Guardian takes hypocrisy to stratospheric new heights

When giving evidence to the Leveson Inquiry in December the former Information Commissioner of the UK, Richard Thomas, said that offences committed under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (In the UK Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 concerns the unlawful obtaining of personal data – it is an offence for people, such as hackers and impersonators, outside of an organisation to obtain unauthorised access to someone’s personal data – an act otherwise known as ‘blagging’.) were:

[…] often at least as serious as phone hacking, and may be even more serious.

Mr Thomas went on to add that:

Interception of a telephone call or message is widely, and rightly, seen as highly intrusive, but a great deal more information can usually be obtained about individuals by stealing their electronic or written records – such as financial, health, tax or criminal records – than from a conversation or message.

Now think back to the Guardian’s obsessive pursuit of News International about the interception of telephone calls or messages – phone hacking – and its saturation coverage and condemnation that has demonised News Corp journalists and the Murdochs. Surely the Guardian, which has taken the high ground and occupied it so doggedly over such illegal behaviour can be relied upon to be consistent and condemn equally vigorously any instance of illegal activity, such as an individual impersonating another person to obtain unauthorised access to personal data?

Think again.

The Guardian is perfectly happy to go to war with competitors and ideological opponents, and grandstand in the most sanctimonious manner as it has over phone hacking. After all it is in its commercial and strategic interests and those of its friends, such as the BBC.

But when a climate change alarmist scientist, someone who says the things the Guardian says and like to hear and shares the same leftist worldview, admits he impersonated another person to obtain confidential documents and release them – a criminal act in the UK – the Guardian unbelievably describes it as a ‘leak’. That is how the Guardian is portraying the theft of documents from the Heartland Institute and their release, along with a fake document designed to misrepresent the organisation and stir up animosity to it.

This isn’t just cognitive dissonance, it is a staggering escalation of the Guardian’s rank hypocrisy.  It is a deliberate and calculated distortion used and the dishonesty is approved by the senior editorial staff for ideological reasons.  Guardian journalists such as Suzanne Goldenberg, endorsed by the like of Leo Hickman, are engaging in a corruption of language in support of a political agenda.  They are showing themselves up as propagandists for thieves and climate change alarmists.

This is the measure of the Guardian, a reflection of its true nature, and the reason why it is wholly untrustworthy and unreliable. It is an insipid little rag.

5 Responses to “Guardian takes hypocrisy to stratospheric new heights”

  1. 1 Joe Public 21/02/2012 at 10:43 pm

    The Beeb is still displaying Richard Black’s posting, the ironically titled “Openness: A Heartland-warming tale”

    Yet as of 22:40 on 21/2 there’s still no mention of Gleick’s confession.

  2. 2 Barry Woods 21/02/2012 at 10:56 pm

    It appears to me that Monbiot disappeared one of his tweets…

    I remembered seeing and wondered what George Monbiots 30,000 plus twitter followers made of it..

    @George Monbiot
    Among Heartland Inst’s objectives: “dissuading teachers from teaching science.” I kid you not.

    I wonder why he seems to have removed it? ;-) Bob Ward has not removed a similar tweet.

    Google cache is a friend here: (webcite it perhaps?)

  3. 3 James (@jamesofdoom) 21/02/2012 at 11:22 pm

    Some of Sunny Hundall’s Tweets today were worth capturing

  4. 4 alexjc38 22/02/2012 at 8:45 am

    @James, here are some of Sunny Hundal’s tweets from yesterday:

    “@NaomiAKlein I can cite several cases where journalists had to pretend to be someone else to expose public-interest info. He didn’t do wrong”

  5. 5 Stew Green (@stewgreendotcom) 25/02/2012 at 6:46 pm

    Great article – in the media it’s a topsy turvy world with most news originating from press releases written by left or right wing PR agencies.
    People take things at face value as long as it confirms their own dogma.
    and “Once it is writ to paper it becomes ‘real’. ”

    Rule 1 If it is it too good/bad to be true, then it’s not.
    Rule 2 If it’s full of “weasel words” like “denier” instead of skeptic or “leaked” instead of stole then you’re being spun
    Rule 3 Wait don’t jump to conclusions – things come out in the wash

    The Guardian clearly libelled Heartland yesterday – We’ll see if somethings appear on their correction page soon.

    Doesn’t credibility mean anything to them ?

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: