This is a particularly nice piece of Guardian anti-Russia propaganda. It is in an article about Putin’s comments at a business forum in St. Petersburg:
“If the information about the Democratic party favouring Clinton was true, is it really important who leaked it?” he [Putin] asked, echoing his previous statements on Russian hacking.
That it (the DNC hacks) was “Russian hacking” is of course assumed by the Guardian. Even in a piece when, according to the Guardian, the Russian President said that the hacking was not the work of Russian intelligence the Guardian can’t even manage the basic journalistic formality of presenting the view of Western intelligence as just that – a view (or claim). This is a tiny but endlessly repeated example of how the Guardian propagandaises for the American deep state. What they claim is de facto “true”. What Putin says is false even as he says it.
What is strange about the Guardian’s automatic echoing of US State Department and intelligence briefings is that they don’t need to do it. There is nothing in the rulebook of journalism which says you can’t take a view. They could certainly report on the claims made by each side in a balanced way (the reportage bit) and then make it very clear that they believed the weight of evidence lies on one side. But the challenge perhaps is that the second part of this would involve journalistic investigation – and they either don’t have the will or perhaps they lack the resources to do this. So; they just skip the investigation and muddle up the reportage (who said what) and what they present as objective facts (as in the object exists in reality) in an attempt to gloss over the lack of investigation. This creates the kind of narrative style of ‘journalism’ we get in the West; 90% made up narrative and 10% facts. This approach also allows RT to mischievously start ‘Twitter’ posts with the hashtag #NoFactsGiven. If the Guardian doesn’t have the will or the resources to do the investigation part then good journalism should tell them they should simply stick to the reportage and leave the claims for an opinion column. It is bad faith to present the claims of a single partisan source as established news fact. And, ironically, it is this bad faith which creates the space in which RT can go #NoFactsGiven.
We can add that the report concerns the Russian President taking questions at an open forum in Russia from a US anchor – on a wide range of challenging topics. We may have to wait a while for the US or UK Presidents to be so open.