Guardian sales pitch-- analysis and partisanship reconciled*

Classic nonrecognitions of ideology in one of the latest Graun statement about their stance, this time on the current bouts of protests about racial discrimination and statue- removing:

Classic 'calling-out' stuff first:

From the coronavirus pandemic and police brutality to the marginalisation of minority communities around the world, leadership is broken. Devoid of the humility and inclusivity we so desperately need, and given to narcissism, leaders are gambling with public health, safety and the future of younger generations. They unapologetically prioritise serving themselves over the people they were elected to serve. We have to make them raise their game.

 As an open, independent news organisation we investigate, interrogate and expose the incompetence and indifference of those in power, without fear. Our journalism is free from political and commercial bias – this makes us different. We can give a voice to the oppressed and neglected, and stand in solidarity with protesters who are inspiring us with hope for a better future. With your help we can bring about improvement.

And yet

 Millions are flocking to the Guardian for quality news every day. We believe everyone deserves access to information that is fact-checked, and analysis that has authority and integrity.

No mention of the former virtues of 'balance' or 'neutrality' there, though.This is not the BBC, so those old terms have no grounding in law The way in which political partisanship and authoritative journalism combine is this:

We’re determined to provide journalism that helps each of us better understand the world, and take actions that challenge, unite, and inspire change – in times of crisis and beyond.

Adequate understanding just must lead to suitable kinds of action, presumably neither conventional reform nor anything more radical -- demos? Twitter campaigns?There just is some natural affinity between campaigns about covid, police brutality and minority marginalisation -- they all offer a chance to rebuke Johnson? They all offend new petite bourgeois sensibilities? The Guardian can both provide 'quality' journalism (the right sort of people will know what that is instinctively) offering analysis and also 'stand in solidarity with protesters'. Not physically, not on the actual streets, I assume?

Within the value consensus they take for granted, their position is indeed 'free from political bias'. There can be no bias because everyone agrees. Those that do not can be ignored or demonised. There is the same Maitlis-like confidence that  'each of us' simply understands and supports 'protesters'. There may be just a tiny reservation provided by the necessity for protesters to 'inspire us with hope for a better future'. And, naturally, there must be proper leaders.

At the end, the pure commitment to hope just might be threatened a tad by this:  

But news organisations are facing an existential threat. With advertising revenues plummeting, the Guardian risks losing a major source of its funding. More than ever before, we’re reliant on financial support from readers to fill the gap. Your support keeps us independent, open, and means we can maintain our high quality reporting – investigating, disentangling and interrogating. 

Here, a 'better future' is elided with the survival of the Graun. Heaven take from my mind the cynical thought that Grud 'values' are those found in focus groups of likely contributors. There is moral entitlement as well, surely?

It is this higher calling, based on hope for the future and a wish to 'stand with' (certain categories of) the oppressed that outweighs mere journalistic values in practice, and stops them doing any 'investigating, disentangling and interrogating' of the specifics of  political leadership, 'the coronavirus pandemic and police brutality...the marginalisation of minority communities around the world', or the conduct and effectiveness of the protests.