Rusbridger’s New Wig 143

Judging by his picture in today’s Guardian, Alan Rusbridger has invested in a new wig which plumbs new depths of unconvincingness, even by Rusbridger standards. He is moving past Donald Trump territory in the direction of Danny La Rue.

The great mortification of my own life is that Nadira insists upon dyeing my hair – there are evident cultural differences over the acceptability of the practice, to the extent that Nadir’s distress at a white-haired partner even exceeds my own shame and embarassment over the dyeing.

But what, you ask, does my or Rusbridger’s hair dishonesty have to do with our work or opinions? Nothing, really. But the Guardian seems to prize such pointless character assassination, like this from Polydor Airhead on Julian Assange:

But when Assange appears, he seems more like an in-patient than an interviewee, his opening words slow and hesitant, the voice so cracked as to be barely audible. If you have ever visited someone convalescing after a breakdown, his demeanour would be instantly recognisable. Admirers cast him as the new Jason Bourne, but in these first few minutes I worry he may be heading more towards Miss Havisham.

Which is an untrue description to the point of being an absolute lie. I have spent a lot more time, including insude the Ecuadorean Embassy, with Julian than Ms Airhead, and I can assure you that the most striking thing about Julian is he is very normal. Intelligent and interesting, but normal. These attempts to dehumanise him by portraying him as a weirdo are deeply sinister. It is also completely untrue that he does not meet many people in the Embassy. I am willing to bet he sees more visitors than Ms Airhead. And her speculation on who he is sleeping with is disgusting.

Rusbridger – a man more disgusting than his wig.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

143 thoughts on “Rusbridger’s New Wig

1 3 4 5
  • LeonardYoung

    What is most depressing is that many of my friends and acquaintances, while claiming to be liberal thinkers, hold on to the notion that the Guardian is the same newspaper they read several decades ago when it was the Manchester Guardian. Some of those same people still believe that new labour is a party of the middle left.

    These are not entirely stupid people, but they find the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of what traditional media has become – a funnel through which corporate and other vested interests pour.

    I was shocked, even knowing the Guardian’s descent into dreadful journalism, at the ungracious and bitter acknowledgement of Manning’s win, with its perfectly clear assertion that the vote was somehow rigged. Sour grapes all round.

    Looking at the comments beneath that piece on Manning, I am even more shocked at the attitudes of what are supposed to be intelligent readers who appear staggeringly obedient to the rubbish they have been fed about Assange, Manning or anyone else who simply released information much of which should have been in the public domain in the first place.

    Apparently aware people who consider themselves liberal and fair, are actually expressing the view that the US’s appalling disregard for the rule of law and its own constitution is ok. Yet Manning’s treatment IS torture.

    I despair. The marginalisation of this website and many other internet resources for decent information outside of the mainstream has lead to a parallel universe of information streams. The former is aware of the latter, but the latter ignores the former. I never thought I would reach the point where even the Daily Mail (in some reports) is giving me better, less biased information than the Guardian!

  • Moniker

    Don’t despair – the fact that Bradley Manning did win the poll tells us that more people were aware of what is going on than were led by the nose to vote for the Guardian’s choice. Thousands, according to the sour grapes post, voted Manning. The Guardian thinks there are two camps – Guardian staff and loyal readers on the one hand and Wikileaks sympathisers on the other. It has not occurred to them, and so they cannot show you, that a lot of the people who buy (or as in my case used to buy) the Guardian are in the other camp, and desperately trying to show the Guardian team where they’ve gone wrong.

  • Arbed

    Mary, Leonard, Moniker – Hear, hear! Couldn’t agree with you more.

    Here’s an article that makes a good “anniversary” overview. Washington’s The Hill on 12 December 2010. Look how things were reported then on the extraordinary measures US officials were going to in their efforts to prosecute Wikileaks. Then read the comments beneath it for a contemporary view of how US citizens saw Wikileaks two years ago:

    Just goes to show how much of the US admin’s campaign to make it somehow acceptable to extradite Julian Assange for espionage has been waged through smears and vilification by its servile lackeys, the MSM press (especially the Guardian and New York Times, both furiously trying to avoid the same treatment for the same ‘crime’ themselves)

    Here’s another one. Not exactly two years ago, this one – it’s dated 15 December 2010 – but it’s brilliant. Adriana Huffington in the Huffington Post:

    “The Media Gets It Wrong on WikiLeaks: It’s About Broken Trust, Not Broken Condoms”

    Just following some of the excellent links Adriana includes in that article is an education all in itself.

