This is another pattern I note in the liberal media. I wrote about this before. They just lie. Simply lie. It is odd; do the liberal readers, of the Guardian, swallow these lies? They must know they are reading lies. (Incidentally, a good proportion of Guardian readers are not liberals; for example, some of my reader comments, those that get past the moderator, are critical of the Holy Grail of the Guardian – the spending of unlimited amounts of public money on all kinds of failed, authoritarian social management projects, and they attract quite a lot of ‘likes’). My guess is the hard-core liberals don’t care; Russiagate, the accusations of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 US Presidential election was a total hoax from start to finish and it filled whole forests of the liberal media.
This is this week’s smear piece about Nigel Farrage:
Anna Gross from the Financial Times asked a two-part question at the press conference: about whether Reform UK would create an Ice-style migrant deportation unit, and about all five of the people on the platform having been educated at private schools.
Nigel Farage responded. He said sarcastically that he “loved” the FT; the day after the Mandelson story broke, its front page carried a story about a Reform councillor in Kent, he said. He said there was not point addressing Gross’s question. “Just write some silly story,” he told Gross.
Farage has got form for patronising and insulting female journalist in this way.
(As well as patronising, Farage’s response was unfair. The FT pursued the story about Mandelson’s links with Jeffrey Epstein more aggressively than almost any other UK news organisation.)
[1]
A small point, but characteristic. Based on the internal evidence of the piece, Farage was talking about the front page of the FT on one particular day. It may well be that the FT has subsequently covered the Mandleson story, but that is irrelevant. So, Farage was not “unfair”. That is made up.
The Guardian also gushes about a report on the 2024 election praising it as a good read. This report apparently says, “By contrast, three out of the five Reform UK MPs were privately educated, making the populist rightwingers fond of railing against an out-of-touch establishment the only party with a majority of privately educated MPs.“. Of course, anyone who was thinking about anything beyond the level of slogans would ask the actually interesting question; what does it say about the development of the British establishment that the torch of opposition is now more carried by private school educated people? Instead, both the authors, it seems, and definitely the Guardian are content to rest at the level of a smear, trying to mock the Reform party for having a preponderance of privately schooled leaders.
These may seem like small points, but this willingness to lie and general intellectual shallowness are hallmarks of cults. As this site often points out, modern liberalism is a cult.
Notes