Hacker News Reader

Comment by adwww | Hacker News Reader

I'd counter, especially relative to other contemporary newspapers, the Guardian's quality is consistently high.

True, but you can name certain topics where the possibility of them being correct or to give a neutral perspective is quite low. Still better than most, yes.

Given their outright lies about Assange over the past while, I'd counter that assertion.

So I'm super uneducated on this, please let me know if you know because I'd love to know more.

1. What specific lies has the guardian spread, and what's the truth? 2. Are there news watchdog organizations for this major newspaper company selling actual proven falsities, and is there legal recourse? I'm not familiar if where the Guardian publishes there is a legal mandate to be a newspaper and not disseminate actual lies.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817959

Hey, thanks a ton for this! Is anyone persecuting The Guardian for this?

I think Wikileaks wanted to sue them, not sure where that's at, but as far as some watchdog doing so, no, you never get prosecuted for printing what suits the establishment. I guess is similar to how the media pushing for the Iraq War on the premise of WMDs were held accountable, not.

This is a misunderstanding of how UK print media works.

> 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.

Sources did say that, and the Guardian is telling us that these sources said that. The Guardian isn't saying it happened.

See also "Freddy Star ate my hamster (says beauty)". https://sunheadlines.blogspot.com/2008/11/classics-freddie-s...

Read the entire article: not a single confirmed fact related to the meetings, everything is proposed by sources. And that embassy had plenty of photographers and journalists around it, yet there isn't a single photo of Paul Manafort at the embassy. You'd think they could run with one of the many photos that would have been taken and offered to them for money.

Is the "misunderstanding" here that The Guardian or other UK papers can print claims from "sources" without verifying a single piece of materially important information?

You seem to be here to defend The Guardian in this long thread about what a great paper it is, but your defense is to make a comparison to The Sun and target it at people who are pointing out that The Guardian has printed obvious lies (actual "fake news") in meddling with US politics. That's a really interesting way to defend them. One would think such defense in a thread like this might be inspired by their honesty and integrity as a news organization, but it's actually that it's okay to lie by claiming sources said something because The Sun did it.

Well, they did have "sources say" in the title not the small print. There's some speculation here that "someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists" https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-mana...

But that's the point. The guardian is only reporting what sources say, and they're clear about that.

You're holding the guardian to higher standards than any other UK print media.

A credible newspaper should do some fact checking before printing what 'sources say', otherwise its just PR for whatever wants to get this published.

Person A: The Guardian is great. Their "quality is consistently high."

Person B: The Guardian tells lies about relatively important stories like Assange and Manafort meeting.

Person C (you): Actually, all UK print media lies!

Is this a fair characterization of what just happened?

No.

The Guardian has not lied. The Guardian has accurately reported what sources said. This is what all UK print media does. Guardian is somewhat better than some other UK print media because they'll (as they did here) include the words "sources say" in the headline or sub head, or they'll include quote marks in the headline.

Okay, this seems like a bad faith argument to me. You must be aware that print media in the UK, including The Guardian, also publish stories that are backed by real evidence (e.g. photos, videos, people openly stating, "I personally did/said that", etc.) rather than mysterious, unnamed sources.

Plus, it looks disingenuous to pretend that The Guardian didn't willfully choose to print this story instead of any of the many many stories about Barack Obama being a "secret Muslim" or even "gay" according to some source.

You can further clarify why you think The Guardian is actually good if you want, but if it involves, "Everyone else publishes stories from sources," I'm done taking it seriously.

They straight-up fabricated this story and have yet to retract. This wasn't an editorial either this was supposed to be 'real' news.

The bad blood between Wikileaks/Assange and The Guardian go back quite a few years.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110106083508/http://www.counte...

https://wlcentral.org/node/839

The fact that you have to link to an archive copy, because even the loony bin that is “counterpunch” has chosen to disassociate with the raving anti-Semite author, speaks volumes.

1. My post offers no opinion and makes no point other than that “there was bad blood a long time ago”, offering as evidence of that some articles by known Wikileaks supporters explaining the “why” from their perspective.

2. The fact that I linked to those articles (and my own comment preceding the links), makes no claims as to the veracity of those claims. However they do underscore the fact that there was bad blood between WL and TG.

3. Your post plays the man rather than the ball to attack claims I never made (clearly however others must feel the same way you do).

EDIT: correction to type of argument in point 3.

What lies for example?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua...

I'd recommend you watch this[1] interview with the author of that article as well, for some context as to who he is.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ikf1uZli4g

Reply on news.ycombinator.com