Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 29, 2018

This Guardian Fake News Story Proves That The Media Can't Be Trusted

In 2015 the British Guardian appointed Katherine Viner as editor in chief. Under her lead the paper took a new direction. While it earlier made attempts to balance its shoddier side with some interesting reporting, it is now solidly main stream in the worst sense. It promotes neo-liberalism and a delves into cranky identity grievances stories. It also became an main outlet for manipulative propaganda peddled by the British secret services.

Its recent fake news story about Paul Manafort, Wikileaks and Julian Assange aptly demonstrates this. The documentation of it is a bit lengthy but provides that it was a willful fake.

On November 27 the Guardian prepared to publish a story which asserted that Paula Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, had met Julian Assange, the publisher of Wikileaks, in the Ecuadorian embassy in London on at least three occasions. Some two hours before the story went public it contacted Manafort and Assange's lawyers to get their comments.

Assange's Wikileaks responded through its public Twitter account which has 5.4 million followers. On of those followers is Katherine Viner:

WikiLeaks @wikileaks - 13:06 utc - 27 Nov 2018

SCOOP: In letter today to Assange's lawyers, Guardian's Luke Harding, winner of Private Eye's Plagiarist of the Year, falsely claims jailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had secret meetings with Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in story Guardian are "planning to run".

It attached the email the Guardian's Luke Harding had send.


90 minutes later the Guardian piece went life. It led the front page and also appeared in print.



The first version read:

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

The piece did not include the public denial Wikileaks issued to its 5.4 million followers one and a half hour before it was published.

The Guardian piece came at a critical moment. Currently the U.K. and Ecuador conspire to deliver Julian Assange to U.S. authorities. On Monday special counsel Robert Mueller said Manafort lied to investigators, violating his recent plea deal.

The new sensational claim was immediately picked up by prominent reporters and major main stream outlets. They distributed is as a factual account. It is likely that millions of people took note of its claim.

But several people who had followed the Russiagate fairytale and the Mueller investigation were immediately suspicious of the Guardian claim.

The story was weakly sourced and included some details that seemed unlikely to be true. Glenn Greenwald noted that the Ecuadorian embassy is under heavy CCTV surveillance. There are several guards, and visitors have to provide their identity to enter it. Every visit is logged. If Manafort had really visited Assange, it would have long been known:

In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story.

Moreover, the main author of the story, Luke Harding, is known to be a notorious fraud, a russo-phobe intelligence asset with a personal grievance towards Assange and Wikileaks. A year ago an important Moon of Alabama piece - From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media - mentioned Harding:

The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: it is fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology.

The new Guardian story looked like another weak attempt to connect the alleged Russian malfeasance with Assange and the Wikileaks publishing of the DNC emails. Assange and other involved people deny that such a relation existed. There is no public evidence that support such claims.

Shortly after the Guardian's fake news story went public Paul Manafort issued an unequivocal denial:

“I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” the statement said. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.”

At 16:05 utc the Guardian silently edited the story.


Caveats (here in italic and underlined) were added to the headline and within several paragraphs. No editorial note was attached to inform the readers of the changes:

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say

It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear.
Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers initially declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

One paragraph was added to included Wikileaks' denial:

In a series of tweets WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met. Assange described the story as a hoax.

At 16:30 utc, under fire from other media and journalists, the Guardian issued a statement:

This story relied on a number of sources. We put these allegations to both Paul Manafort and Julian Assange's representatives prior to publication. Neither responded to deny the visits taking place. We have since updated the story to reflect their denials.

This defensive Guardian claim is, like its story, evidently completely false. Wikileaks publicly denied the Guardian's claims 90 minutes before the story was first published. Manafort asserts that his lawyers had notified the Guardian that the story was false before the Guardian 'proceeded with the story'.

At 21:05 utc a third version was published which included Manafort's denial.

Half an hour later Julian Assange instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel. Wikileaks opened a fund to support the lawsuit.

A day after the Guardian smear piece the Washington Times reported that Manafort's passports, entered into evidence by the Mueller prosecution, show that he did not visit London in any of the years the Guardian claimed he was there to visit Assange.

The story was completely false and the Guardian knew it was. It disregarded and left out the denials the subjects of the story had issued before it was published.

The Guardian has become a main outlet for British government disinformation operations aimed at defaming Russia. It smeared Assange and Snowden as Russian collaborators. It uncritically peddled the Russiagate story and the nonsensical Skripal claims which are both obviously concocted by British intelligence services. That seems to have become its main purpose.

As Disobediant Media notes (emphasis in the original):

While most readers with functional critical thinking capacity may readily dismiss the Guardian’s smear on its face, the fact that the Guardian published this piece, and that Luke Harding is still operating with even the tiniest modicum of respect as a journalist despite his history of deceit, tells us something bone-chilling about journalism.

It is no accident that Luke Harding is still employed: in fact, it is because of Harding’s consistent loyalty to establishment, specifically the UK intelligence apparatus, over the truth that determines his “success” amongst legacy press outlets. Harding is not a defacement or a departure from the norm, but the personification of it.

Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian writer, makes a similar point:

The truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative.

Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: ...

The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do.

We have previously shown that the Guardian even uses fascist propaganda tropes to smear the Russian people. It is openly publishing Goebbels' cartoons and rhetoric against Europes biggest state. There is no longer any line that it does not dare to cross. Unfortunately other 'western' media are not much better.

Within hours of being published the Guardian piece was debunked as fake news. That did not hinder other outlets to add to its smear. Politico allowed "a former CIA officer," writing under a pen name, to suggest - without any evidence - that the Guardian has been duped - not by its MI5/6 and Ecuadorian spy sources, but by Russian disinformation:

Rather than being the bombshell smoking gun that directly connects the Trump campaign to WikiLeaks, perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists?
Harding is likely a major target for anyone wrapped up in Russia’s intelligence operation against the West’s democratic institutions.
If this latest story about Manafort and Assange is false—that is, if, for example, the sources lied to Harding and Collyns (or if the sources themselves were lied to and thus thought they were being truthful in their statements to the journalists), or if the Ecuadorian intelligence document is a fake, the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad.

The is zero evidence in the Politico screed that supports its suggestions and claims. It is fake news about a fake news story. It also included the false claim that Glenn Greenwald worked with Wikileaks on the Snowden papers. That claim was later removed. 

We have seen a similar pattern in the Skripal affair. When 'western' intelligence get caught in spreading disinformation, they accuse Russia of being the source of the fake. 

