The Guardian Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ===Since 2000=== [[File:Canciller Ricardo Patiño ofrece entrevista al diario “The Guardian”.jpg|thumb|''The Guardian'' senior news writer Esther Addley interviewing Ecuadorian foreign minister [[Ricardo Patiño]] for an article relating to [[Julian Assange]] in 2014]] In the early 2000s, ''The Guardian'' challenged the [[Act of Settlement 1701]] and the [[Treason Felony Act 1848]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy.claredyer |title=A challenge to the crown: now is the time for change |work=The Guardian |date=6 December 2000 |location=London |last=Dyer |first=Clare |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=28 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228131614/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy.claredyer |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/dec/07/monarchy.politicalnews |title=Broad welcome for debate on monarchy |work=The Guardian |date=7 December 2000 |location=London |last=Watt |first=Nicholas |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=19 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160719071844/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/dec/07/monarchy.politicalnews |url-status=live }}</ref> In October 2004, ''The Guardian'' published a humorous column by [[Charlie Brooker]] in its entertainment guide, the final sentence of which was viewed by some as a call for violence against U.S. President [[George W. Bush]]; after a controversy, Brooker and the paper issued an apology, saying the "closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/24/tvandradio.theguide |title=Screen Burn, The Guide |work=The Guardian |date=24 October 2004 |location=London |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=10 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510175217/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/oct/24/tvandradio.theguide |url-status=live }}</ref> Following the [[7 July 2005 London bombings]], ''The Guardian'' published an article on its comment pages by [[Dilpazier Aslam]], a 27-year-old British Muslim and journalism trainee from [[Yorkshire]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/13/religion.july7 |title=We rock the boat |work=The Guardian |date=13 July 2005 |location=London |last=Aslam |first=Dilpazier |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=20 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220220124/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/13/religion.july7 |url-status=live }}</ref> Aslam was a member of [[Hizb ut-Tahrir]], an [[Islamist]] group, and had published a number of articles on their website. According to the newspaper, it did not know that Aslam was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir when he applied to become a trainee, though several staff members were informed of this once he started at the paper.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jul/22/theguardian.pressandpublishing1 |title=Background: The Guardian and Dilpazier Aslam |work=MediaGuardian |date=22 July 2005 |location=London |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=5 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305021808/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jul/22/theguardian.pressandpublishing1 |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Home Office]] said that the group's "ultimate aim is the establishment of an Islamic state (Caliphate), according to Hizb ut-Tahrir via non-violent means". ''The Guardian'' asked Aslam to resign his membership of the group and, when he did not do so, terminated his employment.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jul/22/theguardian.pressandpublishing |title=Dilpazier Aslam leaves Guardian |work=MediaGuardian |date=22 July 2005 |last=Busfield |first=Steve |location=London |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=21 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221161529/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jul/22/theguardian.pressandpublishing |url-status=live }}</ref> In early 2009, ''The Guardian'' started a tax investigation into a number of major UK companies,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/series/tax-gap |title=Tax Gap |work=The Guardian |location=UK |date=6 February 2009 |access-date=28 July 2009 |archive-date=4 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140304202621/http://www.theguardian.com/business/series/tax-gap |url-status=live }}</ref> including publishing a database of the tax paid by the [[FTSE 100]] companies.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/interactive/2009/feb/02/tax-database |title=Big business: what they make, what they pay |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=2 February 2009 |access-date=25 May 2010 |archive-date=4 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140304202619/http://www.theguardian.com/business/interactive/2009/feb/02/tax-database |url-status=live }}</ref> Internal documents relating to [[Barclays Bank]]'s [[tax avoidance]] were removed from ''The Guardian'' website after Barclays obtained a [[gagging order]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/mar/19/barclays-tax-guardian-injunction|title=Guardian loses legal challenge over Barclays documents gagging order|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=19 March 2009|last1=Jones|first1=Sam|author2=David Leigh|publisher=Guardian News and Media|author2-link=David Leigh (journalist)|access-date=13 December 2016|archive-date=10 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510172452/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/mar/19/barclays-tax-guardian-injunction|url-status=live}}</ref> The newspaper played a pivotal role in exposing the depth of the [[News of the World phone hacking affair|''News of the World'' phone hacking affair]]. ''[[The Economist]]''{{'s}} ''[[Intelligent Life (magazine)|Intelligent Life]]'' magazine opined that: {{cquote|As [[Watergate scandal|Watergate]] is to the ''[[The Washington Post|Washington Post]]'', and [[thalidomide]] to the ''[[The Sunday Times|Sunday Times]]'', so [[News International phone hacking scandal|phone-hacking]] will surely be to ''The Guardian'': a defining moment in its history.<ref>{{cite news|title=Can The Guardian survive?|url=http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/can-guardian-survive|newspaper=Intelligent Life|date=July–August 2012|access-date=20 June 2012|archive-date=19 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819142430/http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/can-guardian-survive|url-status=dead}}</ref>}} ====Israeli-Palestinian conflict coverage==== In recent decades, ''The Guardian'' has been accused of biased [[criticism of the Israeli government|criticism of Israeli government policy]]<ref name="Sela">{{cite journal|last1=Sela|first1=Hadar|date=June 2010|title=Anti-Zionist and Antisemitic Discourse on ''The Guardian''{{'}}s "Comment Is Free" Website|url=http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2010/06/sela.html|url-status=dead|journal=[[Middle East Review of International Affairs]]|volume=14|issue=2|pages=31–37|issn=1565-8996|id={{ProQuest|816331031}}|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100713075059/http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2010/06/sela.html|archive-date=13 July 2010}}</ref> and of bias against the Palestinians.