British leftists on the warpath against Wikipedia

[Hersch]

I mentioned one of these links on an old thread that had gone stale. A number of notable anti-war activists/progressives in the UK have discovered that Wikpedia has been, to use the latest corny buzzword, weaponized against them, and are tweeting up a storm about it:

https://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status ... 8474823682

https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/ ... 1438138368

https://twitter.com/medialens/status/991231719977181184

https://twitter.com/TylerDurdenHere/sta ... 7282330625

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/stat ... 3609723904

[Midsize Jake]

A number of notable anti-war activists/progressives in the UK have discovered that Wikpedia has been, to use the latest corny buzzword, weaponized against them...

I guess the basic issue for us, putting aside the politics involved, is (a) whether or not it's OK to add a paragraph about a pending lawsuit to the BLP article of the person being sued (in this case Oliver Kamm (T-H-L)) once an article or two about it has appeared somewhere, and if so, then (b) can RT, the "somewhere" in question, be considered a "reliable source" for information about that lawsuit? Obviously some of us have a problem with RT being considered reliable about anything whatsoever, but I guess that doesn't mean everything they publish is a complete fabrication.

In this case they're also trying to use an 8-year-old article on apparently pro-Marxist site called "Monthly Review Online" (mronline.com) as a second source, but that site looks even more biased than RT, if that's even possible.

I can understand why leftists in the UK despise Mr. Kamm, as he's a prominent example of the sort of person they detest most, namely a person who calls himself a "leftist" while espousing right-wing pro-war policies. (Sort of like the now-retired Joe Lieberman or the late Christopher Hitchens in the USA.) But I'm afraid that if push came to shove, I'd have to agree with the non-leftists on this one - I'm not quite categorically against the idea of pending lawsuits being mentioned in BLPs, but those sources are just not good enough, at least not yet. They need to find someone better than RT to publish that story.

[Hersch]

Whenever I see a source from one of the "bad guy" countries being called into question, I have to ask, "compared to what?" The entire establishment British press has freshly discredited itself in recent months, acting as a megaphone for what appear to be the latest in the "dodgy dossier" series, the dual chemical weapons allegations around the Skripals (who have now turned into non-persons, having inconveniently survived the attack), and the White Helmets' claim that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Also there seems to be something very weird about the way the BBC (OMG, state-run media just like RT) covered the recent elections there, trying to depict the Labour results as the most unsuccessful win ever because they don't like Corbyn.

I don't live there and I don't claim to follow it in depth. But whenever I see people scoff at the Russian or Chinese press, I have to ask what their metric for good journalism is. I see a few individuals, like Glenn Greenwald or the late Robert Parry, who actually walk the walk with respect to honest journalism. But on the whole, I don't see why any of the current print or electronic media could be trusted as sources for an encyclopedia.

[Poetlister]

the BBC (OMG, state-run media just like RT)

What universe does this come from? Of course the BBC has its biases, but to compare it to RT is absurd.

But it's a change to see leftists attacking Wikipedia; usually it gets attacked by the Conservapedia class. Anything that gets attacked by both the loony left and the rabid right must be doing something OK, if it's not heresy to suggest on here that anything about Wikipedia is OK.

[Volunteer Marek]

(...) British press has freshly discredited itself in recent months, acting as a megaphone for what appear to be the latest in the "dodgy dossier" series, the dual chemical weapons allegations around the Skripals (who have now turned into non-persons, having inconveniently survived the attack), and the White Helmets' claim that chemical weapons were used in Syria.

Ah, good ol' Hersch. Still as wacky as ever.

I see a few individuals, like Glenn Greenwald or the late Robert Parry, who actually walk the walk with respect to honest journalism.

Hahahahahaaahahahahahahahaaaa, oof. Good one.

[iii]

the BBC (OMG, state-run media just like RT)

What universe does this come from?

Why the Lyndon LaRouche universe, of course. One of the credal points is HATRED of those things most indicative of the Kingdom United.

Lately, LaRouche's acolytes have been staggeringly pro-Trump. Maybe Hersch will tell us about that in some off-topic forum.