Unfortunately no western main stream media can any longer be trusted to publish the truth. The Guardian is only one of many which peddle smears and disinformation about the 'enemies' of the ruling 'western interests'. It is on all of us to debunk them and to educate the public about their scheme.

Posted by b on November 29, 2018 at 15:23 UTC | Permalink


Evidently the Guardian values its income from its MI5/MI6 puppet masters more than any income it might have got from real journalism. The Guardian is therefore not a newspaper at all, it is a military intelligence front.

Posted by: BM | Nov 29 2018 15:55 utc | 1

Isn't it time to start calling for a boycot of the Guardian? Not only does it like to print fake news, it is a fake newspaper.

Posted by: BM | Nov 29 2018 15:57 utc | 2

The Guardian has been so bad for such a long time that someone set up off Guardian, as they put it "We provide a home for the comment – & the facts – you no longer find in the MSM."

Posted by: TJ | Nov 29 2018 16:20 utc | 3

Craig Murray claims the Ecuadoran Embassy released fake documents to Luke Harding via MI6.

And more at OffGuardian. Viner could/should have seen the Wikileaks denial on Twitter hours before publishing. Meantime, Twitter "temporarily restricted" the Twitter account of a member of Assange's legal team.

Posted by: dus7 | Nov 29 2018 16:28 utc | 4

@b - "It is on all of us to debunk them and to educate the public about their scheme."

Yes, and it is a thing worth doing. The results are not always apparent as direct consequence, but the culture changes anyway, from the effort.

I tried to enlarge on this, but it's delicate process by which cultural truths and fashions live and die and sometimes spread like wildfire through underground peer channels that even the marketers and propagandists can't touch. I couldn't put this into good words, but may try again later.

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 29 2018 16:29 utc | 5

Thanks for the good work B. I wrote a commentary to the Swiss Tages-Anzeiger which is has still running an article under the title: "Manaforts geheimes Treffen mit Assange" (Manafort's secret meeting with Assange), thereby spreading the fake news in Switzerland. They will certainly not publish my remarks, but pointing them to the Washington Times article you mentioned could cause them to retract their crap. Well, maybe not, but it should.

Posted by: Pnyx | Nov 29 2018 16:31 utc | 6

viner has to be canned,harding too.the graun also.neocon central.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 29 2018 16:37 utc | 7

Let's be honest.

All you really need to do is see Luke Harding's name on an article and you've got about a 95% chance it's a delusional fantasy of some kind.

Posted by: S.O. | Nov 29 2018 16:39 utc | 8

Even Marcy Wheeler immediately expressed skepticism at this story. With the WL lawsuit and the quick debunking of this story hopefully this will be the straw that broke the camel's back; nonetheless, as with all propaganda, the impression has already been made. I know some well-educated, well-meaning people, with a past of authentically left politics, asking, "did you hear that Manafort visited Assange?!". I can only find solace in the belief that, eventually, the truth always prevails.

Posted by: George Lane | Nov 29 2018 16:44 utc | 9

And a million people voluntarily contribute their hard earned cash every single month to support it.

Its enough to make you weep.

Posted by: Ross Stanford | Nov 29 2018 16:53 utc | 11

That Manafort's passport is publicly available to check to verify his movements is the spike through the head of Luke Harding and his publisher as that one clearly unmeddled with document would prove any faked ones, such as visitor logs, to be just that--fakes.

I've been calling the corporate media BigLie Media for almost a year now. It seems Politico ought to be added to that mix as its transgression wasn't its first.

Somehow, Assange must be freed from his captivity and allowed to resume his work. And the ongoing attempts to establish its laws extraterritorially in violation of every nation's national sovereignty and the UN Charter by the Outlaw US Empire must be opposed and its agents deported. The war being waged against Assange is a war waged on all humanity, making him much more than a mere cause celebre.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 29 2018 17:02 utc | 12

Paula Manafort? Don't tell me even (s)he self-identifies as a women (not there is anything wrong with women).

Posted by: Entropy Wins | Nov 29 2018 17:05 utc | 13

Media exists for the purpose of manipulation.
No widespread media which effectively counters the acceptable narrative will be allowed to exist - this is the reason that Russia is so dangerous*, because they are difficult to block.
*Leaving aside the matters of military and their own interest in propaganda.

Attempting to portray propaganda as bad is like saying the air we breath is toxic.

As a wise old man said: I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it.

I avoid even looking at NYT or CNN because:
- I don't want to support them in any way
- They essentially always lie - a con-person tells you the truth enough to gain your confidence so you will then believe them when the time comes for the big lie. All people lie sometimes, but it is best to avoid (habitual) lies (life lesson).

The big media don't really rely on customer demand - they are supported by vested interests.

The public does not really care about the news as they don't see a means to effect change.

I think AI has the potential for mind control, but also to help with filtering out real information - probability of truth in context.

Most effective means to fight is:
- keep voting
- keep searching for truth
- keep caring
- cancel cell phone (tracking/recording/advertising/data sharing device). I did. It's a toy for kids. You will enjoy the sensation of being present in your own life.
- cancel facebook and avoid google.

How can any sane person observe a tree and not believe in miracles?

Posted by: Jared | Nov 29 2018 17:33 utc | 14

One heavily propagandized topic is Trump's Trade War that was depicted as successful until GM announced the four plant closures because of Trump's Trade War. This item explains in a general way why Trump's lost his Trade War, which ought to destroy his chance to be renominated in 2020 as the only people domestically winning from his Trade War are those who've shorted the markets as they nose-dive. And while Trump rails at GM for closing its plants, Trump's the actual villain and most know it--especially his Rust-belt state's base, which even if he does get renominated he'll likely lose. Oh, and as the linked article notes, Ford is likely to announce a similar number of plant closures in December as a result of Trump's Trade War. Can't wait to see how that's spun.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 29 2018 18:08 utc | 16

@ Posted by: dus7 | Nov 29, 2018 11:28:03 AM | 4

This is classical plausible deniability modus operandi. Harding knew it was fake documents, and that it was from MI6. This is attested by the fact he published the story just 90 minutes after he warned Assange by e-mail, and that he ignored the denials by both Assange and Manafort.

The plausible deniability doctrine states that every step of an operation must be "deniable" -- i.e. that the part that was busted can claim he/she was duped. The same doctrine also states that, if the story as a whole is busted, it must be covered by another trail of lies -- i.e. that a narrative, when invented, must be deniable as a whole.

