The Guardian's one way hypocrisy

Dear Marine,

In your latest article on the Guardian you explore the contradictions

"between raising awareness and using people whom many know to be hypocrites to do so".

You conclude,

"If we are truly to live in a world where celebrities are the medium, then they should pay a little more genuine and practical heed to the message, or forfeit the chance to boost their record sales in front of a global audience of billions".

To the right of your article, on the Guardian website, I read:

"NO ORDINARY GARAGE WILL DO FOR THE NEW FIAT BRAVO"

On the top of the same page I read:

"SEAT AUTO EMOCION. WIN VIP TICKETS TO A BTCC RACE AND CHECK OUT OUR WRITERS' DRIVING SKILLS IN THE SEAT RACE DAY CHALLENGE"

I could go on...

Can't you see that the contradictions "between raising awareness and using people whom many know to be hypocrites to do so", as you wrote, can also be said, and with much more gravity and pernicious effects, for the Guardian?

As Media Lens recently asked Guardian's George Monbiot,

"Doesn't this make a mockery of the Guardian's claims to be responding to climate change? Is it really credible to expect a newspaper dependent on corporate advertising for 75 per cent of its revenue to seriously challenge the corporate system of which it's a part and on which it depends?"

To use your own words, don't you think that the paper you write for, the Guardian, "should pay a little more genuine and practical heed to the message, or forfeit the chance to boost their... sales"? I read in your Guardian’s profile that you “currently write[s] three columns a week for the paper: one general comment, one on sport and one on celebrity.” You could devote one “general comment” on this issue in the near future, maybe?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your point of view.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini
London