We do note that there's often enough an attempt to rewrite history. Or, perhaps, to emphasise one aspect rather than another. The New York Times recently ran a piece insisting that communism had its good parts as women had more orgasms. Female sexual pleasure is indeed important but we're deeply unsure that it's a justification for the Holodomor.
Similarly there's been a long running insistence that Britain was at its best in 1976, for that's when we were most equal. Not a view that's likely to be shared by anyone who was there at that time nor was it sustainable as the subsequent years showed.
And then there're those who wish to trample over the basic facts, not just polish certain facets of reality:
For too long, people in social housing were forgotten and denigrated, and estates were left to disintegrate under the last Labour government and every Conservative government since the 1980s.
Well, no Ms. Foster, that isn't actually what happened, is it? As Polly tells us in the same newspaper:
Labour's extra spending went mostly on improving services – hiring doctors and nurses, more and better qualified teachers, rebuilding leaking schools and aged hospitals, free nurseries and 3,500 Sure Start centres. Too few homes were built, but 90% of social housing was brought up to "decent homes" standard, rescuing estates from chronic disrepair.
As The Guardian itself insists, comment is free but facts are sacred. Not too much to ask that a publication lives up to its own tagline, is it?