Posted by: VK | Nov 29 2018 18:12 utc | 17

Just a day or two before this smear, Mueller said that he wanted to prosecute Manafort.

That Mueller/USA and Luke Harding suddenly turn on Manafort leaves me wondering why. Was Mueller attempting to pressure Manafort to provide false testimony against Assange? Did Manafort back out of doing so (he had a plea deal)?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 29 2018 18:13 utc | 18

We need:

Posted by: Jared | Nov 29 2018 18:15 utc | 19 is ostensibly a site dedicated to pointing out the daily inanity of the guardian. that outlet obviously keeps them busy but it's always surprising how luke harding alone provides article after article of debunking hilarity.

as you mention and as caitlin johnstone explains in her newest piece, this is just an example of everything being about business. as chomsky says, "america is a business-run society". he also mentions dewey's brilliant quote that "government is the shadow cast by big business". the mainstream media is just one of many middlemen.

did bezos buy the washington post because print media was "teh hotness"? are MSNBC or CNN viewer funded? even "P"BS has a long list of generous corporate monoliths before every "news hour" before thanking (dead last) "of course, viewers like you". seems like the "P" stands for "patronizing".

then there's the usual question of "access". if someone at politico had a brain (or spine) and laughed off the suggestion of that moronic screed, would they lose all future "CIA sources"? or all anonymous "government sources" in general? again: the price of doing business. nevermind the BBC which probably gets its budget from the same bank accounts as the MIs 5 and 6.

there is no such thing as "objective journalism" because there is no such thing as an "objective human". everyone has opinions and agendas. and target audiences made up of similarly aligned customers. that's why i'm always more surprised at the naive "you're doing it wrong!" responses to dumbness like this than the dumbness itself.

Posted by: the pair | Nov 29 2018 18:20 utc | 20

I initially always assume the MSM is lying then work back from there.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Nov 29 2018 18:25 utc | 21

@Jackrabbit, I think they turned on Manafort simply because Manafort doesn't actually have much of value to give them.

Posted by: George Lane | Nov 29 2018 18:34 utc | 22

Jesus, do this ever stop?!

Russia again! Twitter mocks nameless CIA agent who blames Kremlin for dubious Manafort-Assange story

Posted by: Zanon | Nov 29 2018 19:15 utc | 23

How many, like me, miss the old pre-Snowden Guardian -- lefty, progressive, feisty, muckraking, a leading supporter for the Palestinian cause ... for me the drastic change in The Guardian's editorial direction dates back to the infamous destruction of all Snowden materials that was compelled by the British Gov't ... who knows what drastic threats of prosecution were made against it and its management?

In any event, the change was immediate and drastic -- Snowden became an enemy and The Graun evolved into a stenographic service for British intelligence as well as an unabashed, unconditional supporter of pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian positions.

Posted by: chet380 | Nov 29 2018 19:50 utc | 24

heh went over to the guardian to link to this article, as well as the greenwald and murray pieces, and can't find a single relevant article with open comments. lying hacks
that they are, they have the gall to beg for money under the guise of being independent journalists.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 29 2018 20:00 utc | 25

If there was a site it could publish new articles just about every day. He's truly a servant of the intelligence services, akin to Judy Miller of the NYT in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Posted by: worldblee | Nov 29 2018 20:19 utc | 26

@George Lane

Yeah, and they need Manafort to make up something of value to them since they got nothing. my theory
This SC crap and Mueller investigation is looking more and more like when fed prosecutors were out for some big game and ended up with framing Libby.

Posted by: jxf | Nov 29 2018 20:23 utc | 27

First rate analysis, sir. The Guardian keeping Luke "MI6" Harding on the payroll despite his penchant for embarrassing gaffes, usually at his own expense, and his legendary inability to write a piece without resorting to fibs and fabrications, speaks volumes. When the Guardian says "Our journalism changes the story" (as it did in one of its begging for cash banners) it really is telling the truth for a change.

Posted by: Daniel | Nov 29 2018 20:35 utc | 28

jxf, Greorge Lane

If you accept the narrative of a divided political elite then Manafort has nothing to give. I've always been suspicious of that. It seems quite possible, even likely, that the 2016 Presidential election was a complete set-up.

Trump was close to the Clinton's for years. Their daughters are still close (we are told). Although a seasoned politician, Hillary made glaring mistakes. She completely snubbed/alienated the Sanders progressives (PS Sanders is another "close friend" of Hillary's!) when she brought Debra Wasserman Shultz into her campaign and chose Tim Kaine as VP. She took the black vote for granted (basically ignoring them and also being unsupportive of Black Lives Matter) while also insulting whites with her "deplorables" comment. And she didn't campaign in 3 crucial states.

Meanwhile, newcomer-to-politics Trump did everything right. Example: he was the ONLY Republican primary contender with a populist message. Out of a field of 19.

To the extent that there WAS a set-up, it was set-up by CIA-MI6. And besides the MAGA policy change (which Trump is much better to lead than Hillary), they wanted to 'get' Assange and Mike Flynn.

Manafort was a strange pick for campaign manager. Unless what is really hoped for is to use his checkered past to pressure him later (knowing there would be an investigation).

But, but ... the Steel dossier!?! Yeah, the Steele dossier had virtually no impact on the 2016 election. It was used to: 1) get surveillance from the FISA court; 2) raise suspicions in the some press outfits; 2) after the election as Trump's excuse to do the bidding of the Deep State.

And what about Seth Rich? Even after William Binney and others claimed that the DNC "hack" was actually a "leak" there hasn't been a peep from anyone that knew Seth Rich. Was he even a real person? or a CIA operative under cover?

The DNC "hack" claim has been the cornerstone of the establishment's "Russia meddled" case: that Russians hacked the DNC and passed what they got to Wikileaks/Assange. With knowledgeable people saying it was a "leak", wouldn't it be nice to have someone to provide false witness against Assange to shore up the case?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 29 2018 21:01 utc | 29

@20. ‘ There’s no such thing as an objective Human ‘ . Say that to a surgeon, or a race car designer, or a civil engineer or a research scientist. They all have objectives. They take pride in achieveing them too.

Posted by: Beibdnn. | Nov 29 2018 21:36 utc | 30

Wikileaks plans to sue the shi# out of The Guardian and any others.

Courage Foundation is running a fundraiser over this, it's doing pretty good:

Help WikiLeaks Sue Guardian Over Fabricated Story

Posted by: Laura Roslin | Nov 29 2018 21:42 utc | 31

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 29, 2018 11:37:36 AM | 7

Viner has to be caned, Harding too.the Graun also.

