The Guardian acts to prevent comments & criticism on its opinion journalism
The Guardian UK news media’s cynical use of Julian Assange’s name?
The comment below could not be posted to The Guardian news media news article written by Catherine Bennett. Comments were closed 24 hours after the news article first appeared. I will attempt to get a reply to the question “Has The Guardian UK news media’s made cynical use of Assange’s name? from The Guardian journalist Catherine Bennett and the Editor.
This provocative opinion piece news article immediately launches into an attack misrepresenting Julian Assange & Wikileaks & those who support him. Performing a google.com search using the word/name ‘Assange’ returns a link to this theguardian.com website under the heading ‘In the news’ (on page one) that is second only to the website ‘Julian Assange – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia’. Many people, like me, would google the name Assange quite often to seek any new information that would be real & relevant news that indicates a change in his circumstances.
Has Guardian/Observer journalist Catherine Bennett who would likely be aware of how google prioritises it list of websites/information returned for a search, taken advantage of google’s search process and used Assange’s name in the public’s consciousness to her advantage to ensure a prominent position for her opinion presented in this Guardian/Observer media article?
Newspaper Editors & publishers can set the agenda by their positioning of the news they present, choosing to ignore information or publishing false information intended to mislead readers.
Front page news being most prominent is most likely to be read, with that which is intended to be for whatever reason not brought to the public’s attention relegated to positions less likely to be noticed or ignored by the newspaper.
I have lived in Adelaide South Australia where Rupert Murdoch began his news media career with his first newspaper & has since maintained a state newspaper publishing monopoly, and have experienced a lifetime of Murdoch’s news media setting the agenda to the detriment of the public.
There is evidence that his newspaper’s news articles published are very different to the records of Australian newspapers published that are sold as ‘archives’ of newspapers by Australian state and national public libraries. News articles published have been erased from the publicly accessible historical record & replaced with material never published on the days for which the records have been altered. The fake records have also been exported to the UK & continue to be sold as authentic archives by British Libraries UK London Colindale. More information concerning that corruption of Australian news media & the crimes, corruption and maladministration of governments and law enforcement that the fake records conceal, is available at https://rjrbtsrupertsfirstnewspaper.wordpress.com Exposing such corruption is the responsibility of honest journalists & news media whose readers would appreciate the efforts.
……………….. End of comment that apparently cannot now be posted to The Guardian news media news article. I will continue to attempt to get a response from The Guardian UK.
I have provided the evidence for the facts of fake records of newspapers published sold as archives by British Libraries UK London Colindale, to The Guardian UK (& Australia) news media. They need only look at the public library records to see the evidence of the absence from those records of the news articles that were published that relate to the still concealed debt of the ( illegal) “Off Balance Sheet” companies. The details of the debt indicate the purpose & motivation of concealment form the public and whom benefits from the lack of accountability. I have so far been unable to raise any response from The Guardian news media.
Concerning The Guardian / Observer UK news media and Catherine Bennett http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/one-law-for-polanski-another-for-ched-evans?commentpage=4 relating to the online news article written by journalist Catherine Bennett http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/one-law-for-polanski-another-for-ched-evans
The changing The Guardian notifications regarding the reopening of comments for discussion
12 Jan 2015 12-30 PM Guardian UK notification advises that “Comments for this discussion are closed overnight & will be reopened later”
12-56 PM Guardian notification has changed to “Comments for this discussion are now closed”
During the 26 minutes I attempted to see the Comments that had been made and could only access page 1 that was repeated when attempting access to pages 2 & 3. Meanwhile I wrote the comment for posting later that when it was to be “reopened later”. The comment I wrote appears below. I eventually was able to access the page where my comment posted 11 Jan 2015 would have appeared and found the message
11 January 2015 1:22pm
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.”
My comment posted that was “removed by a moderator” appears at the end of this page.
