From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Produced by a group of Guardian readers unhappy with its censorship policy

Website.png  Facebook Patreon Twitter YouTubeRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
"Because facts really should be sacred"
Started: February 2015

Member of: Poynter Institute/List, PropOrNot/List
In its own words:
"The creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian's CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis. Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions."

OffGuardian was set up by a small group of disaffected readers of the Guardian. In April 2015, their first domain name, (with associated Reddit and Twitter accounts), was subject to "sabotage", so the group relaunched at

"Fake News"

Full article: Rated 3/5 “Fake News”

In November 2016, the site was listed by PropOrNot as one of its list of 200 "Fake News" websites.

Legal policy

The site reports that "we support the free flow of opinion and information" and explicitly permits republishing of its articles if the source is acknowledged.[1]


“The most peculiar thing about COVID19 so far has been that they are not hiding the data […] The data is right there, and yet it is separate from the narrative, which never references the data; the data never references the narrative. What you have to do is basically ignore everything the media says, and just look at the numbers, and…where the numbers come from”
Kit Knightly (21 April 2020)  [2]

Skripal affair

“The BBC’s new drama “The Salisbury Poisonings” concluded over the weekend. A three-part story “based on actual events”, claiming to tell the story of the alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in 2018. It’s exactly what you’d expect. Schlocky tat. Poorly researched, badly written and woefully factually inaccurate. The Guardian gave it four stars. Because of course they did. Because when you’re dealing with government-backed narrative everything that reinforces it must be described as having value. It’s one of the hallmarks of propaganda, that no story which supports the propaganda – however ridiculous – can ever be questioned, criticised or disputed. There’s room for an in-depth review, and indeed Craig Murray has done a fine job deconstructing the series. But here, I just want to focus on everything they don’t tell you.”
Kit Knightly (19 June 2020)  [3]


A document sourced from OffGuardian

TitleTypeSubject(s)Publication dateAuthor(s)
Document:Avaaz: Clicktivist heroes or Soros wolf in woolly disguisewebpageAvaaz
Res Publica
Ricken Patel
Tom Pravda
Tom Perriello
18 July 2015'BlackCatte'