[Randy from Boise]

I mentioned one of these links on an old thread that had gone stale. A number of notable anti-war activists/progressives in the UK have discovered that Wikpedia has been, to use the latest corny buzzword, weaponized against them, and are tweeting up a storm about it:

https://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status ... 8474823682

https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/ ... 1438138368

https://twitter.com/medialens/status/991231719977181184

https://twitter.com/TylerDurdenHere/sta ... 7282330625

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/stat ... 3609723904

Leftists?!?!?!???!

RfB

[Johnny Au]

the BBC (OMG, state-run media just like RT)

What universe does this come from? Of course the BBC has its biases, but to compare it to RT is absurd.

But it's a change to see leftists attacking Wikipedia; usually it gets attacked by the Conservapedia class. Anything that gets attacked by both the loony left and the rabid right must be doing something OK, if it's not heresy to suggest on here that anything about Wikipedia is OK.

...and it's more than just systemic bias, which is one of the main criticisms of Wikipedia from progressive circles.

[Hersch]

I had forgotten about the neocon infestation here.

Meanwhile, Philip Cross (T-C-L) is making no bones about being an agenda-driven editor:

https://twitter.com/philipcross63/statu ... 0347196417

https://twitter.com/search?q=philip%20c ... s&src=typd

...and the progressives across the pond are getting no relief from Jimbo:

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/ ... 2062885895

...so they have begun sniffing around for COI:

https://twitter.com/raymonddelauney/sta ... 4216248321

...but they don't yet grasp the full horror of a Wikipedia addiction:

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/stat ... 9809660928

[Poetlister]

"the progressives across the pond"

Of course, "progressives" is one of those words that mean whatever you choose it to mean. It can mean supporters of Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin or even the Iranian regime for example.

[Hersch]

"the progressives across the pond"

Of course, "progressives" is one of those words that mean whatever you choose it to mean. It can mean supporters of Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin or even the Iranian regime for example.

The more common usage is simply people who advocate adherence to international law, such as Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter which prohibits "preventive war." In the Orwellian universe of the BBC, the Guardian or the Washington Post, people who show any reluctance to violate Article 2.4 become "supporters of Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin or even the Iranian regime", or perhaps Russian bots. But let us not forget that the BBC, the Guardian and the Washington Post are Reliable Sources.

[AndyTheGrump]

"the progressives across the pond"

Of course, "progressives" is one of those words that mean whatever you choose it to mean. It can mean supporters of Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin or even the Iranian regime for example.

The more common usage is simply people who advocate adherence to international law, such as Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter which prohibits "preventive war." In the Orwellian universe of the BBC, the Guardian or the Washington Post, people who show any reluctance to violate Article 2.4 become "supporters of Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin or even the Iranian regime", or perhaps Russian bots. But let us not forget that the BBC, the Guardian and the Washington Post are Reliable Sources.

No, definitions made up on the spot in order to make a point aren't 'common usage'.

[Bezdomni]

*ghredh-y, steady, drone !

Hahahahahaaahahahahahahahaaaa, oof. Good one.

Risible.

Ridiculous.

Russian propaganda users.

source

[Poetlister]

In the Orwellian universe of the BBC

Well, George Orwell did work for the BBC for two years.

[Hersch]

And the beat goes on:

https://twitter.com/soilysound/status/9 ... 3540757505

[Daniel Brandt]

https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-gall ... dia-troll/

[Hersch]

https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-gall ... dia-troll/

I envy the UK, in that they seem to have a very energetic group of anti-war activists over there, some of whom are actually elected officials. Over here the best we seem to be able to do is the shallow and tepid Bernie Sanders (although Tulsi Gabbard shows occasional flashes of potential.)

It is clear that the British government/corporate media has made it a major priority to silence these voices, and as usual, Wikipedia is operating in lock-step with the media. Perhaps the anti-war Brits will be more successful in rattling Jimbo's cage than their American counterparts have been.

[Poetlister]

Most of these activists aren't anti-war. They were quite happy for iraq to invade Kuwait and Russia to invade Georgia, the Crimea and wherever. Or don't those count as wars?

[AndyTheGrump]

Most of these activists aren't anti-war. They were quite happy for iraq to invade Kuwait and Russia to invade Georgia, the Crimea and wherever. Or don't those count as wars?

Would you like to back that up with some evidence?

[Zoloft]

This topic has gone aggro!

[Midsize Jake]

There are different types of pacifism. In conventional terms, "anti-war" pacifism is different from "universal" pacifism in that you might think violence is occasionally justified as long as it doesn't lead to war, especially if it prevents war. There's also "private" pacifism, where you don't mind violence all that much as long as you personally don't participate in it, and "national" pacifism, which I guess is what Mr. Hersch is referring to above - where you don't mind violence as long as your country doesn't participate in it. (There's even "domestic" pacifism now too, which seems to be a term that feminists use to indicate that a person is against domestic violence.)

The important thing here is that being a conservative/reactionary (at least in the traditional, non-Trumpian sense) doesn't necessarily make you an anti-pacifist or warmonger, just as being a liberal/progressive doesn't necessarily make you a pacifist. To suggest otherwise may seem fair in terms of making rough generalizations, but it's also somewhat equivalent to name-calling. When you have a situation like Syria, where pacifism on the part of neighboring countries and global players almost certainly means more, not fewer, dead civilians in the short term, obviously that just accentuates the problem, right?

Anyhoo, if you ask me we should be more focused here on Clark's lawsuit, the validity of RT as a source on Wikipedia BLPs, and maybe whether or not "Philip Cross" is a real person - not on whether or not any particular individual should be described as "pro-war" or "anti-war." (Btw, I'd lean towards "yes" on the real-person question, based on what I've seen so far.)

[Johnny Au]

There are different types of pacifism. In conventional terms, "anti-war" pacifism is different from "universal" pacifism in that you might think violence is occasionally justified as long as it doesn't lead to war, especially if it prevents war. There's also "private" pacifism, where you don't mind violence all that much as long as you personally don't participate in it, and "national" pacifism, which I guess is what Mr. Hersch is referring to above - where you don't mind violence as long as your country doesn't participate in it. (There's even "domestic" pacifism now too, which seems to be a term that feminists use to indicate that a person is against domestic violence.)

The important thing here is that being a conservative/reactionary (at least in the traditional, non-Trumpian sense) doesn't necessarily make you an anti-pacifist or warmonger, just as being a liberal/progressive doesn't necessarily make you a pacifist. To suggest otherwise may seem fair in terms of making rough generalizations, but it's also somewhat equivalent to name-calling. When you have a situation like Syria, where pacifism on the part of neighboring countries and global players almost certainly means more, not fewer, dead civilians in the short term, obviously that just accentuates the problem, right?

Anyhoo, if you ask me we should be more focused here on Clark's lawsuit, the validity of RT as a source on Wikipedia BLPs, and maybe whether or not "Philip Cross" is a real person - not on whether or not any particular individual should be described as "pro-war" or "anti-war." (Btw, I'd lean towards "yes" on the real-person question, based on what I've seen so far.)

There's Gandhian pacificism, in which you don't fight back in order to make the other side look bad from attacking you.

[Hersch]

There are different types of pacifism.

I don't think that pacifism per se is the issue. I think adherence to international law is the issue; war is permitted for self-defense, but not to topple the other fellow's insubordinate government for spurious reasons, e.g. "R2P."

Anyhoo, if you ask me we should be more focused here on Clark's lawsuit, the validity of RT as a source on Wikipedia BLPs, and maybe whether or not "Philip Cross" is a real person - not on whether or not any particular individual should be described as "pro-war" or "anti-war." (Btw, I'd lean towards "yes" on the real-person question, based on what I've seen so far.)

I posted this thread in the "News and Media" zone because I thought it might be of interest that a sizable grouping of high-profile persons was coming after Wikipedia like a swarm of angry hornets. Also, regardless of whether "Philip Cross" is a real person, he fits the time-honored profile of a manic, agenda-driven editor who is using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

[Poetlister]

Most of these activists aren't anti-war. They were quite happy for Iraq to invade Kuwait and Russia to invade Georgia, the Crimea and wherever. Or don't those count as wars?

Would you like to back that up with some evidence?

I can only cite the negative evidence that these activists did not protest against the aggression by Iraq or Russia. Do you have any evidence that they did?

[Poetlister]

I think adherence to international law is the issue; war is permitted for self-defense, but not to topple the other fellow's insubordinate government for spurious reasons, e.g. "R2P."

Quite right. So we agree thst Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was wrong, as was Russia's invasion of the Crimea for example.

[AndyTheGrump]

Most of these activists aren't anti-war. They were quite happy for Iraq to invade Kuwait and Russia to invade Georgia, the Crimea and wherever. Or don't those count as wars?

Would you like to back that up with some evidence?

I can only cite the negative evidence that these activists did not protest against the aggression by Iraq or Russia. Do you have any evidence that they did?

I don't need to provide evidence of anything, since I'm not the one making the claims. Though I note that you are moving the goalposts already. Clearly you have nothing to back up your original assertion.

[Midsize Jake]

I don't think that pacifism per se is the issue. I think adherence to international law is the issue...

Ehh, I'm actually not concerned about what the issue is, I'm just saying that by labeling people as "leftist" or otherwise based on their beliefs about violence (or lack thereof), one makes it difficult for everybody else to discuss anything other than our actual beliefs about violence, which prevents us from discussing the more pertinent and/or practical questions at hand (whatever they are). In other words, it's self-defeating.

That said, I thought the real issue was whether or not RT should be used as a source for a couple of paragraphs about Neil Clark's lawsuit against Oliver Kamm, and/or whether or not it's appropriate to mention such a lawsuit before it has even been properly filed, much less adjudicated or (heaven forbid!) decided. But it may be that the answers to those questions are super-obvious (i.e., it shouldn't and it's not?) in which case I guess we might as well just continue as-is.

[Anroth]

I had forgotten about the neocon infestation here.

You realise when you describe the BBC as 'state run' you make yourself look foolish. Especially to us Brits. To which any accusations of being a 'neocon' are laughable.

[Hersch]

I don't think that pacifism per se is the issue. I think adherence to international law is the issue...

Ehh, I'm actually not concerned about what the issue is, I'm just saying that by labeling people as "leftist" or otherwise based on their beliefs about violence (or lack thereof), one makes it difficult for everybody else to discuss anything other than our actual beliefs about violence, which prevents us from discussing the more pertinent and/or practical questions at hand (whatever they are). In other words, it's self-defeating.

That said, I thought the real issue was whether or not RT should be used as a source for a couple of paragraphs about Neil Clark's lawsuit against Oliver Kamm, and/or whether or not it's appropriate to mention such a lawsuit before it has even been properly filed, much less adjudicated or (heaven forbid!) decided. But it may be that the answers to those questions are super-obvious (i.e., it shouldn't and it's not?) in which case I guess we might as well just continue as-is.

I see your point. Those labels have lost the clarity that I once imagined they had. Perhaps a better headline were "British non-conformists on the warpath against Wikipedia."

It would be interesting, but time-consuming, to set up a scorecard of sorts to compare the number of proven, egregious falsehoods that have appeared in RT or Xinhua vs. the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. But in the final analysis, I don't think that many people would be swayed by the results. I think that the average Wikipedian, whether active or defrocked, will continue to assess a source's "reliability" based on how well it conforms to his or her habituated, ideological way of looking at the world. And Wikipedia's rules about sourcing (and everything else) will continue to be applied selectively according to whether their application furthers the agenda of those editors who dominate a given article's content.

Meanwhile, it looks like we can score one for the non-conformists:

https://twitter.com/raymonddelauney/sta ... 4123837445

[AndyTheGrump]

Yeah, everyone has their own 'ideological biases'. Stating the obvious doesn't however prove that yours (or mine) are more likely to reflect reality though.

As for 'leftists'/'progressives'/'non-conformists', I can only say that the ones of my acquaintance tend not to expect international law, the domestic law courts, or state-owned media anywhere to be particularly supportive of their causes. And neither do they care much about who said what about who on Twitter. F-all to do with class struggle...

[Hersch]

But wait, there's more:

https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org

[Hersch]

And one from former ambassador Craig Murray:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ss-affair/

[Daniel Brandt]

Wikimedia UK needs to hire a Trust and Safety engineer with access to all Wikipedia checkuser data, past and present (this may require the approval of the San Francisco office). Such an engineer could make a determination on the Philip Cross account after studying the data, and state whether it's more than one person behind the account. This would be based on geolocating the IP addresses behind the edits.