Just fixed it for you. :)

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Nov 29 2018 21:53 utc | 32

I read MoA avidly and refer many friends to it (and I give it a little financial support) but I post only occasionally, happy to defer to the many wise - and observant - commenters here. Most of the friends I tell about this site never take it up. Instead, without reading it, they assign it to the "fake news" or "conspiracy theorist" category. They firmly fall into the "Russia did it" camp. They have grown up (as I did) trusting the Guardian, BBC, and Australian ABC. These friends see themselves as intelligent, rational, and liberal. But, unlike me, they continue to trust, even when it is proved time and time again that these organs have lied to them. When I point them to clear and undeniable evidence of this, they close their eyes and ears. Even George Bush in his mangled way understood that once someone has deliberately lied to you, you should stop believing them. I find myself at a loss as to how to get these people to wake up. Perhaps I am indulging in schadenfreude but I sincerely hope that Assange and Manafort take the Guardian to court and win heavily - the British libel laws can be brutal.

As to Viner, I find her an interesting case. Along with Alan Rickman, she wrote the play "My Name is Rachel Corrie", and yet she and her newspaper seem to be totally in thrall to the Zionists.

Posted by: dynkyd | Nov 29 2018 21:56 utc | 33

Worldblee @ 26:

In case someone does start up a site, I suggest the first article there should be Julian Assange's review of Luke Harding's fiction book "The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man" (Guardian / Faber & Faber, 2014).

Assange sums up Harding's approach to "journalism" thus:
"... Pieced together from secondary sources and written with minimal additional research to be the first to market, [The Snowden Files ...]'s thrifty origins are hard to miss ..."

Posted by: Jen | Nov 29 2018 22:01 utc | 34

I'm so glad you published this.

Yes, the mainstream media has been rampantly lying for quite some time. I found this link on Mike Whitney's blog. It's quite old, from May, 2012 where the late Michael Hastings, one month his untimely "accident", reported an amendment in the US Defense Authorization allowing the military to insert propaganda into press articles without notification, nor authorization.

IMO the only "Free Press" is within the alternative community.

Posted by: Michael | Nov 29 2018 22:08 utc | 35

The Graun is infantile, its fairytale writers are so much into fiction, that anyone with an quarter of an ounce of critical thinking, will reject what it spouts.
It is completely and blatantly a front for deep state interests.And the robber baronies of Ukronazistan and Israhell.
I miss Volkischer Beobachter and Пра́вда, when lying was more subtle and graceful.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Nov 29 2018 22:11 utc | 36

thank you b!
@1 BM. yes... guardian as m16 mouthpiece sounds about right.. i guess they have enough gov't money to keep the paper running.. i can't imagine anyone paying them money for their serving up m16 lies regularly...

@9 george lane... why is it marcy is so keen on the mueller investigation? i get it in one sense..'it is the get trump crowd's one strong chance to get him'.. but mueller was the head of the fbi under obama and bush.. this was a time when rendition flights, abu graib torture, and god knows what else the illegal actions of the usa were responsible for, happened... and this guy is leading the investigation? people ought to laugh at the very thought of this , but they appear to take him seriously!

which leads me to @18 jackrabbit comment.. exactly... who knows what the game plan was here, but your speculation is a good and valid one to consider...

@24 chet380... yes, i do remember the time as it doesn't seem like it was that long ago....

@29 jr.. good comments and observations as well.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Nov 29 2018 22:21 utc | 37

>>>>: Den Lille Abe | Nov 29, 2018 4:53:45 PM | 32

Viner has to be caned, Harding too.the Graun also.

Nah, it'd give them, including Viner, too much pleasure as it is the "English Vice".

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Nov 29 2018 22:51 utc | 38

If the story is false, then the Guardian ought to fire Luke Harding. There is already enough disinformation in the news. Marcie Wheeler outlines possible charges that the DOJ might bring against Assange when the indictment is unsealed (Time Machine: 2011 to 2012 WikiLeaks Is not 2018 WikiLeaks

".........Indeed, while no one has confirmed this one way or another, the assumption has been that Assange’s charges relate either to his involvement in the 2016 Russian hack-and-leak (though that would presumably be charged in DC) or his involvement in the 2017 Vault 7 and Vault 8 files as well as his exploitation of them.

The possible crimes may have expanded, too. Espionage is definitely still a possibility, particularly given how DOJ charged accused Vault 7 leaker Joshua Schulte, including possibly suggesting his leaks were designed to help another nation (presumably Russia). If Assange had advance knowledge of any of the Russian hacks (or the Peter Smith negotiated efforts to obtain Hillary’s server emails), he might be exposed to CFAA as well. And if he is charged by Mueller, he will surely be charged with at least one conspiracy charge as well; WikiLeaks was already described as an unindicted co-conspirator in the GRU indictment.

But there may well be other charges, starting with extortion or something akin to it for the way Assange tried to use the threat of the release of the Vault 7 documents to obtain a pardon. Some of his actions might also amount to obstruction. Yochai Benkler’s latest post also imagines Assange may have coordinated more closely with Russian intelligence, which might lead to different charges........"

It is very interesting how the far left protects Assange. Obviously it relates to his selectively exposing the "empire". For example, in an interview with the Independent in 2012 (“Julian Assange launches talk show on Kremlin-backed broadcaster Russia”):

“…….Asked why he had chosen Russia Today Mr Assange said: “In the case we are in at the moment, where our major confrontation is with the West, although we have published material from many countries, RT is the natural partner.” He added that the relationship might not be so comfortable if WikiLeaks had published large amounts of compromising data on Russia…..”

"Confrontation with the west" is telling as was his reasoning to not publish data on Russia. Yes it would have been not so "comfortable" on government-funded RT! In addition, he targeted and selectively undermined the HRC campaign to elect Trump. He lied when he said he was nuetral in the 2016 US election. He also took the side of Russia calling Ukraine in the "sphere of influence" of Russia which amounts to throwing Ukraine under the bus. In every respect, the interests of Assange aligned with Russia (albeit for different reasons).

Assange lied by promoting the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails. He aggressively sought the DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 after the death of Rich. There is a lot to be skeptical of Assange - especially in the 2016 election.

Posted by: craigsummers | Nov 29 2018 23:02 utc | 39

liars passing on what other liars have said.. why am i not surprised, LOLOL...