<ref>Ponsford, Dominic (12 August 2014), [http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-accused-pro-israel-bias-after-carrying-child-sacrifice-ad-rejected-times/ "Guardian accused of pro-Israel bias after carrying 'child sacrifice' ad rejected by The Times"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170207112525/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-accused-pro-israel-bias-after-carrying-child-sacrifice-ad-rejected-times/ |date=7 February 2017 }}, ''PressGazette''.</ref> In December 2003, columnist [[Julie Burchill]] cited "striking bias against the state of Israel" as one of the reasons she left the paper for ''The Times''.<ref>{{cite news|last=Burchill|first=Julie|author-link=Julie Burchill|date=29 November 2003|title=Good, bad and ugly|work=The Guardian|location=London|url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/nov/29/weekend.julieburchill|access-date=13 December 2016|archive-date=22 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722183248/https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/nov/29/weekend.julieburchill|url-status=live}}</ref> Responding to these accusations, a ''Guardian'' editorial in 2002 condemned antisemitism and defended the paper's right to criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli government, arguing that those who view such criticism as inherently anti-Jewish are mistaken.<ref>{{cite news|date=26 January 2002|title=Leader: A new anti-semitism?|work=The Guardian|location=London|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/26/israel.guardianleaders|access-date=25 January 2010|archive-date=25 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130825234218/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jan/26/israel.guardianleaders|url-status=live}}</ref> Harriet Sherwood, then ''The Guardian''{{'s}} foreign editor, later its Jerusalem correspondent, has also denied that ''The Guardian'' has an anti-Israel bias, saying that the paper aims to cover all viewpoints in the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]].<ref>{{cite news|title=News coverage|work=The Guardian|location=London|url=https://www.theguardian.com/values/socialaudit/story/0,,1931208,00.html|access-date=25 May 2010|archive-date=25 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140825080739/http://www.theguardian.com/values/socialaudit/story/0,,1931208,00.html|url-status=live}}</ref> On 6 November 2011, Chris Elliott, ''The Guardian''{{'}}s readers' editor, wrote that "''Guardian'' reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel", citing recent cases where ''The Guardian'' received complaints regarding language chosen to describe Jews or Israel. Elliott noted that, over nine months, he upheld complaints regarding language in certain articles that were seen as anti-Semitic, revising the language and footnoting this change.<ref name="Elliott responds">{{cite web|author=Elliott, Chris|date=6 November 2011|title=The readers' editor on ... averting accusations of antisemitism|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian|access-date=3 October 2012|work=The Guardian|archive-date=1 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131001054553/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/06/averting-accusations-of-antisemitism-guardian|url-status=live}}</ref> ''The Guardian''{{'}}s style guide section referred to [[Tel Aviv]] as the capital of Israel in 2012. In 2012, media watchdog [[HonestReporting]] filed a complaint with the [[Press Complaints Commission]] (PCC) after ''The Guardian'' ran a correction apologizing for "wrongly" having called Jerusalem as Israel's capital. After an initial ruling supporting ''The Guardian'', the PCC retracted its original ruling, leading to the newspaper's acknowledgement that it was wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel's capital.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Guardian seeks to revise history|url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155043|first=Rachel|last=Hirshfeld|access-date=16 October 2014|work=Arutz Sheva|date=23 April 2012|archive-date=6 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006073541/http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155043|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|editor=Corrections and clarifications column|date=22 April 2012|title=Corrections and clarifications | News|url=https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/apr/22/corrections-and-clarifications|access-date=6 March 2016|newspaper=The Guardian|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001345/http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/apr/22/corrections-and-clarifications|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Ahern |first1=Raphael |title=Guardian: We were wrong to call Tel Aviv Israel's capital |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/guardian-admits-we-were-wrong-in-calling-tel-aviv-israels-capital/ |access-date=29 February 2024 |work=[[Times of Israel]] |date=2012-08-08 |archive-date=29 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229022216/https://www.timesofisrael.com/guardian-admits-we-were-wrong-in-calling-tel-aviv-israels-capital/ |url-status=live }}</ref>''The Guardian'' later clarified: "In 1980, the Israeli Knesset enacted a law designating the city of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, as the country's capital. In response, the UN security council issued resolution 478, censuring the "change in character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem" and calling on all member states with diplomatic missions in the city to withdraw. The UN has reaffirmed this position on several occasions, and almost every country now has its embassy in Tel Aviv. While it was therefore right to issue a correction to make clear Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital is not recognised by the international community, we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country's financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital. The style guide has been amended accordingly."<ref name="Guardian retract">{{cite web|date=7 August 2012|title=Corrections and clarifications|url=https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/aug/07/corrections-and-clarifications|access-date=29 July 2015|work=The Guardian|archive-date=18 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150718175454/http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/aug/07/corrections-and-clarifications|url-status=live}}</ref> On 11 August 2014 the print edition of ''The Guardian'' published a pro-Israeli advocacy advert during the [[2014 Israel–Gaza conflict]] featuring [[Elie Wiesel]], headed by the words "Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it's Hamas' turn." ''The Times'' had decided against running the ad, although it had already appeared in major American newspapers.<ref>{{cite web|first=Meredith|last=Carey|date=7 August 2014|title=The Guardian Accepts Elie Wiesel's Rejected London Times Advertisement – Observer|url=http://observer.com/2014/08/exclusive-the-guardian-accepts-the-elie-weisel-ad-rejected-by-london-times/|access-date=24 March 2016|work=Observer|archive-date=30 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160330082408/http://observer.com/2014/08/exclusive-the-guardian-accepts-the-elie-weisel-ad-rejected-by-london-times/|url-status=live}}</ref> One week later, Chris Elliott expressed the opinion that the newspaper should have rejected the language used in the advert and should have negotiated with the advertiser on this matter.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Elliott|first1=Chris|date=18 August 2014|title=The readers' editor on... the decision to run This World's advertisement|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/readers-editor-decision-this-world-advertisement|access-date=22 August 2014|website=[[theguardian.com]]|archive-date=21 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140821205527/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/readers-editor-decision-this-world-advertisement|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 2023, ''The Guardian'' stated it would not renew the contract of cartoonist [[Steve Bell (cartoonist)|Steve Bell]] after he submitted a cartoon featuring Netanyahu, with his shirt open, wearing boxing gloves and holding a scalpel over a dotted shape of the [[Gaza Strip]] on his stomach. The caption read: "Residents of Gaza, get out now." Due to what has been seen by some as a reference to Shakespeare's [[Shylock]]'s "pound of flesh", it prompted accusations that it was antisemitic.<ref>{{cite news |last=Warrington |first=James |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/ |title=Guardian cartoonist sacked over 'anti-Semitic' Netanyahu drawing |work=The Telegraph |date=15 October 2023 |access-date=16 October 2023 |archive-date=15 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231015212014/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Bell said that he was inspired by the 1960s "Johnson's Scar" cartoon by [[David Levine]] of U.S. president [[Lyndon B Johnson]] within the context of the [[Vietnam War]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-10-16 |title=Steve Bell sacked by Guardian in antisemitism row over Netanyahu cartoon |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67122609 |access-date=2023-10-17 |archive-date=8 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240208150745/https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67122609 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://hti.osu.edu/opper/lesson-plans/cold-war-conflict-in-vietnam-the-vietnam-era-presidency/images/johnsons-scar|title=Johnson's Scar|website=Ohio State University|access-date=21 March 2024|archive-date=8 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240108042404/https://hti.osu.edu/opper/lesson-plans/cold-war-conflict-in-vietnam-the-vietnam-era-presidency/images/johnsons-scar|url-status=live}}</ref> ====Clark County==== In August 2004, for the [[2004 United States presidential election|US presidential election]], the daily ''G2'' supplement launched an experimental letter-writing campaign in [[Clark County, Ohio]], an average-sized county in a [[swing state]]. Editor [[Ian Katz]] bought a voter list from the county for $25 and asked readers to write to people listed as undecided in the election, giving them an impression of the international view and the importance of voting against President George W. Bush.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=skbsPn2huuUC&pg=PA170|title=Clark County|publisher=epubli|language=en|access-date=23 August 2020|archive-date=21 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121073110/https://books.google.com/books?id=skbsPn2huuUC&pg=PA170|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Circular reference|date=November 2020}} Katz admitted later that he did not believe Democrats who warned that the campaign would benefit Bush and not opponent [[John Kerry]].<ref name="rennie20041022">{{Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1474828/Guardian-calls-it-quits-in-Clark-County-fiasco.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1474828/Guardian-calls-it-quits-in-Clark-County-fiasco.html |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Guardian calls it quits in Clark County fiasco |last=Rennie |first=David |date=21 October 2004 |work=The Telegraph |access-date=29 July 2019 |language=en-GB |issn=0307-1235}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The newspaper scrapped "Operation Clark County" on 21 October 2004 after first publishing a column of responses—nearly all of them outraged—to the campaign under the headline "Dear Limey assholes".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/18/uselections2004.usa2|title=Dear Limey assholes|access-date=13 May 2008|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=18 October 2004|archive-date=28 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828090159/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/18/uselections2004.usa2|url-status=live}}</ref> Some commentators suggested that the public's dislike of the campaign contributed to Bush's victory in Clark County.<ref name="bowers">{{cite web |last=Bowers |first=Andy |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/11/dear_limey_assholes_.html |title=A crazy British plot to help Kerry |publisher=Slate |date=4 November 2004 |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065354/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/11/dear_limey_assholes_.html |url-status=live }}</ref> ====''Guardian America'' and ''Guardian US''==== In 2007, the paper launched ''Guardian America'', an attempt to capitalise on its large online readership in the United States, which at the time stood at more than 5.9 million. The company hired former ''[[American Prospect]]'' editor, ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine columnist and ''[[New York Review of Books]]'' writer [[Michael Tomasky]] to head the project and hire a staff of American reporters and web editors. The site featured news from ''The Guardian'' that was relevant to an American audience: coverage of US news and the Middle East, for example.<ref>{{cite web |first=Leon |last=Neyfakh |url=http://observer.com/2007/09/iguardiani-reclaims-america/ |title=Guardian Reclaims America |website=Observer |date=5 September 2007 |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=10 April 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160410013556/http://observer.com/2007/09/iguardiani-reclaims-america/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Tomasky stepped down from his position as editor of ''Guardian America'' in February 2009, ceding editing and planning duties to other US and London staff. He retained his position as a columnist and blogger, taking the title editor-at-large.