Uh, ok, I'm not saying the Guardian is perfect or anything, but I lived in the U.S. when it was ruled by neocons, and read the Guardian from time to time (then and now). For all I know Katherine Viner is neo-con, but the Guardian is not a neo-con paper. I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriously after that part.
> I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriously after that part.
What does this mean? Are you saying he is lying about his photo being removed from his Wikipedia entry by Philip Cross, for example?
How the *#%)&$ did we end up in a world in which "I disagree with your characterization of some subjective things" has become synonymous with "I flat out refuse to believe anything you claim about easily verifiable objective facts"?
Thirteen years is a long time; I know my values have changed a lot in that time. But that play doesn't seem like the output of someone committed to the mainstream narrative on Israel.
However, I'm not British and I've never followed the politics of any British party, nor my political views have changed substantially in the past few years, so I don't think my perception of the turn to the right of the Guardian in international politics might have been influenced by the shift in Labour's position.
I don't see that at all in their reporting. The opinions section is of course a free for all of different ideologies, but in their actual bread and butter reporting I haven't seen anything like that.
(This said, I personally don't see it as a "neocon paper" by any stretch. They are simply positioned in the "blairite consensus", an area that might occasionally overlap with some US neocon positions -- mostly because some neocons do move from an ideological progressive position.)
There is a Tumblr  supposedly dedicated to collating non-Italian resources on Wu-Ming itself, but I don't know how often it is actually updated.