Posted by: james | Nov 29 2018 23:27 utc | 40

Posted by: dynkyd | Nov 29, 2018 4:56:10 PM | 33:

But, unlike me, they continue to trust, even when it is proved time and time again that these organs have lied to them. When I point them to clear and undeniable evidence of this, they close their eyes and ears. Even George Bush in his mangled way understood that once someone has deliberately lied to you, you should stop believing them. I find myself at a loss as to how to get these people to wake up.
I feel the same way when I talk about Sanders as a 'sheepdog', Trump as a faux populist like Obama, or am skeptical about the 2016 Presidential election.

Any American should be able to understand the argument for Sanders as a 'sheepdog' for Hillary as originally laid out by Black Agenda Report. In addition to stating that he would support the eventual Democratic nominee, Sanders was a long-time (25 years!) friend of the Clintons - which he acknowledged during the campaign.

Questions about the Trump-Hillary contest are fueled by info such as:

>>Pat Lang posted a blog post from Larry (who I guess is a friend of his) that clearly describes why the Russia investigation is farce: THE CHIMERA OF DONALD TRUMP, RUSSIAN MONEY LAUNDERER. Essentially, the FBI had an informer that worked with Trump during most of the 10+ years in question.

>> Hillary made herself into a hated figure and ran a poor campaign while newcomer Trump did everything right - including running as the only populist on the Republican side (which had 19 contenders!).

>> The threat from Russia and China was recognized clearly in 2014 when the Donbas rebels won their conflict against Ukraine in Summer 2015, Kissinger wrote a call to action that seems to be the forerunner of MAGA (behind paywall but you can get it via google). Kissinger is respected by BOTH parties.

>> Trump follows the same faux populist leadership style as Obama. Like Obama, questions of his loyalty to America are used as an excuse for his doing what the establishment wants. And, like Obama, he pretends to "drain the swamp" (Obama called his fake anti-corruption initiative "transparency")

>> Astroturfed radical leftists fighting for impractical quixotic goals (like "open borders") only plays into the hands of authoritarians.

Along those lines, the Democratics could have blocked the Kavanaugh nomination simply by making an issue of Kavanaugh's bias for the Executive branch of government. Instead, they relied on dubious salacious allegations that: 1) were bound to fail, 2) masked the REAL issue with Kavanaugh, and 3) caused a serious set-back for the #MeToo Movement (which the establishment hates).

Despite making these points many times over the last months, few - even here - seem interested. LOL! Many people get worked up over Russian election interference but don't care to examine how we are played by a small group of powerful people. That's too much like a dreaded "conspiracy theory". Yet it's clear that the establishment conspires against the people all the time.

Caitlin Johnstone says it well: We are being played:

Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame? He was inducted in 2013, and he’s been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan and as a performer. He’s made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump administration currently).

You don’t have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open already knows that America’s two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy when it’s time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 29 2018 23:39 utc | 41

I am continually amazed at how otherwise intelligent people will believe utter nonsense. It shows the effect of propaganda on our supposedly educated modern society is still highly effective. Without critical thinking and a healthy skepticism the window to the Truth turns opaque.

Posted by: Dick | Nov 29 2018 23:53 utc | 42

Posted by: paid jerk-off | Nov 29, 2018 6:02:56 PM | 39

You lied by omission when you allowed people to think you were someone that you were not so you're not qualified to say who lied and who didn't.

And, your anti-Assange attack backfires with the simple fact that Wikileaks worked with MANY news organizations, not just RT.

Take your hand out of your pants and get a real job.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 30 2018 0:11 utc | 43

craigsummers @39, or someone like him. Riddle me this - when is a dead child like a blocked toilet?

Posted by: daffyDuct | Nov 30 2018 1:01 utc | 44

People! Can't you understand that Masha the Bear is the real media threat!!!!

Posted by: Roy G | Nov 30 2018 1:54 utc | 45

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his 1978 speech.

“The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it....

One discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole (the spirit of the time), generally accepted patterns of judgment, and maybe common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons — maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. An example is the self-deluding interpretation of the state of affairs in the contemporary world that functions as a sort of petrified armor around people's minds, to such a degree that human voices from seventeen countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will be broken only by the inexorable crowbar of events........

. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?.....“

40 years later it is much much worse.

Posted by: Pft | Nov 30 2018 2:06 utc | 46

pretzelattack @25

And New York Times, too, asks readers to subscribe to "support independent journalism." Hilarious.

Posted by: once and future | Nov 30 2018 4:11 utc | 47

Speaking of smoke and mirrors...

Behind the several diversions, US troop forces are building up along the Turkey and Syria border. Commentators are noticing this:

With Azov Sea Events Stealing Spotlight, US Gathers Huge Military Force in and Around Syria - Arkady Sarvitsky
Turkey’s Hour of Reckoning in Syria - Bhadrakumar

Both articles from the same news platform, but both seem very real - all sane perspectives welcome.

Yes it's off topic, but it is perhaps the next thread....


Separate topic - are there events of no consequence, worth promoting by the imperial forces simply to cover other events of some consequence?

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 30 2018 4:53 utc | 48

@ 48 grieved.. yes - usa working on ww3 as we speak... no surprise there as that is all the usa amounts to now.. war=money.. you are either working for the financial industry, or the war industry.. you won't be reading about it in the guardian either... no, that cheap rag, and all the rest, are just for handing out negative pr on russia, iran and syria and any other country that gets in the way of the usa on it's path to world dominance, or ww3...those are the choices.. yes.. important topic, but where does one start?

usa armed forces leaving very soon is code for - they are in it for the long haul.. up is down and down is up.. welcome to usa-uk reality..

Posted by: james | Nov 30 2018 6:04 utc | 49

How the US media make sure that everyone follow the same script:
"CNN ends contract with contributor Mark Lamont Hill after speech on Israel". The article is from the Guardian. Shameful.