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/18/michael-tomasky-editor-democracy|title=Michael Tomasky joins political journal Democracy|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=18 February 2009|last=Kiss|first=Jemima|publisher=Guardian News and Media|access-date=13 December 2016|archive-date=1 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101232654/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/feb/18/michael-tomasky-editor-democracy|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 2009, the company abandoned the ''Guardian America'' homepage, instead directing users to a US news index page on the main ''Guardian'' website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://paidcontent.org/2009/10/20/419-gnm-axing-guardianamerica-com-shuffling-execs-in-restructure/ |title=GNM Axing GuardianAmerica.com, Shuffling Execs in Restructure| access-date=11 August 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130624042418/http://paidcontent.org/2009/10/20/419-gnm-axing-guardianamerica-com-shuffling-execs-in-restructure/ |archive-date=24 June 2013}}</ref> The following month, the company laid off six American employees, including a reporter, a multimedia producer and four web editors. The move came as ''Guardian News and Media'' opted to reconsider its US strategy amid a huge effort to cut costs across the company.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://paidcontent.org/2009/11/06/419-guardian-news-and-media-laying-off-seven-employees-in-u-s/ |title=Guardian News And Media Laying Off Six Employees in U.S.|first=Rafat|last=Ali|access-date=11 August 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130624012953/http://paidcontent.org/2009/11/06/419-guardian-news-and-media-laying-off-seven-employees-in-u-s/ |archive-date=24 June 2013}}</ref> In subsequent years, however, ''The Guardian'' has hired various commentators on US affairs including [[Ana Marie Cox]], [[Michael Wolff (journalist)|Michael Wolff]], [[Naomi Wolf]], [[Glenn Greenwald]] and George W. Bush's former speechwriter [[Josh Treviño]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|date=26 August 2012|title=The Guardian Backtracks From a Bold Move in Hiring|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/business/media/guardian-backtracks-from-hiring-of-joshua-trevino.html|access-date=31 December 2020|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=7 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171207091118/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/business/media/guardian-backtracks-from-hiring-of-joshua-trevino.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Treviño">{{cite web |author=Guardian US |url=https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/9 |title=adds Josh Treviño to growing US team |work=The Guardian |date=15 August 2012 |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304120539/http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/9 |url-status=live }}</ref> Treviño's first blog post was an apology for a controversial tweet posted in June 2011 over the second Gaza flotilla, the controversy which had been revived by the appointment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/16/2011-gaza-flotilla-tweet-clarification?commentpage=all#start-of-comments|title=My 2011 Gaza flotilla tweet: a clarification|first=Joshua|last=Treviño|work=The Guardian|date=16 August 2012|access-date=16 October 2014|archive-date=20 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141020012322/http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/16/2011-gaza-flotilla-tweet-clarification?commentpage=all#start-of-comments|url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[Guardian US]]'' launched in September 2011, led by editor-in-chief [[Janine Gibson (journalist)|Janine Gibson]], which replaced the previous ''Guardian America'' service.<ref name="PressRel">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-unveils-us-url|title=Guardian unveils url for the US – guardiannews.com – as its new digital operation gets underway in New York |newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=22 July 2013|date=14 September 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019113929/https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-unveils-us-url |archive-date= Oct 19, 2013 }}</ref> After a period during which [[Katharine Viner]] served as the US editor-in-chief before taking charge of ''Guardian News and Media'' as a whole, Viner's former deputy, Lee Glendinning, was appointed to succeed her as head of the American operation at the beginning of June 2015.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jasper |last=Jackson |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/01/lee-glendinning-editor-guardian-us |title=Lee Glendinning appointed as editor of Guardian US | Media |work=The Guardian |date=1 June 2015 |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=5 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305042151/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/01/lee-glendinning-editor-guardian-us |url-status=live }}</ref> ====Gagged from reporting Parliament==== In October 2009, ''The Guardian'' reported that it was forbidden to report on a parliamentary matter – a question recorded in a Commons order paper, to be answered by a minister later that week.<ref>{{cite web |author=Table Office, House of Commons |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/cmob2.htm |title=Order Paper Part 2 |publisher=Publications.parliament.uk |date=12 November 2009 |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304221400/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/cmob2.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> The newspaper noted that it was being "forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented—for the first time in memory—from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret. The only fact ''The Guardian'' can report is that the case involves the London solicitors [[Carter-Ruck]]." The paper further claimed that this case appears "to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the [[Bill of Rights 1689|1689 Bill of Rights]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament|title=Guardian gagged from reporting parliament|work=The Guardian|location=London|date=12 October 2009|last=Leigh|first=David|publisher=Guardian News and Media|access-date=13 December 2016|archive-date=5 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005045156/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament|url-status=live}}</ref> The only parliamentary question mentioning Carter-Ruck in the relevant period was by [[Paul Farrelly]] MP, in reference to legal action by [[Barclays]] and [[Trafigura]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/91014o01.htm|title=Oral or Written Questions for Answer beginning on Wednesday 14 October 2009|work=UK Parliament|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091016113956/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/91014o01.htm|archive-date=16 October 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|work=Press Gazette|date=13 October 2009|title=Guardian gagged from reporting Parliament|url=http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/44460|publisher=Progressive Media International|location=London|first=Dominic|last=Ponsford|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513013753/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/44460|archive-date=13 May 2013}}</ref> The part of the question referencing Carter-Ruck relates to the latter company's September 2009 gagging order on the publication of a 2006 internal report<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006 |title=Minton report: Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006 |publisher=WikiLeaks |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=11 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011225104/https://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref> into the [[2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump]] scandal, which involved a [[class action]] case that the company only settled in September 2009 after ''The Guardian'' published some of the commodity trader's internal emails.