Guardian’s Julian Borger avoids reporting on most of Ahmadinejad’s UN speech


Imagine for a moment that a Western head of state (let’s say America) was also a follower of a messianic religious cult considered outlandish and cranky by the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Imagine – that whilst addressing the UN General Assembly’s opening session – that head of state launched into a prescription for the world’s ills based on that cult’s predictions, which included the arrival of a saviour brought about by world apocalypse.

In such a situation, would the Guardian’s next day commentary have been confined to “unusually esoteric”, or would a barrage of analysis and criticism have followed? 

“Unusually esoteric” was all Julian Borger could find to say about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Wednesday speech at the UN GA, although he did throw in a quote from a ‘European diplomat’ who found the address “incoherent and incredibly boring”. 

Mind you, Borger also heard only one reference to Israel in the speech (there are three direct ones) but that is perhaps to be expected from someone who also seems to have doubts regarding the interpretation of remarks made by the same speaker two days previously. 

“No American diplomats were in the chamber for Ahmadinejad’s speech because of what Washington viewed as offensive remarks the Iranian leader had made about Israel earlier in the week.” [emphasis added]

The messianic rant (not his first) on the subject of the coming of the Mahdi, or Hidden Twelfth Imam, which closed Ahmadinejad’s speech does not even get a mention from Borger. It is difficult to imagine that the same would have been the case were Ahmadinejad the leader of a Western country.

And that in itself says an awful lot about the self-censorship arising from double standards of cultural relativity, as employed by Guardian writers in general and frequent writer on Iran Julian Borger in particular.  

23 comments on “Guardian’s Julian Borger avoids reporting on most of Ahmadinejad’s UN speech

  1. We don’t have to imagine what the Guardian in its infinite and boundless wisdom would say- it has already made disparaging remarks about Romney’s Mormonism and he hasn’t even been elected yet. Best get your retaliation in first!

  2. ‘Economical with the truth’, is such a useful phrase, doncha think?

    Slightly OT – I listened to Jeremy Bowen on the BBC reporting on yet more problems in Israel / Palestinian Authority earlier in the week. Guess who he DIDN’T mention?

    Hint – it starts with a P.

    Apparently most of the problems are only the responsibility of one party.

    • You mean Al-Guardian being true to form/Dhimmitude {delate as apropiate} forgot about the endemic corruption cronism and incompetence that is rife within the palestinian authority ???

  3. I see Ahmadinejad’s speech also contained a call to reveal “the truth behind” the First and Second World Wars.
    I wonder what he’s thinking there.

  4. Of course they didn’t report it. It wasn’t particularly newsworthy. The Guardian isn’t your personal propaganda machine, fortunately.

    Grow up.

    • I agree with you Alex. The Guardian is the propaganda machine of Hamas, Ahmadinejad and any available fascist dictatorial regime who are against democracy, western values and especially against Israel. Why should be newsworthy the delirious rantings of a leader at the UN whose goal is to build nuclear weapon?

    • I have to say, while I disagree with Alex’s tone, I agree that the criticism of Borger’s article is unmerited. He gives Ahmedinejad’s speech short shrift and the article leaves me with the impression that it was merely the aimless, paranoid ramblings of a self-obsessed loner on the fringes of UN society and who was roundly ignored by the GA. That sounds like a good result to me.

      I would much rather that than have his speech widely quoted and analysed, giving him the oxygen of publicity.

Comments are closed.