GUARDIAN Closes Comments Section On Immigration; Expresses Loathing Of Readers
Print Friendly and PDF
[See Also: John Derbyshire Says If There Is Hope, It Lies In The Comment Threads]

2015 was a breakthrough year for immigration patriots, both conservatives and what is sometimes called the #AltRight. As expected, 2016 is going to be a year of repression as the Left moves to simply prohibit discussion of the problems it has created.

It will start with the comment sections. The Guardian is moving to flat out prohibit comments on important issues, especially those that have to do with immigration.

Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

[The readers' editor on...handling comments below the lineby Stephen Pritchard, The Guardian, January 31, 2016]

Translation: Sometimes readers argue against journalists' shilling for more immigration. This should not be allowed. After all, free speech is already illegal in Great Britain.

What's especially amusing is this idea that fragile journalists' feelings need to be protected. As Raheem Kassam notes at Breitbart:

Ms. Hamilton herself has written: “the Guardian took the decision to cut down the number of places where we open comments on stories relating to a few contentious subjects – particularly migration and race. The aim isn’t to stop comments appearing at all, but rather to enable us to manage them more effectively, keep a closer watch on the conversation, feed back what’s being said, and make sure the discussion is constructive and not abusive. We hope it’ll help us to be responsible hosts, essentially.”

The paper probably doesn’t quite get the irony of claiming that “Comment is Free” while dictating on what terms its readership should be able to discuss a topic, but this hasn’t stopped Ms. Hamilton and Mr. Pritchard stomping all over C.P. Scott’s legacy. His is often quoted as having said “Comment is Free but Facts Are Sacred”, but the entire quote is as follows:

“A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

With its latest move, the Guardian is embracing its monopoly over its readership, especially in “what it does not give” – though in a growing market of news and opinion, it is a perhaps a false monopoly that will hasten the paper’s decline.

[Comment Isn't Free: Guardian to CLOSE Comments On Articles About 'Race, Immigration and Islam,' February 1, 2016]

It won't just be the comment sections. Rumors are already swirling that Twitter is preparing a massive purge of #AltRight and conservative accounts in order to turn its service into a giant liberal hugbox. They may have jumped the gun by removing the "verified" status for well known commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, promoting the #JeSuisMilo trend and ironically helping him gain thousands of followers.

But that's probably only a delay. Leftists have it wrong when they say "corporate media" is only interested in making money. It seems they are far more interested in controlling speech, propping up the politically correct Narrative, and punishing dissent.

Print Friendly and PDF