First, let me say that although the Guardian is known for its
left wing political views, this article is not intended to criticise those
views. I will discuss some of them, but just for purposes of illustration. It’s
more about the way the Guardian presents those views.
The Guardian on … Austerity
I first thought about writing this article shortly before
the General Election, when a couple of friends posted Facebook links to a
Guardian article entitled, “The Austerity Delusion”. (See the end of this
article for web links). I promised to respond to it, less because of the
arguments that it was making but more because I was disturbed about the way
that those arguments were being made.
What bothered me was that the arguments were presented in
the format of academic analysis, but in practice they were something quite
different. Good academic analysis takes two or more competing theories and
weighs up the evidence for and against each one; and in economics, there are always
(at least) two theories about everything. But this article left no room for
doubt that one theory, and only one, could possibly be right.
The theory that the article believes is right is the
Keynesian view that austerity is a bad policy that damages economic growth, at
least for the UK. Here are some of its quotes:
“All the economic research that supported the austerity push has been
discredited.”
All of it?
Really? The author of this article claims to be aware of every single piece of
research that has opposed his favourite theory, and has been able to dismiss
them all? A claim like that should instantly put any academic reviewing this article
on alert, because it’s a huge, sweeping
claim to make.
“When John Boehner, the
Republican leader, opposed US stimulus plans on the grounds that ‘American
families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening
its belt,’ economists cringed at the stupidity.”
Boehner’s words actually capture the essence of the monetarist response
to a debt crisis; monetarism being the main competing economic theory to
Keynesian economics. But rather than treating monetarism as a sensible theory,
this article belittles it in three different ways: by using the general term
‘economists’ rather than the more accurate “Keynesian economists”; by using the
emotive terms ‘cringed’ and ‘stupidity’; and by quoting the words from the
mouth of a right-wing politician, who will be automatically distrusted by
Guardian readers.
“[Re-examination of an
earlier academic paper that apparently favoured austerity showed that] there
was a modest negative correlation between debt and growth, and there was good
reason to believe that in general slow growth causes high debt, not the other
way around.”
Really? Where’s the justification
for this? My academic reviewer senses are alerted again here. The first
statement about the correlation might be acceptable as it is, without the
numbers, but the second statement – that slow growth causes high debt and not
vice versa – is a major point of differentiation between economic theories, and
should not simply be asserted on the basis of some undescribed analysis.
“The Telegraph published on
its front page a letter from 100 business leaders declaring austerity is good for growth. Why does big
business love austerity and hate Keynesian economics? I’ve already suggested
one answer: scare talk about debt and deficits is often used as a cover for a
very different agenda, namely an attempt to reduce the overall size of
government and especially spending on social insurance. […] Also, business interests dislike Keynesian
economics because it threatens their political bargaining power.”
Finally, after a great deal
of hammering home our own viewpoint, let’s mention the fact that competing views
do exist – and attribute them to the self-interest of the big bad business bogeymen.
And now, here’s a quote that
isn’t in the article, but should have been. The article makes a lot of the fact that the
International Monetary Fund strongly recommended austerity in 2009-2010, but
then effectively did a U-turn in 2013 by saying that it “massively understated
the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.” But despite this
article being published in May 2015, it fails to quote the IMF’s statement made
in June 2014 that “we clearly underestimated the growth of the UK economy in
our forecasts a year ago” and added, “At the IMF, we have learned that there is
no single best way to reduce the fiscal deficit.”
So the IMF are now saying that austerity works in some countries and not
others. Why is this quote omitted? I wonder if it is because it would have
ruined the whole point of the article, which is that austerity is bad for
Britain. Instead, this article explains away the rather awkward fact of recent growth
in the UK economy by supplying a graph that says, in essence, that Britain
hasn’t had very much austerity recently and therefore that explains the growth
(which goes halfway to contradicting its overall message, but it’s so far down
the article that many people might not notice that).
I said I wasn’t going to use this article to criticise particular political
beliefs, and I meant it. I’m happy to accept the IMF’s conclusion that
austerity works in some situations but not others, but I’m also happy to accept
that many of the individual points in the Guardian’s article might be correct,
or at least well-justified. But what worries me is the approach that the author
has taken to the subject, and that the Guardian has endorsed (either actively
by editing or passively by publishing). This is not an attempt to give a
balanced analysis of economic debate on the austerity issue. This is preaching
of a particular economic theory, with key points of debate glossed over, and
opponents derided with words like “stupidity”.
The Guardian on … the Human Rights Act
In case anyone thinks that
the Guardian only exhibits this tendency to one-sidedness in one article, I’ll
quickly give another example. The Guardian recently published an article
entitled, “The arguments against the Human Rights Act are coming. They will be
false.” From the title alone, it’s easy to see that this isn’t going to be an
article that takes a fair, balanced look at two sides of the argument; instead,
it’s from someone who is so sure he’s right that he feels able to predict what
his opponents will say before they say it, and then to assert that they will be
wrong! Even the anti-austerity economist didn’t claim prophetic abilities.
As in the austerity article,
the author first attacks a straw man (i.e. a statement which he knows won’t
stand up to scrutiny) and only then criticises the main opposing argument that
the Government has already made (which is that the point of scrapping the Human
Rights Act is not to take away human rights but to replace it with a British Bill of Rights that isn’t under the
jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights). He rubbishes that argument on the dubious
ground of unpopularity, and the rather stronger ground of the UK having signed
up to the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes submitting to the
decisions of the relevant European Court. He then concludes by condemning the Government’s proposed
changes on the assumption that the UK would have to un-sign from the
Convention, which would “hugely diminish
our reputation abroad”. He also adds that it “would widen the fracture in our
own politics” (which means, in practice, that it would really annoy the
political parties who lost the election).
Once again, my concern is with the tone of the article. Is it balanced? No. How
are people who hold opposing views described? As “peddling myths”, making
“shallow arguments”, and holding views that would be “torn to shreds” if they
ever saw the light of day. Does the Guardian offer any room for disagreement?
No.
The Guardian on … Christianity
So when the Guardian turns to
the subject of Christianity, and adopts the same tone as in the articles above,
you can understand my deep discomfort with it. In an article headed “Christians
in the West have nothing to fear” and subtitled “Gay people do not threaten
Christian freedoms”, the Guardian attempts to marry together [pun intended] two
issues that don’t really gel with each other: Christian protests against gay
marriage, and the severe persecution experienced by Christians in other countries.
A summary of the article’s message is that severe persecution of
Christians overseas means Christians in the UK should not complain about the
lesser problems in their own country (specifically, about gay marriage). But
once again, the article makes no attempt at balance; nowhere are Christian
views or opinions on gay marriage described or even alluded to. Instead, the
article says, “In the West we privilege
conflicting but broadly liberal values. We no longer privilege the authority of
the Bible.” In other words, there’s no need to present opposing viewpoints because
they have already been rejected in favour of our ‘privileged’ view.
Let’s think about that last
quote a bit more. In the previous article, the Guardian wanted the Government
to change policy to avoid upsetting those who disagreed. In this article, those
whose consciences compel them to disagree with some policy “must still behave
as if it were true.” In the last article, the Guardian was all for human
rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. In this article,
they explicitly oppose freedom of conscience (for Christian-run businesses). They
do grant that freedom of speech makes things “complicated”, but once again this
happens near the end of the article where they make a half-hearted nod towards
acknowledging their opponents’ rights. And since when did the Guardian have the
right to tell Christians how they should act? According to this quote, it’s since
the majority of society (allegedly) agreed with them.
As for Christians themselves, their concerns about marginalisation in
the UK are described as “hysterical”, “morally distasteful” and “groundless”; their
beliefs are “mistaken”; and their evangelism may be “obnoxious and
embarrassing”. And the final sentence makes it clear that the Guardian regards only societies that support gay marriage as being “civilised”.
So the article follows the same tone as the others. The
message is, there is only one way to think, and that’s our way. Those who think
differently are belittled and insulted. Opposing arguments are only ever
referred to towards the end of the article, and are then given such faint praise
that they might as well be damned.
The
Guardian and … the dictionary
There was a TV commercial some years ago. It first showed a
street scene filmed from one angle, with a businessman walking along the
street, past a scaffolding pole, oblivious to the world around him. Then it
showed the same scene filmed from in front of the businessman, and it was
possible to see a skinhead racing towards him from behind with apparent
aggression. Then there was a cut to a third, wide angle, which showed the
skinhead grab the businessman and throw him sideways to save him from a pile of
bricks falling from the scaffolding above.
The message of the commercial was that, to truly understand the world, you need
to see things from more than one angle. With supreme irony, the commercial was
for the Guardian … because seeing the world from more than one angle is exactly
what the Guardian has now departed from.
So how can the Guardian’s current approach, epitomised in the articles above, be summed up? Let’s look at the dictionary
definitions of four words:
·
“Bigoted”: Obstinately
or unreasonably
attached
to a belief,
opinion
or faction,
and intolerant
towards other people’s beliefs
and practices.
The Guardian is certainly intolerant toward other people’s beliefs or
practices. It is also clearly very attached to a set of beliefs or opinions. If
we can decide that they are ‘obstinate’ from the frequency with which such
one-view-only articles appear, then I think it’s fair to describe the Guardian
as “bigoted.”
·
“Totalitarian”:
Relating to a system of government that is centralised and dictatorial and
requires complete subservience to the State; or, a person advocating a
totalitarian system of government.
It
could be argued that the Guardian is indeed being dictatorial. But it is a
newspaper, not a government, and it doesn’t appear to be advocating a
totalitarian system of government; so this word is not an appropriate
description.
·
“Propaganda”: Information, especially of
a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of
view.
I
think it’s fair to describe the articles I’ve examined as biased, and
occasionally misleading too. And they are definitely being used to promote a
point of view. So it is fair to describe these articles as “propaganda”.
·
“Extremist”: A person who holds extreme
political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent or
other extreme action.
There is no evidence to show that that the Guardian’s political views are
extreme, nor that they are advocating anything illegal. So this term shouldn’t
be applied.
The Guardian and … you
So my conclusion is this: the
Guardian, far from presenting multiple viewpoints on the world like it once
claimed to, is now publishing bigoted propaganda.
And I have a question, particularly for my Christian friends who read the
Guardian (though some of it applies to other friends too): Why? Why on earth do
you read this stuff? Why do you spend the money that God has supplied you with
to support a newspaper that describes some of your Christian views as “hysterical,
morally distasteful, groundless and mistaken”? Other news sources are
available.
And why do you let your head be filled with bigoted propaganda, when the Bible
encourages you to think on what is pure and holy and right and honourable? I
have my own story to tell on this. In 1996, I dumped my television, on the
basis of a passing comment I heard in a church sermon which really stuck in my
mind. Giving away my telly was one of the best things I have ever done. Yes, I
missed it, particularly for Saturday afternoon sport, and yes, I chose to
replace it (to some extent) by listening to sport on the radio; by watching
occasional programmes on BBC IPlayer; and by going to the cinema fairly often.
But after a while, I realised that the TV was, consciously or otherwise,
telling me how to think. It was telling me that the Big Reveal at the end of
whatever show I was watching was really important. It was telling me that this
or that show was displaying real life, except that people got
murdered/attacked/yelled at/fell in love more often, and no-one ever went to
the toilet. It was telling me that the
importance of a news item was determined by how many minutes the item got in
the news bulletin, and the order in which it appeared. And it very rarely told
me that my Christian faith had any value at all.
As the years have passed (I never did buy another TV), my priorities have
shifted away from what TV tells me is important towards (I hope) what God tells
me is important. I still follow the news; I just follow it from different
sources, and more selectively. It does help that I have been on the Internet
since 1986, and therefore able to read news online since the earliest days of online
newspapers.
So my message, particularly to my Christian friends, is this: Why are you
reading the Guardian? What would happen if you gave up reading it and got your
news from other sources? Because that’s what I’m recommending.
And
finally …
Finally, I want to answer
some objections that folk might raise to the idea of stopping reading The
Guardian:
·
I don’t pay to
support the Guardian, I read it online for free.
o
You’re still
supporting it through pay-per-click advertising. And you’re still letting
bigoted propaganda into your head, where it can affect your thoughts and
feelings. Is this wise?
·
Your conclusions
are only based on a couple of articles – that’s unfair.
o
This argument
assumes that most other the articles in the Guardian are well-balanced and
offer alternative points of view. I would be very surprised if that was true,
but I’m not going to claim that I have surveyed all articles in the Guardian to
check. But even if this was true, the articles that I have quoted – and
particularly the one about Christianity – would be enough for me to consider
quitting reading that newspaper. When the Guardian publishes an apology to
Christians for the way it has described us, let me know, and I’ll re-consider.
(Hell might freeze over first, if the Guardian even believes in Hell …)
·
Why do you
criticise the Guardian for writing bigoted propaganda when the Daily [whatever]
is just as bad or worse?
o
Well, don’t read
that newspaper either, then!
·
I want to read a
broadsheet newspaper, and the Guardian is the only one whose website is
available for free.
o
Other free
sources of news are available. For UK news, I’d suggest the BBC website; it’s
not perfectly balanced, but it’s very much better than reading bigoted
propaganda.
As for world news, you’re spoilt for choice. Personally, I check BBC World
News, which has good coverage, and USA Today, which is perhaps the most
balanced newspaper I’ve read. But if you really want multiple angles on an
issue, why not try other countries’ English language news services (e.g. France
24, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera) or newspapers (from the Australian to the
Jerusalem Post).
·
I read the
Guardian because my parents did/do
o
For Christian
friends: you know that Bible verse where Jesus talks about leaving behind
father/mother/family for His sake? I think he could well have been talking
about leaving behind family traditions if they hold you back from following
Him…
·
I actually buy
the Guardian because it gives the best sports coverage for my favourite sport
o
Other sources of
sports news are available … very many of them, in fact, online or on TV or
radio.
·
I actually buy
the Guardian because I like its crosswords the best
o
So buy a book of
Guardian crosswords and save yourself some money and more.
References
Here are links to the three
articles I have referred to above:
