I’ve edited the title of this article. I still believe that the UK govt. is planning for war and that the talking up of war by the Guardian defense editor, Dan Sabbagh, is an indicator of this.

Hello, over the past couple of months I’ve been watching the coverage by the Guardian UK relating to security and defence. Since they should be a left-leaning newspaper and not in favour of supporting the current right-wing government, I would not expect the paper to be releasing articles which are either right-leaning or nationalistic. From looking at the articles the Guardian has published, I have identified a bias which favours the currently right wing government or favours a nationalistic stance. For example, if one were to look at the current defence editor, Dan Sabbagh’s articles, it is clear that military recruitment, and a lead up to war are some of the most recent articles that he has authored as well as another article which seems to suggest that military spending should increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/dan-sabbagh

I’d expect this sort of war preparation speech from the likes of the Daily Mail but from the Guardian? Because of this, I think we can assume two terrible things. One, that the possibility of war will significantly increase between the United Kingdom and some other nation in the foreseeable period. Two, that the current British press is significantly affected by pro-government bias, and may not be ‘free’ to disclose it’s stories in the same way that it used to after for example, the Snowden disclosures. Either way, a dystopian future might await us. What is Lemmy’s thoughts on the matter?

  • ObsidianBreaksOP
    1·
    10 个月前

    Hi Orcrev,

    ‘Wouldn’t it be just as likely that preparations are being made just in case? Considering how aggressive Russia has been for the last decade it’s looking increasingly likely that it’s a question of when not if they push things too far and involve a NATO country. It’s certainly not guaranteed of course, but it’s also not unlikely.’ - I think you are correct, and regardless of whether the UK will go to war, such preparations would take place. Where we disagree is whether such preparations would be carried out in public. I would say that involving the public in any preparations would suggest that such things are already decided. Involving a traditionally anti-govt. newspaper in this planning would add extra weight that this is the case. It might not be true that the UK is planning for war but involving the public is usually one of the last stages of planning for a war whether it’s starting one or anticipating one, for obvious reasons.

    ‘Wouldn’t it be reasonable for the UK, being a NATO member, to be at least somewhat prepared should the worst happen? I don’t think that’s a particularly radical or right wing outlook.’ - Again I totally agree that it would be a thing the UK would do, but to do so publicly and also to publicize the fact is in my view an indicator that they (govt.) is set on a particular course of action.

    ‘If you want to get pessimistic about things you could also look the other direction at the US which unfortunately has been flirting with fascism recently. A win for Trump in this year’s election has the potential to go very very badly for not just the US, but the world. We’re talking potentially 1933 Germany levels of bad.’ - I’d say that any country that is electing an <insert country> first doctrine president is anticipating war, because the only theater in which that doctrine is always correct is in war. In peace time, compromise is usually made.

    ‘Considering the UKs past experience having a little something stashed away wouldn’t be the worst idea.’- forgive me, I’m not familiar with what you are referring to here but please tell me.’

    ‘I still think you’re reading way too much into a relatively minor thing though. There are a lot of far less extreme potential explanations. Jumping immediately to government intervention as the explanation is to ignore a lot of simpler explanations. For instance I’d consider it far more likely that someone simply paid them a lot of money to run those stories’ - I’d personally consider the Guardian to not be an institution that could be ‘bought’ unless it was by the state.

    ‘There are plenty of large corporations only too happy to pay for media spin that benefits them. They need to even be a UK based company. Someone like Raytheon who would benefit from increased military spending could certainly consider it worth dropping a few hundred thousand in bribes to key people at the paper in the hopes of swaying the publics opinion.’ - Well you might be right but again I don’t believe that the editors at the Guardian would compromise their journalistic integrity to do that - especially given their historical opposition to the MIC.