It was quite the flounce. “This is something we have been considering for a while,” The Guardian intoned with the gravity of an Old Testament prophet as it declared in an editorial that the organization would no longer post on X. “The U.S. presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.”
Other users have followed suit, with an exodus of accounts from X to Bluesky, a social media platform that resembles in style the pre-Musk Twitter. Taylor Swift fans are flocking in their thousands, and former CNN anchor Don Lemon posted a lengthy statement outlining his own reasons for relocating. Even the official account of the Clifton Suspension Bridge and Museum in the United Kingdom posted a similar statement, which has led to candlelit vigils and a mass outpouring of public grief.
After The Guardian’s announcement, many users were quick to point out that misinformation, far from being the publication’s chief concern, appears to be its specialty. Since Musk has introduced “Community Notes” to X, journalists who post falsehoods or misleading articles have quickly been corrected. Inevitably, The Guardian has been slapped with Community Notes on numerous occasions, which might help explain its decision to withdraw. On its website, The Guardian proudly boasts that it “delivers fearless, investigative journalism—giving a voice to the powerless and holding power to account.” But whether its executives admit it or not, the publication has developed a reputation for extreme ideological bias.
The frequent “Community-Noting” on X suggests that this reputation is not unfounded. For instance, when The Guardian posted a piece entitled “England Riots: How Has ‘Two-Tier Policing’ Myth Become Widespread?,” notes were quickly added to provide links to the various articles in which The Guardian has asserted that “two-tier policing” based on race and sexuality is rife. When it published an article entitled “How Many More Children like Sara Sharif Will Be Killed Before Smacking Is Banned?,” the Community Notes quickly explained that the victim had not merely been “smacked,” but had suffered extreme beatings and multiple forms of torture. All such hideous acts are, of course, already illegal.
The political theorist Patrick J. Deneen has argued that ideology always fails because once its inherent “falsehoods become more evident, the gap grows between what the ideology claims and the lived experience of human beings under its domain.” Those currently scurrying away from X are effectively retreating from the battlefield of ideas envisaged by John Milton in his Areopagitica (1644) in which Truth and Falsehood are seen as antagonists. “Let her and Falsehood grapple,” he wrote; “who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”
I was the subject of The Guardian’s misinformation tactics only the other week. Reporting on a short course on the “woke” movement that I will soon be teaching at the New College of Florida, The Guardian described me as a “controversial British media personality and culture warrior.” It is, of course, entirely predictable that culture warriors would brand their critics as “culture warriors,” but quite how my consistent defense of liberal values is “controversial” is anyone’s guess.
The article’s author, Jason Wilson, went on to claim that I am guilty of “courting right-wing opinion” because I have been interviewed by Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson. I have also appeared on shows hosted by left-wing commentators such as Hugo Rifkind and George Galloway, but thus far I have not been accused of “courting left-wing opinion.” Perhaps Wilson is simply unfamiliar with the concept of engaging in dialogue with people of opposing views?
Wilson further claimed that the course at the New College of Florida had been “reinstated,” which is odd given that it had never been canceled in the first place. But the most egregious factual inaccuracy came when Wilson, in pointing out that I have written for Spiked, described the magazine as “hard-right.” Spiked began its existence as Living Marxism, and has consistently supported free speech and the values of democracy and liberal immigration policies, while vehemently opposing all forms of racism and white nationalism. Mislabeling Spiked as “hard-right” is either outright dishonesty or staggering ignorance. It’s what happens when journalistic standards are subordinated to propaganda.
The crowning moment of Wilson’s inadvertent self-satire was when he admitted, in light of my forthcoming course on the “woke movement,” that he had been actively searching for nonprofit organizations that might qualify as members. He writes—and I am not making this up—“The Guardian’s search of IRS nonprofit records indicate that while there are some 20 nonprofits with the word woke in their names, none have reported any income in their most recent filings, and most appear to be inactive.” Wilson genuinely seems to believe that one can only subscribe to an ideology if it is registered with the government and has applied for tax exemptions. This is a species of literal-mindedness so colossal that it must surely be eligible for some kind of award.
On reflection, I got off lightly. A far more egregious example of The Guardian’s mendacity was the controversy over the Wi Spa in Los Angeles in 2021. A video of a woman who calls herself “Cubana Angel” on Instagram was posted online, in which she could be seen complaining to the staff about a naked man in the women’s Jacuzzi area. The man in question, Darren Agee Merager, was a registered sex offender with previous convictions for indecent exposure, and it was alleged that the complainant at the Wi Spa had seen him semi-erect. “So it’s okay for a man to go into the women’s section, show his penis around the other women, young little girls—underage—in your spa?” she had said to staff, who defended his right to be there on the grounds of self-identification.
Josephine Bartosch outlined the sequence of events in an article for The Critic. After the video went viral, protests outside the spa were organized by women’s rights campaigners. These were quickly smeared as “far-right” and mobbed by so-called “anti-fascist” protesters. The Guardian, having spent years promoting the notion that womanhood is an identity category rather than a biological reality, and having faced allegations of driving female journalists from its staff for their gender-critical views, then produced two articles in quick succession that implied Cubana Angel’s complaints were a hoax. The writers claimed that the incident “provided clear evidence of the links between anti-trans and far-right movements,” while Guardian columnist Owen Jones called the entire incident a “campaign of lies.”
Even when it emerged that Merager had been charged for indecent exposure at the Wi Spa, The Guardian continued to conflate the female protesters with the far-right agitators who had turned up to exploit the situation. As Bartosch puts it, “For all The Guardian’s hand-wringing about #MeToo, when it comes to believing the women who complained about Merager’s crime, rather than ‘giving a voice to the powerless’ they pretended his victims didn’t exist. Women like Cubana Angel are ideological inconveniences.”
The combination of Musk’s successful Twitter bid and a forthcoming second term for Donald Trump has curdled many once-sensible minds. Those who were comfortable with the echo chamber that Twitter had formerly established, where users were routinely banned for pointing out that no human being has ever changed sex, are now looking for an alternative. It is the psychological equivalent of the “safe space” mentality, one which led Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy to establish a “Self-Care Suite” after Trump’s victory. Here students could isolate themselves and process their trauma by playing with Legos, drawing with crayons, and binging on milk and cookies.
And now we have the digital milk and cookies of Bluesky, where users can be shielded from the disorientation that occurs where plurality of opinion is permitted. Such online echo chambers are, of course, largely to blame for the escalation of political tribalism that we have seen in recent years, and also for the sense of shock that many experience when elections don’t go their way. While it is true that Musk has reinstated accounts on X that post some genuinely objectionable material, this is the price one pays for an open marketplace of ideas.
This desire to avoid any challenges to one’s ideological certainties is becoming more widespread, and there is a sense in which we are entering a new phase in the culture war. I am not celebrating the departure of activists to Bluesky, because I would rather hear their views and see them participate in these important debates. By insulating themselves from criticism, and seeking platforms where their misrepresentations will not be flagged, The Guardian and its ilk are doing themselves no favors. If they are serious about their goals, they should reconsider their resolution to speak only to those who will unquestioningly cheer them on. Those who withdraw from the debate stand no chance of winning it.
This piece has been reprinted from UnHerd, where it first was published. Andrew Doyle is a comedian and creator of the Twitter persona Titania McGrath. You can still follow him on X @andrewdoyle_com.
To support our mission of independent journalism, subscribe to The Free Press: