There is a ‘live stream’ over at the Guardian today about the Ukraine war. They are celebrating its fourth anniversary.
I tried to post a few comments, as replies to other user posts. (In passing; people talk about Russians being ‘brainwashed by their propaganda’ but even a glance at these threads seems to show that plenty of people in the West have accepted all sorts of propaganda lines as fact). As I’ve mentioned before, the Guardian runs a secret political censorship regime on its reader comments pages. This is over and above the published moderation rules. Posts which are too critical of the pro-war line are silently blocked, even though they do not break their own rules. (There is a note informing me that the account is being ‘pre-moderated’ but there is no public admission of the political censorship). The effect of this secret censorship is to create a false impression that their readers are far more supportive of the war then they really are. When my comments do get through, they often get quite a lot of ‘likes’ suggesting that there are quite a lot of Guardian readers who have not been brainwashed.
What is striking about the secret censorship is that a certain kind of comment is allowed and a certain kind is blocked. Comments which are little more than throw-away remarks, not especially strong arguments against the war, sometimes, in fact quite often, pass the secret censor. But, and this is so consistent it must be a deliberate policy, comments which present strong, reasoned arguments against the war, and especially those that refer to checkable facts are invariably blocked. So much for “facts are sacred”. For example, on the above stream I made several comments. A comment simply pointing out the absurdity of dreaming of yet one more wonder weapon passed. A comment about the “Russian meatgrinder” line being propaganda passed. What didn’t pass? A comment in reply to someone asking how the war could be ended, which said that this could be achieved by dropping the NATO in Ukraine idea and giving Donbas to Russia. It mentioned that 1/3 of the population in Donbas is ethnic Russian. [1] It reminded readers that an option for Ukraine to keep Donbas as an autonomous province had passed. It suggested that the West was continuing the war to save Europe’s face and to save the Zelensky regime. That didn’t pass. Another comment which mentioned a specific Gallup poll that found that in 2014 in the Eastern regions of Ukraine support for joining NATO ‘barely made it into double-digits’. These are coherent, fact-based, arguments against the war effort. So, they were blocked.
The aim is to create an impression of a debate while actually blocking serious challenges to the war propaganda. It is so consistent that it must be a deliberate policy.
Update:
One the same live feed they are currently soliciting questions for their Russian affairs correspondent Shaun Walker. I’ve posted three. Let’s see:
Questions for Shaun Walker:
1) The US would not permit a strong Russian or Chinese military-intelligence build up in Mexico or Venezuela. But Russia is not allowed to have “zones of influence”. Why does the media never put this discrepancy to political leaders e.g. Starmer, and ask them to explain it?
2) In 2001 38% of the population of Donbas was ethnic Russian according to Ukrainian census data. (A quick search can confirm this). Why does the media so rarely mention this fact?
3) Why was my comment referencing the 2014 Gallup poll which showed support for joining NATO was under 20% in Eastern Ukraine blocked?
No surprises to note that that was blocked. Well; anyway; these are the questions Shaun Walker and Jacob Krupa won’t answer.
Notes
- In fact, based on Ukranian data it seems to be about 38%. http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/