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-ivory-coast |title=How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=16 September 2009 |last=Leigh |first=David |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=2 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202121632/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-ivory-coast |url-status=live }}</ref> The reporting injunction was lifted the next day, as Carter-Ruck withdrew it before ''The Guardian'' could challenge it in the High Court.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question |title=Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=13 October 2009 |last=Leigh |first=David |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=7 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407151912/http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Alan Rusbridger]] attributed the rapid back-down by Carter-Ruck to postings on [[Twitter]],<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/14/trafigura-fiasco-tears-up-textbook |title=The Trafigura fiasco tears up the textbook |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=14 October 2009 |access-date=25 January 2010 |last=Rusbridger |first=Alan |archive-date=16 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091016065630/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/14/trafigura-fiasco-tears-up-textbook |url-status=live}}</ref> as did a [[BBC News Online]] article.<ref>{{cite news |last=Higham |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Higham |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm |title=When is a secret not a secret? |date=13 October 2009 |access-date=25 January 2010 |work=BBC News |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121073122/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8304908.stm |url-status=live}}</ref> ====Edward Snowden leaks and intervention by the UK government==== In June 2013, the newspaper broke news of the secret collection of [[Verizon Communications|Verizon]] telephone records held by [[Barack Obama]]'s administration<ref name="reuters.com"/><ref>{{cite news|last1=Haughney|first1=Christine|last2=Cohen|first2=Noam|date=11 June 2013|title=Guardian Makes Waves, and Is Ready for More|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/business/guardian-reaps-benefits-from-nsa-scoop.html|access-date=31 December 2020|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=11 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111181508/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/business/guardian-reaps-benefits-from-nsa-scoop.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and subsequently revealed the existence of the [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]] after it was leaked to the paper by former [[National Security Agency|NSA]] contractor [[Edward Snowden]].<ref name="theguardian.com"/> ''The Guardian'' said a [[DSMA-Notice]] had been sent to editors and journalists on 7 June after the first ''Guardian'' story about the Snowden documents. It said the DSMA-Notice was being used as an "attempt to censor coverage of surveillance tactics employed by intelligence agencies in the UK and US".<ref name="pg190613">{{cite news |last1=Ponsford |first1=Dominic |title=Guardian spying revelations were in breach of DA-Notice guidance |url=https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-spying-revelations-were-in-breach-of-da-notice-guidance/ |access-date=9 November 2021 |work=Press Gazette |date=19 June 2013 |archive-date=9 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211109065555/https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-spying-revelations-were-in-breach-of-da-notice-guidance/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The newspaper was subsequently contacted by the British government's Cabinet Secretary, Sir [[Jeremy Heywood]], under instruction from Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister [[Nick Clegg]], who ordered that the hard drives containing the information be destroyed.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776063 |title=Edward Snowden files: No 10 contacted Guardian |publisher=BBC News |date=21 August 2013 |access-date=6 March 2016 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304125055/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23776063 |url-status=live }}</ref> ''The Guardian''{{'s}} offices were then visited in July by agents from the UK's [[Government Communications Headquarters|GCHQ]], who supervised the destruction of the hard drives containing information acquired from Snowden.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://media.theage.com.au/news/world-news/rusbridger-tells-of-hard-drive-destruction-4680075.html |title=Guardian's Alan Rusbridger tells of hard drive destruction | Video |publisher=Media.theage.com.au |date=21 August 2013 |access-date=6 March 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084018/http://media.theage.com.au/news/world-news/rusbridger-tells-of-hard-drive-destruction-4680075.html |archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> ''The Guardian'' said it had destroyed the hard drives to avoid threatened legal action by the UK government that could have stopped it from reporting on US and British government surveillance contained in the documents.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Borger |first1=Julian |title=NSA files: why The Guardian in London destroyed hard drives of leaked files |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london |access-date=10 August 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=20 August 2013 |language=en |archive-date=4 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204030346/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london |url-status=live }}</ref> In June 2014, ''[[The Register]]'' reported that the information the government sought to suppress by destroying the hard drives related to the location of a "beyond top secret" internet monitoring base in [[Seeb, Oman|Seeb]], Oman, and the close involvement of [[BT Group|BT]] and [[Cable & Wireless plc|Cable & Wireless]] in intercepting internet communications.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_secret_british_intelligence_middleeast_internet_spy_base |title=Revealed: GCHQ's beyond top secret middle eastern internet spy base |work=The Register |first=Duncan |last=Campbell |author-link=Duncan Campbell (journalist, born 1944) |date=3 June 2014 |access-date=16 September 2017 |archive-date=25 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140625063147/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/03/revealed_beyond_top_secret_british_intelligence_middleeast_internet_spy_base/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Julian Assange]] criticised the newspaper for not publishing the entirety of the content when it had the chance.<ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.twitch.tv/reddit/v/113771480|title=I am Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks – Ask Me Anything|date=10 January 2017|last=Assange|first=Julian|language=en|publisher=Reddit|minutes=68|access-date=15 January 2017|via=Twitch|archive-date=14 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170114130832/https://www.twitch.tv/reddit/v/113771480|url-status=live}}</ref> Rusbridger had initially covered the Snowden documents without the government's supervision, but subsequently sought it, and established an ongoing relationship with the [[Defence minister|Defence Ministry]]. ''The Guardian'' coverage of Snowden later continued because the information had already been copied outside the United Kingdom, earning the company's US website, ''[[Guardian US|The Guardian US]],'' an [[Pulitzer Prize for Public Service|American Pulitzer Prize for Public Service]] in 2014.<ref>{{Cite web |title=2014 Pulitzer Prizes |url=https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160112112738/http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-International-Reporting |access-date=14 February 2023 |website=The Pulitzer Prizes |archive-date=12 January 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref> Rusbridger and subsequent chief editors would sit on the government's [[DSMA-Notice|DSMA-notice]] board.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aROJDwAAQBAJ&q=d-notice.+the+guardian.+snowden&pg=PA161|title=Journalism in an Age of Terror: Covering and Uncovering the Secret State|last=Lloyd|first=John|date=30 October 2016|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=9781786731111|pages=160–165|language=en|access-date=14 November 2020|archive-date=21 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121073109/https://books.google.com/books?id=aROJDwAAQBAJ&q=d-notice.+the+guardian.+snowden&pg=PA161|url-status=live}}</ref> ====Treatment of Julian Assange==== ''The Guardian'' published the [[United States diplomatic cables leak|US diplomatic cables files]] and the [[Guantanamo Bay files leak|Guantanamo Bay files]] in collaboration with [[Julian Assange]] and [[WikiLeaks]].<ref name="spectator210621">{{cite web |last1=Greenwood |first1=Phoebe |title=Will the right save Julian Assange? |url=https://thespectator.com/topic/will-right-save-julian-assange/ |website=The Spectator World |access-date=7 February 2024 |date=21 June 2021 |url-access=registration |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240207053042/https://thespectator.com/topic/will-right-save-julian-assange/ |archive-date= Feb 7, 2024 }}</ref> When some of the diplomatic cables were made available online in unredacted form, WikiLeaks blamed ''Guardian'' journalists [[David Leigh (journalist)|David Leigh]] and [[Luke Harding (journalist)|Luke Harding]] for publishing the encryption key to the files in their book ''[[WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy]]''.<ref>{{cite web |title=WikiLeaks password 'leaked by journalists' |url=https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-pondered-poisoning-assange-court-told/919d931e-f6cf-4974-aa8c-6bcfcf9a51a8 |website=9News |publisher=AAP |access-date=7 February 2024 |date=25 February 2020 |archive-date=22 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222154156/https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-pondered-poisoning-assange-court-told/919d931e-f6cf-4974-aa8c-6bcfcf9a51a8 |url-status=live }}</ref> ''The Guardian'' blamed Assange for the release of the unredacted cables.<ref>{{cite web |title=Anger as Wikileaks releases all US cables unredacted |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14765837 |website=BBC News |access-date=7 February 2024 |date=2 September 2011 |archive-date=9 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221109212533/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14765837 |url-status=live }}</ref> Journalist [[Glenn Greenwald]], a former contributor to ''The Guardian'', accused ''The Guardian'' of publishing false claims about Assange in a report about an interview Assange gave to Italian newspaper ''[[La Repubblica]]''. ''The Guardian'' article had claimed that Assange had praised [[Donald Trump]] and criticised [[Hillary Clinton]] and also alleged that Assange had "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime". Greenwald wrote: "This article is about how those [''Guardian''{{'s}}] false claims—fabrications, really—were spread all over the internet by journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/|title=The Guardian's Summary of Julian Assange's Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False|last=Greenwald|first=Glenn|date=29 December 2016|work=[[The Intercept]]|access-date=4 February 2017|archive-date=5 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205141438/https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false/|url-status=live}}</ref> ''The Guardian'' later amended its article about Assange to remove the claim about his connection to the Russian government.<ref>{{cite web|last=Jacobs|first=Ben|date=24 December 2016|title=Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-interview|website=The Guardian|access-date=4 February 2017|archive-date=6 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170206171025/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-interview|url-status=live}}</ref> While Assange was in the Ecuadorian embassy, ''The Guardian'' published a number of articles pushing the narrative that there was a link between Assange and the Russian government.<ref name="spectator210621"/> In a November 2018 ''Guardian'' article, [[Luke Harding]] and Dan Collyns cited anonymous sources which stated that [[Donald Trump]]'s former campaign manager [[Paul Manafort]] held secret meetings with [[WikiLeaks]] founder [[Julian Assange]] inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2013, 2015, and 2016.<ref>{{cite news |last1= Harding |first1= Luke |last2= Collyns|first2= Dan |date= 27 November 2018 |title= Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy |url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy |newspaper = The Guardian|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181127143814/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy |archive-date= 27 November 2018 }}</ref> The name of a third author, [[Fernando Villavicencio]], was removed from the online version of the story soon after publication. The title of the story was originally 'Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy'. A few hours after publication, 'sources say' was added to the title, and the meeting became an 'apparent meeting'.<ref name="lemonde010119">{{cite web |last1=Halimi |first1=Serge |title=The Guardian's fake scoop |url=https://mondediplo.com/2019/01/10guardian |website=Le Monde diplomatique |access-date=9 November 2021 |language=en |date=1 January 2019 |archive-date=9 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211109041118/https://mondediplo.com/2019/01/10guardian |url-status=live }}</ref> One reporter characterised the story, "If it's right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it's wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe." Manafort and Assange both said they had never met, with the latter threatening legal action against ''The Guardian''.<ref>{{cite news |last= Pompeo |first= Joe |date= 27 November 2018 |title= "It Might Be the Biggest Get This Year": How The Guardian's Bombshell Set Off Its Own Little Media World War |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/the-guardian-paul-manafort-julian-assange |newspaper= Vanity Fair |access-date= 16 December 2018 |archive-date= 1 December 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181201114503/https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/the-guardian-paul-manafort-julian-assange |url-status= live }}</ref> Ecuador's London consul Fidel Narváez, who had worked at [[Embassy of Ecuador, London|Ecuador's embassy in London]] from 2010 to July 2018, said that Manafort had not visited Assange.<ref name="lemonde010119"/> [[Serge Halimi]] said Harding had a personal grievance against Assange and noted that Manafort's name does not appear in the Ecuadorian embassy's visitors' book and there were no pictures of Manafort entering or leaving "one of the most surveilled and filmed buildings on the planet".<ref name="lemonde010119"/> ''The Guardian'' has neither retracted nor apologised for the story about the meeting. Stella Moris, Assange's wife, said ''The Guardian'' failed in its responsibility to Assange and its "negligence has created such a problem that if Julian dies or is extradited, that will forever blot the reputation of the ''Guardian''".<ref name="spectator210621"/> ====Priti Patel cartoon ==== ''The Guardian'' was accused of being "racist and misogynistic" after it published a cartoon depicting [[Home Secretary]], [[Priti Patel]] as a cow with a ring in its nose in an alleged reference to her [[Hindu]] faith, since cows are considered sacred in [[Hinduism]].<ref name="auto">{{cite news|date=9 March 2020|title=Guardian cartoon of cow in relation to Priti Patel sparks outrage amongst diaspora in Britain|newspaper=[[The Hindu]]|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/guardian-cartoon-of-cow-in-relation-to-priti-patel-sparks-outrage-amongst-diaspora-in-britain/articleshow/74557770.cms|url-status=live|access-date=6 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200911224645/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/guardian-cartoon-of-cow-in-relation-to-priti-patel-sparks-outrage-amongst-diaspora-in-britain/articleshow/74557770.cms|archive-date=11 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Bell|first=Steve|date=4 March 2020|title=Steve Bell on Boris Johnson defending Priti Patel at PMQs – cartoon|newspaper=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/mar/04/steve-bell-on-boris-johnson-defending-priti-patel-at-pmqs-cartoon|url-status=live|access-date=27 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200629090045/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/mar/04/steve-bell-on-boris-johnson-defending-priti-patel-at-pmqs-cartoon|archive-date=29 June 2020}}</ref> ====Alleged WhatsApp backdoor==== After publishing a story on 13 January 2017 claiming that [[WhatsApp]] had a "backdoor [that] allows snooping on messages", more than 70 professional cryptographers signed on to an open letter calling for ''The Guardian'' to retract the article.<ref>{{cite web|date=20 January 2017|title=Security researchers call for Guardian to retract false WhatsApp 'backdoor' story|url=https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-for-guardian-to-retract-false-whatsapp-backdoor-story/|publisher=[[TechCrunch]]|access-date=13 June 2017|archive-date=10 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170610075439/https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-for-guardian-to-retract-false-whatsapp-backdoor-story/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=William|last=Turton|date=13 January 2017|title=There's No Security Backdoor in WhatsApp, Despite Reports|url=https://gizmodo.com/theres-no-security-backdoor-in-whatsapp-despite-report-1791158247|publisher=[[Gizmodo]]|quote=According to [[Alec Muffett]], an experienced security researcher who spoke to Gizmodo, The Guardian's story is "major league fuckwittage".|access-date=13 June 2017|archive-date=6 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606055321/http://gizmodo.com/theres-no-security-backdoor-in-whatsapp-despite-report-1791158247|url-status=live}}</ref> On 13 June 2017, readers' editor Paul Chadwick released an article detailing the flawed reporting in the original January article, which was amended to remove references to a backdoor.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Chadwick|first=Paul|date=28 June 2017|title=Flawed reporting about WhatsApp {{!}} Open door {{!}} Paul Chadwick|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2017/jun/28/flawed-reporting-about-whatsapp|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190514225529/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2017/jun/28/flawed-reporting-about-whatsapp|archive-date=14 May 2019|access-date=18 January 2018|website=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Ganguly|first=Manisha|date=13 January 2017|title=WhatsApp design feature means some encrypted messages could be read by third party|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-design-feature-encrypted-messages|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170628000021/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-backdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages|archive-date=28 June 2017|access-date=18 January 2018|website=The Guardian}}</ref> ==== Spanish-language edition ==== In January 2021, ''The Guardian'' began publishing in the [[Spanish language]] under the ''[[La Lista]]'' newspaper.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |date=2020-12-01 |title=Contenidos de The Guardian, medio crítico de AMLO, serán difundidos por La Lista en México |url=https://etcetera.com.mx/nacional/guardian-medio-critico-amlo-lista-mexico/ |access-date=2024-02-29 |website=Etcétera |language=es-MX |archive-date=29 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229064914/https://etcetera.com.mx/nacional/guardian-medio-critico-amlo-lista-mexico/ |url-status=live }}</ref> ====2022 Cyber attack==== In December 2022 it was reported that the ''Guardian'' had suffered a significant cyber-attack on its office systems, thought to be ransomware.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jim |last=Waterson |title=Guardian hit by serious IT incident believed to be ransomware attack |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/21/guardian-hit-by-serious-it-incident-believed-to-be-ransomware-attack |website=The Guardian |publisher=Guardian News & Media |access-date=16 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221132544/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/dec/21/guardian-hit-by-serious-it-incident-believed-to-be-ransomware-attack |archive-date=21 December 2022 |language=English |date=21 December 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Lindsay |last=Clark |title=UK's Guardian newspaper breaks news of ransomware attack on itself |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/21/the_guardian_hit_by_ransomware/ |website=The Register |publisher=Situation Publishing |access-date=16 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221154316/https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/21/the_guardian_hit_by_ransomware/ |archive-date=21 December 2022 |language=English |date=21 December 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> Staff were directed to work from home and were able to continue publishing to the website despite the loss of some internal systems.<ref>{{cite web |first=Tom |last=Singleton |title=Guardian newspaper hit by suspected ransomware attack |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64056300 |website=BBC News |publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation |access-date=16 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221165902/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64056300 |archive-date=21 December 2022 |language=English |date=21 December 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The print edition also continued to be produced. On 4 January 2023, UK staff were informed of a security breach and that the [[Information Commissioner's Office]] had been notified, as required by GDPR. It was indicated that staff would continue working from home until at least 23 January.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jessica Lyons |last=Hardcastle |title=The Guardian ransomware attack hits week two as staff told to work from home |url=https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/04/guardian_ransomware_attack/ |website=The Register |publisher=Situation Publishing |access-date=16 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230104200402/https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/04/guardian_ransomware_attack/ |archive-date=4 January 2023 |language=English |date=4 January 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> The newspaper confirmed on 11 January that personal details of all UK staff had been accessed by criminals.<ref>{{cite web |first=Alexander |last=Martin |title=The Guardian confirms criminals accessed staff data in ransomware attack |url=https://therecord.media/the-guardian-confirms-criminals-accessed-staff-data-in-ransomware-attack/ |website=The Record |publisher=Recorded Future News |access-date=16 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230111173029/https://therecord.media/the-guardian-confirms-criminals-accessed-staff-data-in-ransomware-attack/ |archive-date=11 January 2023 |language=English |date=11 January 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> ==== Cyprus Confidential ==== {{Main|Cyprus Confidential}} In November 2023, the ''Guardian'' joined with the [[International Consortium of Investigative Journalists]], {{ill|Paper trail media|lt=Paper Trail Media|de}} and 69 media partners including [[Distributed Denial of Secrets]] and the [[Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project]] (OCCRP) and more than 270 journalists in 55 countries and territories<ref name=":02">{{Cite web |date=2023-11-14 |title=Inside Cyprus Confidential: The data-driven journalism that helped expose an island under Russian influence - ICIJ |url=https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/leaked-data-journalism-methodology/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231130214812/https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/leaked-data-journalism-methodology/ |archive-date=2023-11-30 |access-date=2023-12-24 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite web |date=2023-11-14 |title=About the Cyprus Confidential investigation - ICIJ |url=https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/about-cyprus-confidential-investigation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231121093552/https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/about-cyprus-confidential-investigation/ |archive-date=2023-11-21 |access-date=2023-12-24 |language=en-US}}</ref> to produce the '[[Cyprus Confidential]]' report on the financial network which supports the regime of [[Vladimir Putin]], mostly with connections to Cyprus, and showed Cyprus to have strong links with high-up figures in the Kremlin, some of whom have been sanctioned.<ref>{{cite news |date=15 November 2023 |title=Cyprus Confidential: Leaked Roman Abramovich documents raise fresh questions for Chelsea FC: ICIJ-led investigation reveals how Mediterranean island ignores Russian atrocities and western sanctions to cash in on Putin's oligarchs |language=en |newspaper=The Irish Times |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/2023/11/15/cyprus-confidential-leaked-roman-abramovich-documents-raise-fresh-questions-for-chelsea-fc/ |access-date=15 November 2023 |archive-date=15 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115073523/https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/2023/11/15/cyprus-confidential-leaked-roman-abramovich-documents-raise-fresh-questions-for-chelsea-fc/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=14 November 2023 |title=Cyprus Confidential - ICIJ |url=https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/ |access-date=14 November 2023 |website=www.icij.org |archive-date=24 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224150800/https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Government officials including Cyprus president [[Nikos Christodoulides]]<ref name=":72">{{Cite web |date=2023-11-15 |title=Cypriot president pledges government probe into Cyprus Confidential revelations - ICIJ |url=https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/cypriot-president-pledges-government-probe-into-cyprus-confidential-revelations/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214203142/https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/cypriot-president-pledges-government-probe-into-cyprus-confidential-revelations/ |archive-date=2023-12-14 |access-date=2023-12-24 |language=en-US}}</ref> and European lawmakers<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-23 |title=Lawmakers call for EU crackdown after ICIJ's Cyprus Confidential revelations - ICIJ |url=https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/lawmakers-call-for-eu-crackdown-after-icijs-cyprus-confidential-revelations/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224114123/https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/lawmakers-call-for-eu-crackdown-after-icijs-cyprus-confidential-revelations/ |archive-date=2023-12-24 |access-date=2023-12-24 |language=en-US}}</ref> began responding to the investigation's findings in less than 24 hours,<ref name=":72"/> calling for reforms and launching probes.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2023-11-14 |title=Cyprus ignores Russian atrocities, Western sanctions to shield vast wealth of Putin allies - ICIJ |url=https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/cyprus-russia-eu-secrecy-tax-haven/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214002320/https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/cyprus-russia-eu-secrecy-tax-haven/ |archive-date=2023-12-14 |access-date=2023-12-24 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Solutions |first=BDigital Web |title=Finance Minister perturbed over 'Cyprus Confidential' |url=https://knews.kathimerini.com.cy/en/news/finance-minister-perturbed-over-cyprus-confidential |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224114126/https://knews.kathimerini.com.cy/en/news/finance-minister-perturbed-over-cyprus-confidential |archive-date=2023-12-24 |access-date=2023-12-24 |website=knews.com.cy}}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page