Posted by: Peter Schmidt | Nov 30 2018 8:22 utc | 50

haha i remember seeing that REALNEWS interview at the time. I actually wonder about him being an intel agency operative, seems more like a gullible useful idiot to me, he appears just convinced and brainwashed, like a kid refusing to believe that santa claus is not real lest his whole world view fall apart around him

Posted by: EtTuBrute | Nov 30 2018 12:37 utc | 51

I enjoy reading MOA, i have now all but stopped reading the Fraudian. It once had a semblance of credibility, which went down the drain a long time ago. The vile Harding, Monbiot have lied once too many.
I think that when you start recognizing that your own reality, recorded by your eyes (Lying ?) is not what is told in media, it is then you start to question almost everything that is fed to you. Once you a through this process, you will want to go back in time and start dissecting what has been the official narrative, coupling with what whistleblowers have leaked, your blood turns colder and the hairs on you back rise, you realize you are expendable, utterly expendable and that this machinery will destroy anything that is in its way.
The assassination of JFK was bungled, that of his brother even more so, and people started to investigate, hence operation Mockingbird and the introduction of "conspiracy theories" as a weapon to ridicule those who asked troublesome questions.
Even on the day of 9/11 I thought the events were awkward, but the sheer horror of the day managed to dim out clear thinking. Approximately 2 years later saw a video on Youtube, which resonated with the troubles I had felt on the day, something was not quite right. To my shame I found out that the official narrative contradicted everything I had been taught just a few years ago. (I am a Engineer, not construction, mechanics and electricity).
That made me go back in time : ECHELON, Gladio, Rote Armee, USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, Iran 1953 etc, etc. and I realized this had been going on for a long time, we are like mushrooms; kept in the dark and fed shit.
We cannot even only accuse the MSM of lying, ohh they do, but they also create new fake realities (Carl Rove) which we the gullible idiots accept, or most do and that's it.
The peoples of both Russia and China might not always get the complete and unadulterated truth, but as far as I can see they are not fed completely fake made up facts. We are.
Those of us not willing to accept face value but asks questions are the ones that keep the hegemonies unsettled, but that is not enough, it must be destroyed, ground into dust, never to arise like Sauron, we can and will do that, we are not alone.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Nov 30 2018 12:39 utc | 52

Oooooh YES: the Guardian is arguably the WORST, most dishonest, most shitty, most revolting British shit tabloid that ever crawled out of the sewer to plague humanity with its shit-stained misinformation. Utterly insufferable, stopped taking even the occasional peek at it 5 years ago. Been clean ever since! After the Maidan coup in 2014, it devolved to a new nadir, as a pathetic propaganda organ for the UK government/NATO/Washington consensus. Ridiculous, shrill headlines about "the Russians are coming!" to "Putin stole the election from Hillary!" or the farcical Skirpal bullshit, etc ad nauseam. And don't get me started on the uber asshole menagerie of presstitute stenographers who rot there: Luke Harding (total fucking asshole!); Nick 'the dick' Cohen (obedient zionist shill of the lowest order and phylum); Marina Hyde (her aim: to be as obnoxious and offensive as humanly possible); and some of you may recall the premeditated hatchetpiece of interview of Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes several years ago: after interviewing him about Palestine vs Israel, she deliberately misquoted Chomsky resulting in a massive uproar by Chomsky and countless others. With great embarrassment, the Guardian had to retract the hit-piece article and admit that it had deliberately misquoted him to make him look bad. Guardian is much worse than even Fox 'news' because at least Fox 'news' is open about it being an unapologetic GOP propaganda bullhorn; whereas the Graun deliberately misrepresents itself as a liberal news rag–but it is most definitely not at all liberal in the leftist or progressive sense of the term. To the contrary it is a neo-liberal, neo-conservative British steaming pile of shite! Stay away!

Posted by: Deschutes | Nov 30 2018 14:40 utc | 53

Minor correction to my previous post: Brockes deliberately misrepresented Chomsky's views on the Srebrenica massacre, not on Palestine.

Posted by: Deschutes | Nov 30 2018 14:51 utc | 54

In 1914, C.P. Scott and the Manchester Guardian opposed going to war.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 30 2018 15:28 utc | 55

@ 53 Deschutes
I love it.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Nov 30 2018 16:06 utc | 56

Den Lille Abe & Deschutes amen to all of that ! Zero tolerance of the crap that’s the way forward , if the rest of the public had that forthright attitude we would’nt even have a problem in the first place ! Propagander, lies, censorship and apathy that’s the problem ! Zero tolerance that’s the answer.

Posted by: Mark2 | Nov 30 2018 16:24 utc | 57

Poem and Narration by DC Dave Martin

A Literary Toast

Let’s hear it for our propagandists,
The people who bring us the news.
Unencumbered by troublesome scruples,
They’re proud of their compromised views.
There once was a time we admired them.
We thought they were principled fighters,
But what we see now is more worthy
Of the Union of Soviet Writers.
That they should be liberty’s guardians
Is truly a shame and a pity,
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

Let’s hear it for news commentators,
Those masters of punditry,
Who share with us all their opinions,
Wide-ranging from A down to B.
Standing right there in the spotlight,
They could do some significant things,
But we’d sooner expect wooden puppets
To dance without handles or strings.
Impressing no one but their colleagues,
They’re not even learned or witty,
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

Let’s hear it for all those reporters
Who learn how the contest is played.
If they will just write what’s expected
They can be handsomely paid,
But most garner practically nothing
And eventually fall off the ladder.
The losers depart mostly wiser,
While the winners grow gradually sadder.
Let’s hear it for all those survivors
Whose road to the top is not pretty,
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

Posted by: Paul Rigby | Nov 30 2018 17:26 utc | 58

When the formerly beloved Grauniad was completely taken over by a yankee New York pro-Israeli neoliberal element, it became the Pravda or Voelkischer Beobachter for the Israeli-yankee imperium. I am sure its most avid former supporters have quit reading it as it becomes a rag more odious than the Torygraph and Rupert Murdoch Times it used to be contrasted with. While the Independent has sold out to a great extent it has more remnants of reality than the now detested neutered Guardian. I suppose that when the deep state came in and busted up the Grauniad's mainframe, it accepted the message that it was to become the propaganda mouthpiece intended to neutralize its former readership. People like Luke Harding and the others now being published could work on any propaganda sheet anywhere. George Monbiot's sellout has been epic. I guess collecting a salary is more important than integrity. The greats the Graun used to publish like John Pilger no no longer appear. I am sure that monetary support from the regime will prevent the rag from going under, though it surely deserves to now.

Posted by: exiled off mainstreet | Nov 30 2018 17:34 utc | 59

Paul @58: that is really very good.
Now all we need is a musical setting and MoA has a hit- a big hit.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 30 2018 18:24 utc | 60


G-20 has begun. I want to discover who arranges the seating. Check out this pic and note the expression on Turk Foreign Minister Cavusoglu's face. Oh, and Trump also cancelled meetings with Erdogan and RoK president Moon, but that didn't get any BigLie Media notice. Putin appears to be in fine form like he's ready for a judo match.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30 2018 18:39 utc | 61

61 Cont'd--

Amazing GIF of Putin greeting MbS at G-20! Too bad Trump's entry wasn't about 10 seconds earlier so he could view their greeting. I think we might be in for a surprise.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30 2018 18:46 utc | 62

Caitlyn Johnstone on this topic provides her summation of this Fake News:

"If it wasn't obvious to you that narrative control is the most important commodity for our ruling power structures before the @Guardian published a fake story about @WikiLeaks and @Politico let an anonymous CIA agent blame that story on Russia, it should be obvious to you now."

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30 2018 18:56 utc | 63

Caitlin's on a roll today! A basic truism, although seldom mentioned:

"One of the most frustratingly pernicious aspects of oligarchic domination is the way the public has been trained to blame its toxic fruits on opposing ideological factions."

I'll add--while being blind to the ideology controlling them.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30 2018 19:07 utc | 64

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30, 2018 1:39:52 PM | 61

"I want to discover who arranges the seating."

Is that just alphabetical order, Russia-Saudi Arabia (if so, quite a convenient coincidence!), or if not Putin must've requested it or agreed to it.

Posted by: Russ | Nov 30 2018 19:37 utc | 65

@"CraigSummers" no. 39:

"It is very interesting how the far left protects Assange. Obviously it relates to his selectively exposing the "empire"."

Nice straw man. You're a reliable source for the State Department talking points, and you don't disappoint here. But how about "....obviously it relates to the fact that the government has run roughshod over civil liberties and it relies heavily on total secrecy for the state and total transparency for the citizen."

I do find it amusing that you're so awful at characterizing those groups you seek to stereotype. I wonder if you'd ever dare use your own real name so that people could see how conflicted you really are?

Posted by: Wofie | Nov 30 2018 19:52 utc | 66

@ More nonsense, no. 39:

Assange lied by promoting the conspiracy theory that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails. He aggressively sought the DNC emails from Guccifer 2.0 after the death of Rich. There is a lot to be skeptical of Assange - especially in the 2016 election.

1. He didn't "promote" a conspiracy theory. Unless you have proof that Assange knowingly received anything directly (or indirectly) from Russian government affiliated sources, you're just lying again - as usual. He has stated time and time again unequivocally that he does not know where the leaks came from.

2. You have no proof that he "aggressively" sought anything from anyone, so that's just another in a long stream of "craigsummers" lies.

3. You're one to talk. Your posts invariably provide the U.S. State Department, UK MI6 take on things, and yet you seem to ridiculously think that you have even a tiny shred of credibility. You're funny, "Craig" - when will you start using your real name or divulge to us who you work for so we can see which conflicts you have?

Posted by: Wolfie | Nov 30 2018 19:58 utc | 67

Russ @65--

There's a photo--3 of 5--here showing some of the seating arrangement that disproves the alphabetical order hypothesis.

Lots of action there already. BRICS held a sideline meeting where Putin delivered this short speech that's quite packed with details.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30 2018 19:58 utc | 68

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 30, 2018 2:07:23 PM | 64

Caitlin's on a roll today! A basic truism, although seldom mentioned:

"One of the most frustratingly pernicious aspects of oligarchic domination is the way the public has been trained to blame its toxic fruits on opposing ideological factions."

I'll add--while being blind to the ideology controlling them.

Reminds me of what the WWI poet Rudolf Binding wrote: "In this war both sides lie prone and the war has its way with both."

We only need to make explicit what he implied, that the elites (who have no "side" but their collective own) drive the war.

Posted by: Russ | Nov 30 2018 20:09 utc | 69

Karlof1 68

Yeah, that settles it, not alphabetical. Trump sure looks like he has a scowl.

Posted by: Russ | Nov 30 2018 20:13 utc | 70

@ karlof1 | Nov 30, 2018 1:46:44 PM | 62

The Internet commentariat is gobsmacked at this image of Putin and MBS smiling warmly at each other. I haven't seen the "analysis" yet, but since both corporate and "alternative" news have promoted the fad of "body language analysis", I presume this encounter will provide plenty of grist for the blather mill.

What could occasion such mutual positive regard? Perhaps as a goodwill gesture, Trump suspended US sanctions and greenlighted giving Russia the exclusive rights to be Saudi Arabia's bone-saw supplier! It's a win-win all around!

Posted by: Ort | Nov 30 2018 20:21 utc | 71

@70 "Trump sure looks like he has a scowl."

That is Trump's 'the rest of the world is taking advantage of the US but they can't fool me' face.

Posted by: dh | Nov 30 2018 20:26 utc | 72

Russ @ 69-- speaking of WW1 -- this three part series from The Corbett Report I found very informative--

Posted by: arby | Nov 30 2018 20:57 utc | 73

@BM | Nov 29, 2018 10:57:35 AM | 2

Isn't it time to start calling for a boycot of the Guardian? Not only does it like to print fake news, it is a fake newspaper.

Hmm... I seem to recall that the New York Times Company bought the Guardian, but now I can't confirm it. Did it happen?

If the NYT does indeed own the Guardian, much is explained. And that makes the Guardian as boycottable as the Times and the Washington Post.

Posted by: Cyril | Nov 30 2018 23:11 utc | 74

More images from G-20 via Twitter. Trump's expression caught when MbS and Putin greet each other. Further down that thread are several pics of Trump with very disgruntled looks on his face like he'd much rather be somewhere else. They are actually rather hilarious. Perhaps Trump's bacon burger was too rare. Or perhaps it's this year's theme: Building Consensus--a decidedly anti-Imperial message implying Russia and China finally have gained an advantage in the InfoWars in the venues that matter, not in BigLie Media.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 1 2018 0:21 utc | 75

Well, This short vid of Trump's entry dispels the notion that he reacted emotionally when saw MbS and Putin greet. However, those other stills that show him discomfited during the group photoshoot ought to go viral.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 1 2018 0:34 utc | 76

@ karlof1 with the G20 links

I watched the video link and I agree that Trump did not see the MBs/Putin greeting. What the video did show though to me was that Putin was set up by MBs and played it as well as he could....that or it was pre-agreed to by both as some sign/statement about geopolitical entanglement existing or yet to come.

The G20 ain't over yet and it is going to reflect serious geopolitical change, IMO.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 1 2018 1:02 utc | 77

psychohistorian @77--

Given their shared laughter, IMO it was in response to a joke about them being the two most vilified/victimized national leaders at the hands of BigLie Media. It would be nice to see what happened 15 seconds earlier as I think MbS's interpreter just finished conveying something to Putin thus generating the laughter in response.

"... serious geopolitical change,..."

I linked above to the short speech Putin gave at the BRICS meeting which provides a glimpse of what we can probably expect tomorrow. Lavrov's at G-20, too, and provided a characteristic response to a question about Trump's "behavior."

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 1 2018 1:30 utc | 78

@ karlof1 78

Now this Russian foreign Secretary is quite a piece of work is he not,,
A heave smoker, very, very intelligent and almost a poet with words, a very skilled negotiator and what is said a very charismatic and charming person.
This is hearsay of course.
The US has this Pompeo character.
They are down on points before the match.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Dec 1 2018 2:39 utc | 79

Is craigsummers in fact Luke Harding?
It suddenly appeared to me that they both spout the same auto- drivel, not contemplating the raw facts biting them in the ankles, like an angry Chihuahua. They both are obtuse and live in their own world.
What do you say barflies? Is it possible?

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Dec 1 2018 2:48 utc | 80

@ Paul Rigby 58 --12:26


May an admittedly second-class poet (at best) offer an admittedly unworthy addition -- just another single verse?

Well, for what it may be worth --


From Mordor-on-the-Potomac
To Orthanc up on the Hudson
The order goes down to ink-stained orcs
“Send up more lies, -- more corruption!”
What's left of all of their consciences
Is buried so deep in the muck
That staring aghast at their slime-laden past
Shows truth-seekers they're clean out of luck.
We've watched all these toadies climb higher
So far from the real nitty-gritty
These shills and these flacks,
These stooges and hacks,
These sold-out scribes
Who report on the tribes
Who rule from our capital city.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Dec 1 2018 3:53 utc | 81

arby 73

Thanks for the link. Looks interesting.

Posted by: Russ | Dec 1 2018 8:13 utc | 82

The Politico article is interesting in that it paints a more complex, dark picture of the likely (Guardian was tricked by MI6) scenario:

As of this writing, no other news outlet has confirmed the Guardian’s story about Manafort meeting Assange. So is it fake or is it real? If it is real and others confirm it, it would be damning, and many people have an interest in trying to discredit it. On the other hand, if someone managed to dupe Harding and his colleague, it would mean someone was ready to put a lot of effort into discrediting the journalists in order to sow doubt about a wide swath of reporting. In either case, someone has already primed a large audience to dismiss this Manafort-Assange story and any other information that might tie the Trump campaign to Russia. That implies more bad news is coming for Trump and Manafort.

One thing seems clear: Someone is feeling the heat

Criticism of the media is a red herring here. Beware, ultraleft people. You are also being misled astray. Yes, you too.

Posted by: donkeytale | Dec 1 2018 11:44 utc | 83

@59 exiled off mainstreet - You say-

"When the formerly beloved Grauniad was completely taken over by a yankee New York pro-Israeli neoliberal element, it became the Pravda or Voelkischer Beobachter for the Israeli-yankee imperium."

Can you be more specific, i.e. name the New Yorkers who took over the Graun? And can you provide a reference to back that up? Otherwise I can only conclude that the Graun is wholly owned and operated by Scott Trust Ltd., set up in 1936 by the Scott family, founders of the newspaper to prevent its closure or sale-

It's entirely British.

Posted by: Deschutes | Dec 1 2018 11:45 utc | 84

Deschutes - Lol, yes someone else upthread mentions the NYT has acquired the Graun.

Apparently, misinformation thrives among posters here. In much deadlier forms than "who owns the Graun", to be sure.

Journalism is not a perfect science, it is corporately owned or publicly supported, or it is state-sponsored.

Take your pick. I don't fully trust any, however the state-sponsored variety is at least as bad as the others, maybe worse, but at least you can easily tell when they are pumping out the propaganda full steam.

Google a certain meme and see that it's reported solely by RT, Sputnik or PressTV, etc.

And voila.

Posted by: donkeytale | Dec 1 2018 12:13 utc | 85

Unfortunately no western main stream media can any longer be trusted to publish the truth. The Guardian is only one of many which peddle smears and disinformation about the 'enemies' of the ruling 'western interests'.
I don't even turn on or read the corporate media anymore. Why should I read the Guardian article when all I need to know about it and the Politico followup are right here on MoA?

The only way the Guardian can even begin to regain its credibility is to immediately fire both Katherine Viner and Luke Harding. As to the rest of the corporate media, they must be boycotted so they are a worthless financial drain on the corporations that own them, so that they are sold to truly private entities that do not enjoy limited liability. This can be encouraged by donating to reader supported media such as MoA. I just donated 50 euros. That's not much, but I also just donated to South Front and donate regularly to 4 people via Patreon, and I'm not a billionaire or even a millionaire.

Please continue with your work, Bernard, and thank you!

Posted by: anti_republocrat | Dec 1 2018 16:37 utc | 86

@Grieved #48

Why not? Few years ago Israel started yet anothee assualt on Palestina exactly when EuroMaidan Ukraine had their next fit clogging all the news cycle

Posted by: Arioch | Dec 3 2018 0:13 utc | 87

@pft #46

That is called horizontal censorship as oppose to "Eastern" vertical censorship. The latter having an overt actor, who takes at least moral responsibility. The former being diguised as natural process.

Compare GULag & kolkhozes in USSR with overlapping CWA/PWA and defarming in USA.
USSR did not destroyed food to prevent "deplorables" to feed themselves and avoid CWA slavery.
But USSR is tyranny and USA is liberty beacon. Because in USA there was no given and signed order thus mass starvation was good fair and natural. Despite food being burned in front of those naturally starved 8 millions.

Posted by: Arioch | Dec 3 2018 0:20 utc | 88

The Guardian piece and the editorial process around it is thoroughly trashed by the Washington Post:
The Guardian offered a bombshell story about Paul Manafort. It still hasn’t detonated.

The piece relied on a serial forger:
The Guardian’s Reputation In Tatters After Forger Revealed To Have Co-Authored Assange Smear

No reaction from the Guardian yet but rumor has it that Luke Harding, the main author, is on an extended "holiday leave".

Posted by: b | Dec 4 2018 18:17 utc | 89

@89 b... good.. i hope luke and all the other steneographers for the empire take a very long holiday and don't come back!

Posted by: james | Dec 4 2018 20:19 utc | 90

@ b with the update about the Washington Post taking the Guardian to task

Now if someone would only take on Reuters we could watch a feeding frenzy as the MSM eats itself.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 4 2018 20:56 utc | 91

The comments to this entry are closed.