If it's more than one person, Wikimedia UK might liable for defamation (no Section 230 in Britain!). If it's one person, then the editor himself is liable, once Wikipedia UK facilitates the identification of this individual by publishing all the IP addresses, each with a time stamp.

Leave Jimbo out of this. He's the one who said of Essjay, "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it." Editor's note, The New Yorker

[Bezdomni]

Wikimedia UK needs to hire a Trust and Safety engineer

As it happens, the WMF is advertising for just such a Trust & Safety specialist at the moment. ( § )

[Poetlister]

What do you mean by "all Wikipedia checkuser data, past and present"? The fact that a check has been performed is recorded in the log file and I believe is kept for a year. The results of that check are not officially stored anywhere. The checkuser may cut and paste the results in a file and keep it, though this is not approved of by WMF and is possibly illegal in Britain.

The data used by checkusers lapse after three months. It is possible for a developer to extract earlier information, though this seems to be a difficult job and not something to be done without a great deal of pressure.

[Daniel Brandt]

What do you mean by "all Wikipedia checkuser data, past and present"? The fact that a check has been performed is recorded in the log file and I believe is kept for a year. The results of that check are not officially stored anywhere. The checkuser may cut and paste the results in a file and keep it, though this is not approved of by WMF and is possibly illegal in Britain.

The data used by checkusers lapse after three months. It is possible for a developer to extract earlier information, though this seems to be a difficult job and not something to be done without a great deal of pressure.

You seem to be arguing that the Foundation would or should vigorously resist any attempt to provide information that might help identify the perpetrator(s) of these edits against certain individuals in the UK.

On the other hand, I am arguing that any information on the servers owned or controlled by the Foundation that might help identify these perps, can and should be pursued through legal avenues by those affected by such editing. You have already admitted that such information exists.

Google has to play ball with the Eurpean Union's "right to be forgotten" rules, although they are apparently getting away with only a minimal effort. Why would Google at least make some effort in this regard, while Wikipedia gets to ignore this issue? I know for a fact that Google can afford to hire a million UK attorneys to every one that the Wikipemedia Foundation can afford to hire.

This isn't 2005, when SlimVirgin and Jimbo were able to ignore me because U.S. law rested on Section 230. This is the UK in 2018, and new rules apply there since 2014, thanks to the European Court of Justice.

[Poetlister]

I am arguing nothing of the kind. I am merely noting what information is available. And of course, while WMUK is subject to UK law, the WMF is not. If it refuses to allow access to the information, there is little that WMUK can do about it. If any checkuser living in the UK is required to co-operate and the WMF removes the checkuser bit to stop this, the UK courts cannot compel the WMF to restore it.

[Daniel Brandt]

... If any checkuser living in the UK is required to co-operate and the WMF removes the checkuser bit to stop this, the UK courts cannot compel the WMF to restore it.

That would be perfect. I'd start another nonprofit, tax-exempt website ( perhaps "wikipedia-watch-again.org"? ) and watch the donations come rolling in!

[Bezdomni]

I see that one of the co-founders of Everipedia has just added a page for Mr. Cross.

I decided to participate in a minor way by noting that MusikAnimal's BLP-edits tool shows that 34% (nearly 46K §) of their contributions are to biographies of living people.

This is even more than Snooganssnoogans (whose profile is similar). The latter's percentage of contributions to BLP is only 28% (§). I noticed they recently successfully nominated the "Political positions of Dennis Kucinich" for deletion (§). As a consequence, everything about his subsequent runs for office (for example, in 2020) will be on his BLP. A similar strategy was used against Jill Stein in 2016.

[Hersch]

This one will have an impact:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wiki ... 352c0d2faf

and an interesting response:

https://twitter.com/_jrvansant/status/9 ... 2387182592

[AndyTheGrump]

This one will have an impact:

Why? Is the establishment so weak that a blogs and twitterings are going to cause the whole edifice to come tumbling down?

[Hersch]

This one will have an impact:

Why? Is the establishment so weak that a blogs and twitterings are going to cause the whole edifice to come tumbling down?

I meant that it will feed the growing indignation against Wikipedia among non-conformists/progressives.

But with regard to your larger question, IMO, yes. The 2016 US presidential election was carefully scripted, yet the population proved uncooperative, voting en masse for two rude populists, Sanders and Trump. In the UK, the establishment (<cough> state-run) media have moved heaven and earth trying to destroy Corbyn, and yet he is still standing. You put this together with the dramatic success of China, a nation on the media Bad Guys list (not to mention Wikipedia), and the impending next phase of the crash of the transatlantic financial bubble, and you have a recipe for a lot of discontent among the unwashed masses. Under those circumstances, any "alternative" viewpoints will get lots of traction. The establishment is anxiety-ridden, to be sure.

[AndyTheGrump]

Fascinating. A millionaire property developer wins the presidency on behalf of the Republican party, and you see it as evidence that the establishment is 'anxiety-ridden'. I's say it was evidence of the exact opposite. If they were that insecure, they wouldn't have let him stand in the first place.

As for the rest of your comments, no, I don't see why the success of Chinese capitalism should cause 'discontent' anywhere but China. Or at least, not directly. If the Chinese working class were to do something radical like seize control of the means of production it might well prove inspirational elsewhere, but failing that unlikely circumstance, I can't see anything in your comments which amounts to a reason for optimism amongst the sort of 'progressives' that actually look beyond the superficial, and seek to challenge the underlying structure. The U.S. economy is going through one of its recurring bubbles, and no doubt soon enough go through the resulting crash. And no doubt survive it, as long as political discourse is dominated by the irrelevancies of twitter-spats and arguments about Wikipedia articles, and fails to challenge the underlying hegemonic structures. So no, I don't see any particular reason why the establishment should be anxious, given the lack of any real challenge to their control of the things that make them what they are. As someone-or-other once wrote, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class, and arguments about whether some Wikipedian is or isn't a paid CIA/GCHQ stooge accordingly miss the point. You can't change the world by rewriting Wikipedia articles, and suggesting that you can will only ever result in disappointment and disillusion. So no, as much as I'd like to be optimistic, I can't see any particular reason to see the current political situation as any more conducive to producing the sort of action which will result in real change than it has been in the last fifty years or so.

[Poetlister]

I can't see that Corbyn has been worse treated by the right-wing press than Ed Miliband was. As fas as I know, the Daily Mail has never published an article on how Jeremy Corbyn's father wrote tripe when he was a teenager, or how Jeremy stabbed Piers Corbyn in the back. The left-wing press such as the Daily Mirror have not been that harsh on him.

[Bezdomni]

I've always been curious why the Off-Guardian folks felt they needed to create a separate site. I've read it was due to censorship of comments on the Guardian website, but I don't know which comments were censored. I have noticed that they, along with The Canary, frequently complain about Corbyn-bashing...

I guess it's no surprise that they've covered this Philip Cross incident, while the Guardian has not.

The only wiki-article I can find on the Off-Guardian is at wiki spooks. Isn't that strange that the summum of human knowledge doesn't contain a word about such a well-known publication? You would think they wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to trash it. ^^

[tarantino]

There's a thread about this, with over 300 posts, on ycombinator.

[Hersch]

Further analysis of "Philip Cross":

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... on-part-3/

[Poetlister]

I have noticed that they, along with The Canary, frequently complain about Corbyn-bashing...

If you're a member of Momentum, anything short of simpering hagiography is "Corbyn-bashing". It can't be hard to find sites complaining about "May-bashing" or the overwhelming BBC pro-Brexit bias or the overwhelming BBC anti-Brexit bias or whatever your POV is.

[Hersch]

I've always been curious why the Off-Guardian folks felt they needed to create a separate site.

I seem to recall that once upon a time, the Guardian was regarded as one of the more leftish of the British media. No more. They have gone full-on neocon.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/empi ... 40a78fa770

[Poetlister]

I've always been curious why the Off-Guardian folks felt they needed to create a separate site.

I seem to recall that once upon a time, the Guardian was regarded as one of the more leftish of the British media. No more. They have gone full-on neocon.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/empi ... 40a78fa770

The last way you could describe the Guardian's coverage of the Middle East is Neocon. Its attitude to Israel in particular is close to that of the Corbynistas.