To Guardian Editor, Alan Rusbridger

A letter (sent 19 December) to the Guardian Editor, following a fine critique of the Chilcot hearings by Media Lens.
------

Dear Mr Rusbridger

The Chilcot 'inquiry' has all the obvious makings of the classic gentleman-appointed exercise in purest warwash.

But what of the media's own role in being a trumpet-blower for the invasion? And what, more particularly, of the Guardian's carefully-crafted editorial part in giving the war, its aftermath and Tony Blair's cynical manipulations that all-important mantle of respectability?

The latest Media Lens Alert offers more than ample evidence of the gross deceptions. The fact of Blair's criminality as chief political executive in the slaughter should need no further elucidation.

Yet, as your Guardian leader noted:

“the primary aim of the probe must be to promote the reconciliation of the public with a political class which misled it so badly”.

Why “reconciliation”? Why not the criminal indictment of that political class?

Again, we see here the Guardian's ever-so-coy efforts to soothe the issue, while loftily evading its own complicit part in the human disaster that is Iraq.

The Media Lens Alert puts it well:

“This is why media protestations that politicians need to be called to account are so cynical, so insulting to the intelligence.”

The Guardian supposedly prides itself in highlighting the political contortions of Chilcot's witnesses. But where is the critical self-examination, the same reflections on the Guardian's own apologetic part in the great war narrative?

Alongside those mandarins currently being 'grilled' by Chilcot, there is another vital establishment grouping whose conduct requires serious investigation: the liberal media gentlemen's club, of which the Guardian has honorary place.

As Editor of the country's most proclaimed 'liberal-left' organ, you have, for some considerable time now, refused to engage any enquiring voice on these matters. Whether through private contempt or selective avoidance, that silence speaks volumes about the Guardian's editorial fear of rational challenge.

In the 'spirit of public accountability' so lauded by the Guardian with regard to Chilcot, wouldn't it be fitting, at least on this occasion, to answer the fairly-argued charges made by Media Lens?

Yours sincerely

John Hilley

-------------

No response received - or expected.

John