I had yesterday sent email to journalist Catherine Bennett and Roy Greenslade with a copy of my comment (before it was slightly modified & posted to the website)
The comment that I would have posted 12 Jan 2015 appears above under the heading – The Guardian UK news media’s cynical use of Assange’s name? The Guardian news media comments for the news article concerned appear to have been open for less than 24 hours after the questionable news article of Guardian journalist atherine Bennett was published.
It appears that my comment cannot be posted.
The Guardian UK & Australia news media and journalists seem to as honest & ethical as Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. / News Corp. that are known to be corrupt self-serving criminals who deceive the public.
It appears that The Guardian has acted to prevent comments on its opinion journalism
This comment appearing below, posted to The Guardian UK opinion news article written by Catherine Bennett – “was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards” It appears that The Guardian news media does not take any criticism well.
Comment Posted 11 Jan 2015
11 January 2015 1:22pm
Journalist C. Bennet’s talent should be acknowledged. Great skill is needed to work the question she asks about views on a ‘footballer and convicted rapist’ denounced by a website & a movie director who can return to work but continues to evade prosecution for a decades old crime he admits, into a misleading attack on Julian Assange, alleged rapist & acknowledged whistle blower publisher of concealed wartime errors of a country known for its ‘extraordinary rendition’ of foreigners from a foreign country to another to be illegally tortured, & news media that has expressed a desire to kill Assange. The article’s immediate launch into attacking WikiLeaks & Assange’s circumstances of UK taxpayer funded (mythical)”forced detention without trial” was not at all subtle.
Clearly Assange should have had the HIV/AIDS test that his accuses were reported as sayings would prompt them to withdraw their allegations of the rape he has not yet been charged with. Sweden being “a country where extradition to the US is no more likely than it is here” (in the UK) may not be so reassuring for Assange. The same could be said for Australia where governments have done nothing to assist Assange but have used taxpayer funded news media to express the view that he is a rapist and, unlike even the UK, have no problem with Australian citizens being imprisoned for years (after extraordinary rendition), tortured & forced to plead guilty to charges of terrorism that were later acknowledged to be unconstitutional.
Ms Bennett while considering what seems to be different laws for different people (referring to the heading of her opinion piece article), moves on to Assange’s supporters being “aware of the Swedish allegations and have chosen, for one reason or another, to set them aside.” Perhaps they can see good reason to. As for the reference to allegations of sexual impropriety of Prince Andrew & there being “no announcement of the type of legal manoeuvre” undertaken by a co-accused friend to counteract the allegations. Could this possibly be due to the royal family’s inclination not to engage in court battles that provide opportunities for news media to profit? There is no denying that many royal family members have had their privacy invaded & telephones hacked but none of them, unlike other celebrities of interest to the Sun & other UK media, have opted for civil litigation to solve the problem. I doubt that it’s because they can’t afford it or they’ve enjoyed the news media attention.
Overall this news article seems to be a waste of space. The Guardian should instead have an interest in & expose the issues of Australia’s fake records of Australia’s News Corp. (News Ltd.) newspapers published, that have been imported from Australia & are fraudulently sold as authentic archives by British Libraries UK London Colindale. The evidence of the corruption of Adelaide South Australia’s Rupert Murdoch’s state newspaper publishing monopoly newspapers on behalf of Australian politicians & law enforcement to conceal Australian crimes, corruption and maladministration has been provided to ‘The Guardian’ news media that has never replied to express any interest. The fake records sold as archives still have within them news article references to news articles previously published that no longer exist within those same records. Surely such evidence is difficult to ignore. Exposing UK’s corruption imported from Australia would be worthy of the attention honest news media & journalists that have consideration for its readers & taxpayers who would appreciate the effort. Some further information and documented evidence of Australian news media corruption and the fake records of Australian newspapers that are sold by Australian state & national public libraries and British Libraries UK London Colindale can be viewed at https://rjrbtsrupertsfirstnewspaper.wordpress.com/ If I’ve misrepresented what this article says please let me know.