You see, there is exactly one person working for newspapers who is in charge of writing articles.
Whenever they write something criticizing something I am obsessed with, it’s the only article posted on a given day and meant to distract the sheeple from some other horrific thing going on at the same time. That’s not whataboutism, it’s different because I’m doing it.
Kinda related way editorials work. If a news source endorses a candidate or published an editorial that is their opinion forever. They own absolute loyalty to the candidate and support everything they have ever done or said in the past and in the future.
Every article every written, every social media post, all of it forever and ever are to be viewed under the lens of the one time someone working there expressed a viewpoint. Did the Guardian write a single article that seemed biased towards a side of a conflict? That gets round up to absolute loyalty to that side.
In 1992, the Trust identified its central objective as being the following:
“To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner.”
Certainly a liberal, profit-seeking enterprise wouldn’t be biased against a socialist, communist nation… /s
They had a Ming-style mosque that was destroyed in a massacre of Muslims during the Cultural Revolution in 1975, they rebuilt a warehouse-looking mosque in 1981, then the Arabic-style mosque was built in 2010.
The Guardian does write the article to make you think it’s a historical landmark, and not a Chinese copy of the Eiffel Tower kind of landmark that’s being rebuilt to look more like the one the government originally destroyed.
Thanks for the historical context. I’m tired of being told to hate China, when I know very little of its history, culture and how its current government operates. I’ll make up my own mind.
Arnaud Bertrand has different opinions about this. He delves into the dishonesty of this article and why the renovation has been misrepresented.
From the garbage you posted:
Yeah, the GUARDIAN of all newspapers wants to distract you from Gaza, that is why the main news on their homepage is:
You see, there is exactly one person working for newspapers who is in charge of writing articles.
Whenever they write something criticizing something I am obsessed with, it’s the only article posted on a given day and meant to distract the sheeple from some other horrific thing going on at the same time. That’s not whataboutism, it’s different because I’m doing it.
Kinda related way editorials work. If a news source endorses a candidate or published an editorial that is their opinion forever. They own absolute loyalty to the candidate and support everything they have ever done or said in the past and in the future.
Every article every written, every social media post, all of it forever and ever are to be viewed under the lens of the one time someone working there expressed a viewpoint. Did the Guardian write a single article that seemed biased towards a side of a conflict? That gets round up to absolute loyalty to that side.
From the Scott Trust Limited, owners of the Guardian:
Certainly a liberal, profit-seeking enterprise wouldn’t be biased against a socialist, communist nation… /s
https://inf.news/en/culture/99cd839e359599d0079b82992ff8fe3a.html
They had a Ming-style mosque that was destroyed in a massacre of Muslims during the Cultural Revolution in 1975, they rebuilt a warehouse-looking mosque in 1981, then the Arabic-style mosque was built in 2010.
The Guardian does write the article to make you think it’s a historical landmark, and not a Chinese copy of the Eiffel Tower kind of landmark that’s being rebuilt to look more like the one the government originally destroyed.
Thanks for the historical context. I’m tired of being told to hate China, when I know very little of its history, culture and how its current government operates. I’ll make up my own mind.