The Guardian's position on City and our owner is a product of their 'ideology'. They are the voice of what we now call "the woke"; those who believe themselves to be tolerant of all faiths, sexualities, creeds and colours. The climate warriors and those seeking to remove traces of our colonial past. (I'm not criticising or mocking those people by the way.)
But here's where their problem is. In being impeccably tolerant, they have become intolerant of those who don't share those views. They celebrate diversity but simultaneously have a great aversion to elements of that diversity that conflict with their liberal, western, christian views. They will celebrate Islamic culture, for example, but reject elements of that culture that they celebrate that they don't like. LGBT rights is one good example. It's a part of a conservative religion but that doesn't count in the Guardian's eyes. Islam should be what the Guardian thinks it should be, not what it is.
You'll see many Guardian readers champion Hamas over Israel, yet Hamas is a determinedly illiberal organisation that rejects virtually everything the Guardian holds dear whereas Israel, for all its many faults, is the sort of liberal, inclusive (unless you're a Palestinian of course) democracy it champions.
It fails to recognise, despite the many failings of our own democracy, that sometimes autocracy, properly managed, has its benefits, particularly when it comes to avoiding major political instability.
It's for all these reasons that it ideologically hates our owner and his country. In being impeccably liberal, it's implicitly (and often explicitly) illiberal.
www.mancity.com