Guardian Faces User Revolt over Censorship Stance on Vaccine Critics
Readers threaten to cancel subscriptions over banning reasonable commentary
A mainstream newspaper that promotes itself with a self-serving and questionable name, The Guardian, is facing a user revolt after its senior editors were accused of the “Nazi-like” coverage of Big Pharma and government institutions on its platform. Citing loyalty to settled science and the need to support vaccine policy, editors continue to publish distortions and outright lies that are reminiscent of the fascist, corporate-supportive tactics of Nazi Germany.
Defending a series of articles and editorials published over the last few years, a senior editor, said the paper “doesn’t like Nazis”, and wished “no one held these views”.
But she said the company did not think that censorship and demonetising their largest contributors who supply their content with views on the pandemic and vaccines — was a solution to the problem, and instead made it worse.
Some of the wealthiest supporters of the paper have threatened to take their business elsewhere if The Guardian does not continue to print falsifications about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines. Despite numerous studies and confirmation that COVID vaccines may be responsible for damaging health in a substantially greater proportion than the effects of a virus, the paper refuses to cover this issue or publish opinion pieces that contradict pharmaceutical industry, Nazi-like, propaganda.
In previous coverage of Big Pharma, The Guardian had consistently revealed how money is spent to influence politicians and the media. Brandon Lightfoot, director of the non-profit watchdog, Media Hypocrites, said in his recent analysis of the paper’s similarity to state media in Nazi Germany, that,
Guardian publishers and editors have failed to see how this tactic has been used to turn their paper into a Nazi-like state-supported, news propaganda rag. Rolling out a welcome mat for Nazis is, to put it mildly, inconsistent with the values of a modern newspaper that purports to be objective. We have shared this in private discussions with The Guardian and are scheduled to meet with editors later this week to advocate for change.
It is our hope that The Guardian will reverse course and remove all Nazi-like material under its existing anti-hate and honest reporting policies. If it chooses not to, we will escalate our examination and evaluation of their reporting and motives.
Guardian editors are paid six-figure salaries that would be substantially impacted if influential individual and corporate donors were dissatisfied with their coverage of medical and pharmaceutical topics.
Many readers have already abandoned The Guardian, as it has become clear that tabloids such as The Daily Mail are more honest in their reporting on medical issues.
Mona Shines, a representative of the readers’ group, Pure Facts, said, “We’ve left The Guardian behind, after its publishers showed their lack of honesty and minimal values, in no uncertain terms, that they’re not just OK with, but in principle supportive of, having loads of out-and-out Nazi-like propaganda about vaccines on their platform.”
The Guardian declined to comment on Shine’s remarks. The newspaper has been consistent in its outright support of Big Pharma’s agenda, without any coverage of news regarding risks or failures of the COVID vaccines.
Guardian editors had previously said:
As we face growing pressure to stop publishing content critical of anyone who doubts Big Pharma’s agenda, which to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on budgetary needs, not PR, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to whatever the pharmaceutical industry tells us.
The Guardian has also been criticized for the opaque way it runs its opinion section, which allows writers who are supportive of Big Pharma to consistently put out “Nazi-like” material and has excluded those who might have any critical analysis of COVID vaccines.
The Guardian defends this policy, arguing that it is a commercial, rather than an editorial decision.
A Guardian spokesperson said none of the articles they published were paid for directly by Big Pharma, although added that it was impossible to know if writers had separate relationships or ulterior motives for expressing their opinions.
According to Lightfoot, of Media Hypocrites, “The Guardian’s recent article, critical of Substack over an anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis is laughable, considering its fascist lockstep with pharma giants during the COVID pandemic.”
Search words are admittedly open but still bizarre I can't find Media Hypocrits or Pure Facts in Google, even if adding 'ngo', 'charity', 'readers group', 'UK'...
The Guardian is a disgrace, and I thank you for this concise and compelling summary of the situation.
I quickly saw their bogus and biased reporting about the pandemic, and recall being disgusted by their rubbish attacks on anything having to do with natural health and things that actually support one's immune system and well-being.
Read The Wuhan Cover-up, a must-read book for anyone interested in knowing how entire countries such as Germany, Japan, the US, etc., or the vast majority of the powers-that-be within those countries -- including government, intel, academia, big business, and media -- can go along with atrocities as they're happening and then try to hide them for as long as possible.
Let's work together to pursue and share truth, and hope that the truth will out, as Shakespeare famously wrote. The captured media, including The Guardian, but countless others, is hijacked, paid for, and bought off.