    And here’s one dated 10 December 2010 from ABC News. It shows that Wikileaks lawyers were already hearing from US lawyers that an indictment was imminent (doesn’t actually specify it would be a sealed one, though). Also notable for the outrageous outright lies Claus Borgstrom, the Swedish state-paid legal ‘counsellor’ for the two women, was putting out in the press at the time. Anne Ardin and Sophie Wilen were Wikileaks employees? According to Claus Borgstrom, they were. Yeah, right… Look at what he says:

    “They were attacked by Mr. Assange and then they are treated like perpetrators themselves,” attorney Claes Borgstrom told ABC News. “He has molested them and then sacrificed them for his own interests.”

    I know that Borgstrom has been reported to the Swedish bar for making prejudicial statements in the press ahead of the never-gonna-happen-in-a-million-years “trial”, which is illegal under Swedish law, but that was in respect of similar statements Borgstrom made after Assange’s asylum was granted in August this year. I wonder if this statement to ABC News could be added to the report filed against Borgstrom?

    I’ve added this last link to the “Why I’m Convinced” thread, in the hope that someone from the Swedish Flashback forum will pick it up and maybe do something with it along those lines:

  • Dreoilin

    I’ve voted in that poll.
    If elected, I assume it would still give Assange no immunity from extradition to the U.S.

  • Jemand

    “If elected, I assume it would still give Assange no immunity from extradition to the U.S.”

    Correct, but Assange has no illusions about that. It would however put more political pressure on the US as it would force them into a situation of having to decide whether to bring charges against a sitting member of a democratic parliament, with all the potential and unexpected consequences of such action. How will other politicians feel about that, including American pollies? My concern is how Australian politicians will try to sabotage the democratic process that will see his election and participation.

  • Herbie

    The dead tree print media is on the way out economically and that’s a material change about which they can do little. They’ll just have to compete on the interwebby like everyone else.

    The only threat to that is govt legislation and/or if the majority of people passively use the internet in such a way that it mimics a broadcast medium.

    There’ll definitely be govt legislation to increase corporate power on the internet against the individual user and alliances of same. They’ll dress it up as protecting us from paedos, money laundering, terrorists or drugs as they always fdo. The reality is that we need protection only from govt, its agencies and corporates.

    I’m not convinced that most people will use the internet in other than a passive way, but live in hope.

    Anyway, Assange is definitely to be supported. He’s one of the few who leads the way in showing us how we can free ourselves using these new forms of communication.

    His enemies are our enemies, the corporates and government – the fascist state.

  • Villager

    LOL Pauline.

    Arbed, Thanks for that link to The Hill article. The comments thereto essentially by Americans were very reassuring. I wonder if there is a swing away from support to Assange since then. I’d welcome an overview from American contributors here…or any links thereto.

  • Arbed

    There’s been a request to “tell the world” about this one.

    The Swedish FOI site Undermattan and another blog specialising in leaks of Swedish Government malfeasance – – have both been abruptly closed down. Both are heavily pro-Assange and are venues where crucial information about the Swedish handling of the sex case against Assange has first emerged.

    Use Google translate on this page. It gives a list of the names and times of networks visiting the Undermattan site immediately prior to the closure. Very revealing:

    Here’s the explanation Undermattan received from its host to their enquiry as to why they’d been closed down. The answer was apparently that it was done at the behest of the Swedish Army Special Intelligence unit:


  • Fia

    Olga Khazan of the Washington Post seems confident that the US will have him “behind bars” by the time the Australian election takes place ( ):

    “Assange wouldn’t be the first person to run for public office from behind bars. For example, American union leader Eugene Debs won 3.4 percent of the vote in the 1920 presidential election while in jail on sedition charges in Atlanta.”

  • Mary

    Why especally in America?

    Massive New Surveillance Program Uncovered by Wall Street Journal
    By Ryan Gallagher
    Dec. 13, 201

    Did the surveillance industry in the US flow from 9/11 or is there some other explanation as to why the American people have allowed themselves to be so closely monitored.

    Here there is great resistance to Cameron and May’s plan to introduce the Communications Data Act yet we allow 800 CCTV cameras in a London borough such as Hammersmith and Fulham.

  • thatcrab

    Ill be looking out for the results of Nadias makeover of Craig. I am making preparations to go with the aging punk rockstar look, over the cliniquelle grand-droid.

  • thatcrab

    “is there some other explanation as to why the American people have allowed themselves to be so closely monitored. ”
    It is a technology so open to abuse because in locations where physical crimes might occur, it is (considered in isolation) so useful /marketable in practice.
    The development of communication networks, and the minaturisation of cameras and analysis computers, combine together to drive to be deployed widely in this role. Only regulation can hold them back.

  • MerkinOnParis

    Do The Rusbridger’s have matching wig stands?
    I think we should be told.

    What if they made a mistake after too much Christmas cheer?

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.