks resolutely to US state department talking points even as there is video proof of the contrary.
the Guardian chooses to believe (1).
In other words it is inconceivable to the Guardian editors and columnists, that there are people who believe that the Western governments – the same ones who the Guardian derides as not only infringing on many rights of its own people but often lying to them or deceiving them – are not really after “peace” and “democracy” and are instead using this to corner Russia for geopolitical reasons.
You are insulting those very readers who used to depend on the Guardian for a look behind the machinations of this world.
Regarding Luke Harding: Is it more likely that
(A) His critics are all Kremlin bots paid by Putin from his $70 billion stash (or whatever the latest State Department talking point memo says)
(B) He is part of the media community that the US Government pays off as it did in the acknowledged Operation Mockingbird that came to light in the 70s wherein several key reporters were on the payroll of the USG?
For Luke Harding to get the last word speaks to the contempt that the Guardian editors have over their readership.
No wonder Greenwald left.
It’s interesting that any mention of Luke Harding even in mild form apparently automatically gets deleted. The corporate line is that Luke Harding is such a great investigative journalist that the evil Putin and his regime fear him; the reality is that he is such a conspiracy theorist hack, an acknowledged plagiarist and such a poor journalist as a great analysis of just one of his stories shows, that a reasonable conclusion to readers of the sewage he puts out is that there are higher powers looking out for him and ensuring his continued prominence. (note: I never was this blunt in any comments I made in the Guardian).