As details of the death toll for January’s protests continue to emerge, three students explain why they are resisting a return to normality
More than 45 days after a brutal January crackdown that left thousands of Iranian protesters dead, students across several universities are protesting again. As Iran’s new academic term began on Saturday, students in Tehran gathered on campus, chanting anti-government slogans, despite a heavy security presence and plainclothes officers stationed outside university gates.
The Guardian spoke to protesting students about why they were rallying despite the fact that thousands had been killed and tens of thousands arrested in the January demonstrations.
“Our classrooms are empty because the graveyards are full,” said Hossein*, 21, a student at the University of Tehran. “It’s for them – our friends, classmates and compatriots, who were gunned down in front of our eyes, that we decided to boycott the classes.”
and manufacturing consent for a us invasion of iran, yes.
That’s a claim you’d need to provide evidence for. Really, really good evidence.
Will you accept evidence? Or will you downvote and call me a Russian bot?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/jan/26/letters.iraq1
That’s a classic consent-making move: the debate becomes when invasion is justified, not whether the West has the right to invade at all.
“the government argued its actions ‘undoubtedly’ saved civilian lives in Libya.” “required decisive and collective international action”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/25/british-government-intervention-libya-saved-lives
Even when the article notes criticism, this kind of repetition of official justification is exactly what sourcing/agenda-setting critiques focus on.
A no-fly zone is an act of war (you enforce it with force). But it’s often discussed as a humanitarian “measure.” The Guardian’s reporting frames it that way:
“a potential no-fly zone over Syria to protect civilians”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/12/may-questions-syria-no-fly-zone-proposal
And then the debate becomes technocratic (“who enforces it?”) rather than moral/anti-imperial (“who gets to control Syrian airspace?”). Example of that framing inside the piece: “Who would enforce that safe area?”
“All sides should contribute to halting the cycle of violence”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/13/guardian-view-conflict-in-gaza
Same editorial also uses the legitimacy gateway line: “Israel has a right to defend itself”
And frames it in a way to not directly endorse it, but still assert it by not stating the objectively moral rebuttal: Gaza has the right to defend itself.
Here they outright assert it: “Israel has a right to defend itself and a duty to protect its citizens.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/13/the-guardian-view-on-gazas-casualties-mounting-calls-for-a-ceasefire-must-be-heeded
This is a very strong legitimising phrasing because it implies the violence is mainly a matter of proper execution rather than structural injustice / siege / occupation: “Israel has a right to defend itself by all legitimate means.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/07/observer-view-only-ceasefire-save-israel-from-crisis
This is exactly the kind of moral language that can slide into collective punishment logic (even if the editorial later adds caveats): “Hamas had to be punished severely and forcibly dislodged from its perch in Gaza.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/the-observer-view-on-the-middle-east-a-year-on-there-is-only-one-way-to-a-credible-peace
This rhetorical move invites readers to inhabit the state’s mindset. another common consent mechanism: “Confronted by all this, Israelis ask, reasonably enough: what would you do?” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/06/the-observer-view-on-the-middle-east-a-year-on-there-is-only-one-way-to-a-credible-peace
Not genocide, guardian. You shouldn’t do genocide.
Even when labelled “alleged,” this piece foregrounds the IDF narrative and evidence drops in a way that can function as justification-for-bombing context:
“alleged evidence released by the IDF to support its claims that Hamas uses… Gaza as human shields” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city
“Israel has cited what it says are numerous examples of Hamas using human shields” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city
“It claims Hamas has placed… command network under… al-Shifa hospital.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas-command-centre-under-hospital-palestinian-civilian-gaza-city
you can believe Hamas uses civilian cover and still see how this repeated framing becomes a ready-made moral alibi for mass civilian killing. We know Israel uses Palestinians as human shields, they’ll literally strap children to the windshield of jeeps to shield them, why don’t they cite that as rebuttal? Why don’t they cite that as justification for attacking IDF?
On their funding: Guardian Media Group says it runs a “diverse revenue model” including “reader revenues, advertising… licensing and philanthropic funding.” https://www.theguardian.com/about/organisation
And it says “Revenue from readers now accounts for over 50%” which also means a large share is still non-reader money (ads, licensing, etc.)
