Con­spir­acy the­o­ries abound

The Guardian Weekly - - Reply -

Jonathan Freed­land (3 Novem­ber) rightly points out that con­spir­acy the­o­ries “only dis­tract us from the real threats we face”. How well proven by Ca­role Cad­wal­ladr on the same page, who at­tributes Trump’s elec­tion vic­tory and Brexit to – what else? – a con­spir­acy.

More or less clan­des­tine in­ter­ven­tions to favour one side in these two con­tests did in all like­li­hood oc­cur. How­ever, con­sid­er­ing them as the main fac­tors in the out­come il­lus­trates per­fectly Freed­land’s point. The ele­phant in the room is the re­jec­tion by vast seg­ments of the elec­torate of any­one as­so­ci­ated, rightly or wrongly, with the es­tab­lish­ment, com­pared to which for­eign in­ter­fer­ence is a small mouse in­deed. But the Weekly keeps ad­dress­ing in great de­tail the mouse, while ne­glect­ing the ele­phant. Gior­gio Ranalli Ot­tawa, On­tario, Canada

• An ar­ti­cle sug­gest­ing that Trump, As­sange, Farage and Ban­non are linked in a clan­des­tine net­work was placed on the same page as one claiming that con­spir­acy the­o­ries are a dan­ger­ous di­ver­sion. Was this a com­ment on the first ar­ti­cle? Stephanie Betz Kam­bah, ACT, Aus­tralia

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.