The Guardian’s recent decision to stop posting on X, Elon Musk’s social media platform, is a move that screams weakness. The outlet, which proudly touts itself as a champion of bold reporting, announced it would cease activity on the platform due to “often disturbing content,” such as far-right conspiracy theories. But instead of taking a stand and contributing to the conversation with balanced reporting, The Guardian is turning tail and walking away.
This move doesn’t look like a show of strength. In fact, it comes across as a cop-out, a move fueled by fear rather than the backbone you’d expect from a major news organization. By withdrawing, The Guardian is giving up any chance to challenge misinformation head-on or offer perspectives that counter the narratives it finds so troubling. It’s ironic, really — an organization that prides itself on being fearless and forthright suddenly choosing the path of least resistance.
Yes, X has become a controversial space since Musk took the reins, with its share of problematic content and reinstated accounts that push the boundaries of decency. But is that a reason to retreat? Hardly. If anything, it’s a reason to dig in and do what journalism is supposed to do: inform, challenge, and shed light on all sides of the story, even when it’s messy.
The Guardian’s justification? A belief that X now has a “diminished role” in promoting its work. But that reasoning sidesteps the real issue. By stepping back now, The Guardian loses a platform that, like it or not, is still incredibly influential. Walking away might feel like a statement, but it’s a statement of surrender, not strength.
To add to the confusion, The Guardian won’t stop its reporters from using X for newsgathering. So, X is good enough for digging up stories but not for sharing their work? This half-in, half-out approach just doesn’t hold up. If the platform is worth mining for information, then it’s worth engaging with for publication too. Anything else just feels like hedging bets.
This isn’t the first time an organization has pulled out of X — NPR and PBS also backed away after being labeled “state-affiliated media.” But those situations involved direct slights. For The Guardian, the decision feels more like an excuse to avoid dealing with a tough, sometimes toxic landscape. Is that what modern journalism has come to? Retreating at the first sign of challenge?
Let’s not forget: Journalism isn’t about staying in safe spaces. It’s about being where the story is, even when that place is uncomfortable. By choosing to step back, The Guardian weakens its ability to contribute to the discussions it claims are so important. The result? The platform is left to those willing to engage, no matter how extreme.
Sure, The Guardian is inviting readers to access content directly on its website, but this move comes off as a thinly veiled traffic grab. If The Guardian is serious about countering misinformation and standing up against harmful narratives, it needs to be present where people are talking. Pulling out now just feels like taking the easy way out, and for a publication that prides itself on bold journalism, that’s just not good enough.
Image credit: Ollyy / Shutterstock