Their own annual reporting stresses growth in reader revenue, but they’re still operating in the same media ecosystem: big audience incentives, elite access journalism, reliance on official sources, and the kinds of “respectable” foreign policy frames that dominate UK/US politics. (That’s exactly what “manufacturing consent” critiques are about: structures, not cartoon villain owners.)
Read Manufacturing Consent, then come back and tell me they don’t.
Or downvote and maybe throw an insult my way, that works too.
Really? You could not do it without weird and undounded assumptions? C’mon, grow up.
Anyway, I appriciate you provide actual reasoning for your arguments. I’ll read into it.
It’s what happens every time. I’m sorry, that was unnecessary, I felt burnt out.
Here’s a detailed article on The Guardian being couped by Zionists:
How The Guardian’s editor-in-chief caved to pro-Israel pressure.
It’s unfathomable to me how, after western media carrying 3 years of endless Zionist propaganda, there’s still any modicum of respect for them among progressives.
You gotta remember that most people today supporting Palestine and understanding what was done to Gaza was a genocide are recent things.
They hit a breaking point after two years of genocide that could not be denied. These are the same type of people that were “always against it” after the fact.
This is how it goes. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, etc. They don’t actually have a means of understanding it until they see the aftermath. They don’t look at the material interest and where they will inevitably lead. They are only capable of reacting to the results. And until there are results they will only listen to the intentions. The intentions that they read in media. Not the real intentions of those that own that media.
I’m sure, you, personally understand this. I’m mostly just leaving this comment as an opportunity for the few that WILL be able to think through the media narratives.
The media is going to tell truths about Irans human rights violations. But it will ignore the same for Israel for decades. Why? Because it doesn’t care about those violations. It cares about how it can make you believe what it does NEXT is justified.
I would believe anything regarding foreign policy coming from a bloodthirsty brit.
This is The Guardian, a left leaning paper or left of centre at least.
“left of centre” is doing a lot of work there.
Not only in your obvious British spelling of center but in the other obvious way. You Brits turn your nose up on Trump supporters but for some reason fall for the same garbage war propaganda. Hell, even our MAGA voters are turning against Trump on Iran intervention. Are you guys ok over there? Are you just larping as MAGA supporters on that island?
It says a lot when you call the guardian “left”. I swear you guys are further behind class conciseness than folks in the US southern states.
Calling an institution that reports to and serves the interest of capital “left” basically destroys all meaning of the word.
Or are even you Brits using “left” to mean “liberal”. Like, have we exported our American brain rot that fucking hard?
I think you’re reading way more into my comment than intended.
I just meant centre-left in the conventional media/political spectrum sense used in the UK, not a deep ideological classification.
TheGuardian claimed to have seen video and pictures of Hamas raping women on October 7.
Those videos and pictures later turned out to not exist.
no, you are the one who has to stop inventing shit to invade countries in your fascist crusade.
I am doing nothing. You are claiming bullshit and don’t even know jackshit about the news outlets you’re making up shit about.
Also, I’m not even from the US.
you are literally inventing shit to justify another genocide. burden of proof rests on you.
we are very aware of the guardian’s propaganda AND us terror campaigns (that begin with exactly this sort of lie).
What did I invent, exactly?
Evidence or GTFO.
He’s from .ml, he won’t ever offer evidence, he’ll just continue to accuse you of all the worst things he can think of.
because the only evidence western conservatives will accept is opinion articles from some billionaire’s news outlet, even when it’s just the same tired lie over and over again.
I don’t think western conservatives care about Iranian civilian casualties. If you’re suggesting I’m a conservative, you couldn’t be more wrong.
Also, this is The Guardian. They’re not owned by billionaires. Oh, and they’re not the only source or evidence for the atrocities committed by the Iranian government against its own civilians, either. You’re the one rejecting evidence.
You’re clearly just a shill running cover for the mullah, so why don’t you go eat shit?
Removed by mod
Iran did kill thousands of its own people. Were you sleeping? It wasn’t even that long ago.
And nobody mentioned bombing Iran but you. This is an article about Iranian student protestors.
as part of a bigger campaign to manufacture consent for the attack about to happen to iran in the name of ‘democracy’. this is iraq all over again, write it down.
“oh no! the students! we suddenly deeply care about students in this foreign country our allies want to attack so badly for years!” yeah, right.
Do you know what (to) corroborate means?