If you thought that Brian Whitaker, the commissioning editor of “Comment is Free”, could not make more of a fool of himself than he has done so far, then think again.
Yesterday in the Michelle Goldberg thread on yet another article about J Street, we were graced with Brian’s presence no less than five times! It all started when blankedout complained that Israel was attacked with rockets yesterday and that there was no mention of it in the Guardian. It seems that Brian is a tad sensitive to the very serious and unanswered charges that CiF Watch and others have been levelling against ‘Comment is Free’ and the Guardian. So in jumps Brian with this:
BrianWhit 28 Oct 09, 2:07pm
Israel was attacked with rockets yesterday from Lebanon
why no mention in the Guardianblankedout: Probably it wasn’t considered newsworthy because the rocket didn’t cause any damage or hurt anyone. As far as I can see from Google, no British newspaper reported the incident.
StaffWell not exactly Brian. The BBC reported a follow up to the incident as pointed out on the thread by Sabraguy. And it was newsworthy enough for the New York Times and numerous other news outlets. Moreover, as acklothandsashes adds “no other British newspaper has this obsession with Israel and everything that happens there has it? So shelling of Israel is ignored because it shines a negative light on our neighbors. That rocket could have killed tens of Israelis Brian. Imagine if Israel had fired a similar rocket into Lebanon.”
Absolutely.
To which Brian retorted with this:
BrianWhit 28 Oct 09, 3:16pm
Imagine if Israel had fired a similar rocket into Lebanon.
acklothandsashes: Exactly. Israel did fire back and that wasn’t reported either. As international news goes, it was a pretty minor story.
Totally disengenous response Brian. Though Israel shelled the Shaba Farms area from where the Kaytusha was launched, it was in response to an indiscriminate attack that barely missed Kiryat Shmona – not that you would care. Israel does not indiscriminately fire rockets directed at civilian targets as does Israel’s enemies. Acklothandashes point was simply that if Israel were to engage in such provocation you can be assured that ‘Comment is Free’ would be all over it. Not only that but since when has the extent of coverage of a news story been the measuring stick by which ‘Comment is Free’ determines whether or not to publish? Remember for example when you published a story by Seth Freedman about the “mentally disabled teenager” who was supposedly beaten up by border police. I don’t think any other news agency reported that one.
Anyway, MindTheCrap then joins in on the discussion ratcheting up the charges:
Please explain why during the week prior to the start of Cast Lead, when Hamas was firing 70+ rockets daily into Israel, the Guardian did not report these events, even though its full-time reporters in the area were obviously aware of the pending Israeli reaction?
“Probably it wasn’t considered newsworthy” ????
To which Brian responded as follows:
28 Oct 09, 4:14pm
the Guardian did not report these events,
MindTheCrap: You’re just making this rubbish up and it doesn’t fool anyone.Here’s one of the Guardian’s reports:
<a href=”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/19/israel-hamas-gaza-violenceand here’s another
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/20/gaza-truce-ends-rockets-fired
Now go and compare that with the coverage in other newspapers.
Rubbish. Oh really. The sheer arrogance. Well this is what MindTheCrap had to say in response:
MindTheCrap 28 Oct 09, 4:37pm
BrianWhit:
MindTheCrap: You’re just making this rubbish up and it doesn’t fool anyone.
Now go and compare that with the coverage in other newspapers.The problem is that the articles that you cite are from Dec 19 & 20; Cast Lead started on Dec 27. During that week there were 70+ rockets fired daily on Sderot and environs from Gaza. A quick check of the Guardian archives shows that there were no reports on these attacks between Dec 21 and 26.
I check the facts before I make any claims.
Now go and compare that with the coverage in other newspapers.
MindTheCrap is spot on here. You see between December 21 and December 27, there were over 120 rockets and mortars fired into Israel and during the preceding week almost 100 rockets and mortars attacks. The impact upon daily life in Israel was devastating and diplomatic activity in the Middle East during this period was frenetic in an attempt to avert an Israeli defensive operation. Even the BBC were reporting what was going on. Here’s an example news report from them on December 25.
And a review of the archives section of ‘Comment is Free’ Middle East is even more damning. It shows that in the two weeks prior to the outbreak of Operation Cast Lead there was not one article discussing the rocket attacks and every single one was anti-Israel in its bias. Here’s the list: an article on December 15 by Tony Klug calling for an Israeli peace initiative; an article on December 15 by Seth Freedman discussing life behind the green line; an article on December 16 by Ben White on the Shministim; an article on December 16 by Simon Tisdall discussing the failure of Middle East peace efforts; an article on December 17 by Jonathan Freedland discussing a four-state solution; an article on December 17 by Seth Freedman discussing his personal mission against Israel; an article on December 19 by Seth Freedman discussing gyms in Ramallah (another highly newsworthy piece); another article on December 19 by Richard Falk complaining about being denied entry into Israel. And wait it gets even better. The last article before Operation Cast Lead was on December 22 from none other than Brian Whitaker who was taking a gratuitous swipe at Bibi Netanyahu.
Meanwhile over at Ha’aretz in their Read & React section, on December 26, they were reporting that “a “limited operation” will begin within days that will combine an air attack with some ground operations against Hamas and other Gaza terror groups”.
Was this perhaps not newsworthy because the lead in to the article was that “Palestinian militants fired 22 mortar shells from the Gaza strip overnight”?
Or how about The Huffington Post which on December 25 had a comment thread entitled “Israel Moving Closer To Invading Gaza“. According to the article “Israel moved closer to invading Gaza, saying Thursday it had wrapped up preparations for a broad offensive after Palestinian militants fired about 100 rockets and mortar shells across the border in two days”.
Talk about dereliction of duty. So caught up in its visceral hatred of the Jewish state ”Comment is Free’ completely ignored the biggest news coming out of Israel in years!!
Of course Brian Whitaker never responded to MindTheCrap’s comment. Maybe Bella M, the staff Mod, had a quiet word with Brian to tell him to shut up because he was making an utter fool of himself plus he was derailing the thread undermining poor Bella’s protestations to stay on topic (thanks Bella by the way for the plug (didn’t Brian tell you not to mention us)).
Now Brian if you really want to defend the charge that the Guardian promotes antisemitic discourse both above the line and below the line you are more than welcome to defend the indefensible.
Here’s an offer. Why don’t you write an article for us explaining why you think this is not case? I’ll publish whatever you write. In particular, our readers would be intrigued to know the following: Why do you feature a disproportionate number of writers deeply hostile to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state many of whom are self-hating Jews and have a track record of antisemitism? Why do you tolerate antisemitism in the comment threads? Why for example have the numerous antisemitic commenters that populate CiF not been permanently banned – its not as if you are oblivious to this? Why do you delete comments putting forward a pro-Israel position? Why did you ban AKUS, Cityca and others? And why do you insinuate that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israeli government?
You can email me at contactus@cifwatch.com with your submission. I’m standing by.
Hawkeye
Omar
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
51 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2009 at 4:31 am
JerusalemMite
It is nice to see the facts tabulated in black and white without fear the ‘the mods’ will remove them.
October 29, 2009 at 4:34 am
MindTheCrap
Wow ! I’m now a celebrity :-)
October 29, 2009 at 4:54 am
MindTheCrap
What BrianWhit doesn’t realize is that the lack of coverage between Dec. 21-26 was blatantly apparent even during that week. I was shocked then by a conversation I had with an avid Guardian reader in England who was surprised when I mentioned to him that all hell would probably break loose soon.
Since the Guadian reporters could not have been unaware of the situation and the Guardian staff must have seen the TV and wire service reports, the only explanation is that the Guardian deliberately suppressed coverage of this story. Why ? Either they instinctively suppress any negative reporting on the Palestinians or they were preparing a case that the inevitable Israeli response was unprovoked.
October 29, 2009 at 4:57 am
Chas N-B
He’s a shameful little man. Not only defending racism, but doing so in such a limp manner.
October 29, 2009 at 4:59 am
John
Don’t forget to ask him why the Guardian (this also applies the rest of the shower of hacks pontificating on Israel in newspapers and on TV) did not report on the rocket assaults on Israel nor on “the letters Israel sent over eight years to the United Nations, imploring it to do something about the indiscriminate attacks on its citizens.” (See Yaacov Lozowick here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgxshts6_60dzqxdngv)
MindtheCrap – you are one of the reasons I still bother to read the wretched CIF! But for how long will they let you post? I hope you have a second username lined up.
October 29, 2009 at 5:03 am
FoolMeOnce
Very well put.
Mr. Whitaker has been caught red-handed, saying “rubbish” but in fact being factually incorrect about the Guardian’s reporting. And look at the headline the Guardian chose to write when finally reporting the vast increase in rocket attacks:
“Hamas ANSWERS Israeli air raid with rockets as truce ends early”
Ah yes, the old cause and effect trick. The cause obviously for the guardian, even when happening chronologically AFTER the effect, is Israel. With things always happening in the region constantly, one can always assign the cause to Israel and get away with it.
And about not reporting the rocket fired from Lebanon yesterday? Well, here lies the rub: If France, for instance, shot a rocket- just one small rocket into an open field, into say- Britain, I’m pretty sure, Mr. Whitaker that the world media would not deem it uninteresting.
And that’s the trickle effect going unchallenged and unreported by too many media outlets as the Guardian: One rocket is not newsworthy. Are two? How about ten over a period of a month?
By the time the media deems it newsworthy, Israelis are living under constant fire- as in North Israel, as in its south. By using the trickle effect the terror organizations insure that world media will only pick up the story to report Israel’s “disproportionate” response.
A term, in fact, put into use solely about Israel.
So next time the trickle becomes a rainstorm, Mr. Whitaker, try to think about the role your news outlet took in the terrorists’ clever battle over world opinion.
October 29, 2009 at 5:10 am
Chas N-B
“And why do you insinuate that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israeli government?”
Does he? I have someone who regularly comments on my blog who thinks that people who defend the Jewish state must be part of some sort of financial arrangement: http://www.oyvagoy.com/2009/06/25/jewish-news-column/
October 29, 2009 at 5:16 am
MindTheCrap
The Michelle Goldberg thread has been re-opened for comments.
October 29, 2009 at 5:22 am
Israelinurse
‘MindTheCrap: You’re just making this rubbish up and it doesn’t fool anyone.
Now go and compare that with the coverage in other newspapers. ‘
If I reacted to my clients like that when they raised an issue, I’d soon be out of a job!
‘blankedout: Probably it wasn’t considered newsworthy because the rocket didn’t cause any damage or hurt anyone’
This is total rubbish. The fact that by providence no-one was hurt does not negate the intended escalation of violence from the Lebanese side of the border. (UNIFIL dozing again, eh?).
Even when Israelis do get hurt it’s never half as newsworthy as whatever is happening on the other side of the border. During Lebanon II many of the foreign reporters set up camp in Haifa, which itself was being shelled daily, but the majority of their coverage was of events in Lebanon. I never saw one report in foreign news outlets on Kiryat Shmona, which suffered terribly.
Next time – and there will unfortunately be a next time, of course – we Israelis need to make sure that we send pictorial evidence to CiF Watch so that the lack of balance can be redressed. We are going to have to make more use of ‘citizen reporters’ because the MSM is clearly not to be relied upon to present a balanced picture of events.
October 29, 2009 at 5:38 am
JerusalemMite
FoolMeOnce – Mr. Whitaker has been caught red-handed, saying “rubbish” but in fact being factually incorrect about the Guardian’s reporting. And look at the headline the Guardian chose to write when finally reporting the vast increase in rocket attacks
I have to remark that I sometimes wonder if Brian actually knows what his hand is keying in on the keyboard.
It seems so very divorced from the facts which are so easily available.
As Chan N B says, ‘Its shameful’
October 29, 2009 at 6:25 am
Yohoho
Whitaker makes no secret of his biases – he either hasn’t the sense to keep them hidden or is so arrogant that he thinks they will not matter.
Well done CifWatch for putting him and his crackpottery under the microscope. Keep on doing it.
Israelinurse, I quite agree. This by Whitaker is on a par with CiF’s minimising its antisemitism and should have no place in a reputable blog.
I think that he and the Henry coven are losing it.
October 29, 2009 at 6:26 am
Ilan
“And why do you insinuate that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israeli government?”
This is a classic antisemitic smear. Jews, money etc…
October 29, 2009 at 7:11 am
Guardian Hates Jews
I have lived in a number of countries.
Reporting in the uSA is fairly balanced, in particular providing the rationale stated by each side for its actions: “Side x responded to side y today by sayng/doing …” The result is that the audience is well-informed as to each side’s motivations, whether those motivations are justifiabe or not.
Most of the European media do not do so. Their reporting is an incessant drone of “Israel today killed anothe Palestinian little boy.” There is rarely any context or rationale presented for the Israeli action.
The result is that large masses of Arab watchers gain an impression of an Israeli monster, and react violently.
The blood of Ilan Halimi is on Whit’s hands. Yes, the man is an anti-Semite with Jewish blood on his hands.
October 29, 2009 at 8:16 am
AKUS
The lead-up to Cast Lead should remind some of yur older readers to the lead-up to the 6Day War. Nasser was making wildly belligerent statements, he kicked the UN out of Sinai, the world urged Israel to restrain itself while they searched for a solution, and the disruption to life in Israel increased intolerably as in that case thousand of reservists had to leave their jobs to go to the fronts in case of an attack. Levi Eshkol kept waiting because – wise man – he knew that Israel would be blamed for striking the first blow. Until it was impossible to wait any longer.
Now we see revisionist an amateur historians blaming Israel for starting the 6 Day War by, in fact, finally deciding the threats were too real and to disruptive, and taking preemptive action.
Hence Whitaker’s attempts to brush aside the aggression against Israel even in the face of massive, readily available documentation to the contrary.
This revisionist history is being repeated no with regard to the attacks by Hamas, and Israel’s response with Cast Lead. The Guardian is in the forefront of those trying to dismiss the danger and impossibility of living under a rain of rocket fire from Gaza.
October 29, 2009 at 8:39 am
Guardian Hates Jews
Hence Whitaker’s attempts to brush aside the aggression against Israel
In the world-view of the virulently anti-Semitic Guardian management, aggression against Jews doesn’t cont as aggression.
October 29, 2009 at 9:24 am
Bavli
“In the world-view of the virulently anti-Semitic Guardian management, aggression against Jews doesn’t cont as aggression.”
Not surprising really, is it, given that most Guardianistas minimise antisemitism anyway and some don’t realise that they are doing that either.
October 29, 2009 at 9:54 am
Ilan
Whitaker’s website is a drooling Arab-fetishising farce. http://www.al-bab.com/
How does someone responsible for a website like that get to be awarded jobs that should require some semblance of sanity or balance?
October 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Itzik
My 4:37 comment has been deleted by the Moderator
October 29, 2009 at 1:14 pm
GideonSwort
You make too much of this, in a way overstating the obvious.
Brian Whitaker is often prone to female member of the canine family type of snappy behaviour when push comes to shove, and is shrill and pouty when outed in the wrong. He then tends to recede into the void when put on the spot by facts, and skulks indignantly assuming the posture of a tatty wallpaper, curling at the edges.
He is only surpassed in his “Arabophile” leanings by the Bolshevik, considerably less astute pleb – Seumas Milne.
Nothing new here, ladies and gents.
October 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Tony Lazzeri
The Guardian’s editorial of about two weeks ago says all anyone needs to know about the Guardian. It was a no holds bar attack on Israel that would have been readily rejected by the editors of Al Jazeera or Al Ahram. The editors of those two publications would have concluded that the editorial submission was so over the top in its hostility to Israel that a newspaper would lose credibility by running it. The end of the editorial called for “relentless pressure” on Israel. The editorial concluded that Hamas, the PA, Hezbollah, the Assad government, Islamic Jihad and Muslim Brotherhood were all innocent of any incitement, of any intransigence of any stalling, of anything. Only Israel stood as an obstacle to peace. The editorial could have been written by the devilish duo of Walt and Mershimer. If the Guardian had any wall of separation beween editors and reporters, it might be tolerable as a good newspaper just having lousy editorial writers. But at the Guardian, the view of Israel as the most vile piece of real estate on earth is accepted by one and all. There is no reporter or editor at the Guardian who has, or will ever have, any positive feelings toward Israel. In fact, Adam Freedman wrote emotionally about his support for a boycott of Israeli products. Freedman longs for the day when Israel fails as a nation state. So it goes at the Guardian.
October 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Yohoho
Ilan, “..How does someone responsible for a website like that get to be awarded jobs that should require some semblance of sanity or balance?..”
That’s easy. Like attracts like. CiF looked at al-bab and found its soul mate.
October 29, 2009 at 2:46 pm
TomWonacott
Bavli “Not surprising really, is it, given that most Guardianistas minimise antisemitism anyway and some don’t realise that they are doing that either.”
In fact, most would insinuate that your assertion was ridiculous. They considers themselves humanitarians, protecting the victims i.e., always the Palestinians.
Ilan, comments I submitted to the New York Times were occasionally deleted (when they were, what they considered, extreme), yet they posted left wing hate without batting an eye. Their moderators were, unquestionably, to the left. The Guardian, however, is an extreme case. Whitaker has no business on the comment section attacking pro Israeli posters – and its very surprising that the Guardian allows this practice (maybe not). Why did they hire Whitaker? Because of his views, exactly as Yohoho said. He also appears to be an attack dog, and not a very good one at that, as foolmeonce proved.
October 29, 2009 at 3:02 pm
zkharya
I was in the US prior to Cast Lead, and I was shocked how little reporting of rockets into Israel there was in The Guardian. It was like living in a different world.
October 29, 2009 at 3:05 pm
zkharya
Also I attempted to post a very reasonable response on the Goldberg thread. Screened out, as usual. But the likes of Berchmans and the usual idiots let through.
It’s so weird, given I only post about once a month. I don’t really know what to make of it.
October 29, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Tony Lazzeri
Try being critical of Roger Cohen in the comments section of the NY Times and see how far you get. If you are criticizing Cohen from the left (that is admittedly hard to do given Cohen’s sympathy for Hamas) you can be published in the comments section for Cohen. But try criticizing Cohen for his antiIsrael views and see how far you get. You might get published once every ten. But be a critic of Israel and you increase your chance of publication by about75%
October 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Guardian Hates Jews
“It’s so weird, given I only post about once a month. I don’t really know what to make of it.”
Simple. The Guardian management believes terrorists and Holocaust deniers are enitled to freedom of expression – but Israelis and Jews aren’t.
October 29, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Sergio Bramsole
Tony Lazzeri,
I wholeheartedly agree with you. They always filter out any comment that refers to Roger Cohen in unflattering terms.
October 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm
margie
Good analytic presentation Hawkeye, bearing your usual thoroughness order and insight. You prove your case past a reasonable doubt: the Guardian wishes to minimise Arab attacks and to create the impression of a monstrous military Israel with no redeeming features and no gentleness or humanity
October 29, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Sergio Bramsole
Hawkeye,
Top notch work!!!
October 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sergio Bramsole
I thought we all agreed to boycott Freedman’s threads.
October 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Sergio Bramsole
“We can never close the book on the Holocaust or Srebrenica. Their horrors live on in the politics of our time
Antony Lerman
True reckonings with such horrors will never be easy to achieve. Bosnian Muslims know this, as do European Jews. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/29/holocaust-srebrenica-memory
Shame on you. Balkan Muslims willingly served in the SS. In turn, the Serbs protected Jewish refugees.
October 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm
HairShirt
Could Whitaker be deemed to be the chief al-babbler of Al-Bab?
October 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm
HairShirt
Any word from the Chief Al-Babler about taking up your challenge, Hawkeye?
Or is he going to do a Seth Freedman, full of bravado but who chickened out when faced with an invitation to debate with the redoubtable Petra Marqardt-Bigman?
It can’t be that he doesn’t want to acknowledge you. He set the precedent before BellaM when paranoid manner so typical he said that Cifwatch was paid by the Israeli government.
October 29, 2009 at 6:50 pm
AKUS
Ilan
I had no idea that Whitaker had his own website, with an Arabic name (al-Bab – the door) on which he publishes his articles.
And this ethical cretin – I can find no description that fits – posing as the impartial editor of CiF who selects CiF content is also the person who selects which articles will appear on CiF and which comments will be deleted!!!
I have often mentioned that he keeps a heavy thumb on the scale – I had no idea that he owned the entire store, lock stock and barrel, including the scale itself.
If I was not already inured to the Guardian’s bias regarding Israel, and its apparent inability to present the facts honestly, I would be shocked – as it is, it merely confirms my darkest suspicions.
Has that paper no sense of journalistic ethics at all?
October 29, 2009 at 7:05 pm
pretzelberg
Now I’m just guessing that MindTheCrap did their homework before lulling Whittaker into that trap – but fall for it the latter did, and he does indeed look foolish.
But @ TomWonacott/AKUS/MindTheCrap
Don’t you find the moniker Guardian Hates Jews a bit OTT?
I have just lambasted a CiF piece by Simon Tisdall about US embassies. These people are IMO armchair lefties, i.e. they pretend to (and possibly even believe that they) oppose the system while every night quietly retreating to their plush Kensington pads.
But they see Israel as the latest long arm in/of western capitalism’s rule.
They’re not anti-Semitic. They are – in mostcases – just dogmatic anti-US idiots.
p.s. Certain comments on CiF are altogether different, of course.
Moeran’s recent reference to “scurrying Jews” in the Old City is beyond words.
October 29, 2009 at 7:05 pm
peterjjackson
Just a minor point – I had my first comment deletion today. Interestingly, it was a response to this:
gordchuck
29 Oct 09, 3:01pm (about 7 hours ago)
Teacup -
The definition of anti-semitism those sad sacks on CiFWatch use is ridiculous. They exacerbate a problem by that attitude. While most of us are not likely to lay the sins of Israel on the shoulders of all Jews around the world, from their definition, those poor Jews who have no say in what Israel does have to shoulder the blame for Israel’s actions.
Wonderfully adn concisely said. Kudos.
I pointed out to this person, and to the original well-known Teacup, that Cifwatch used the EUMC definition of anti-semitism that has been recommended to all 27 EU states and pretty much accepted in the UK as a subset of Macpherson.
Result: my comment deleted, the two originals still there.
On the other hand, a similar comment as part of a (relatively polite) conversation with the well-known Orwellwasright is still up so far.
OK, sorry it was on a Freedman thread. But I was provoked.
October 29, 2009 at 7:08 pm
peterjjackson
@pretzelberg
You’re right. It is the comments that get to me. There are a couple about IDF ‘death squads’ that seem perfectly acceptable, for example.
October 29, 2009 at 7:09 pm
AKUS
Pretzel – if you think Moeran is bad, try this from Silverstein, writing about another attendee at the JStreet conference:
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/27/mr-t-for-tolerance/
Another denizen of the right-wing Jewish deep slime, Hillel Stavis, crashed the panel, taking pictures of the panelists and attendees without authorization and had to be escorted from the room. Since he was a registered conference goer, J Street allowed him to remain in the hall even though he wrote a scummy report at his own blog complaining of his “shabby” treatment.
And Silverstein is fairly frequent contributor to CIF – not merely a nasty commentator.
What do you think of Whitaker’s dual role as CiF editor and running hos own blog “off the books”?
October 29, 2009 at 7:55 pm
SilverTrees
“….Has that paper no sense of journalistic ethics at all?..
Yes, AKUS, let’s talk journalistic ethics:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
This is an American document but its suggestions should apply worldwide:
Note that it says that journalists should:
“…—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may
compromise integrity or damage credibility…..
— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the
public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news
media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media..”
And at http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174, from the NUJ:
“Code of conduct
“The NUJ’s Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936. It is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to it.
Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:
A journalist:
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
4. Differentiates between fact and opinion
5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means
6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest
7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work
8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information
9. Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge
10. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation
11. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed
12. Avoids plagiarism.”
Are Whitaker or any others in this shower members of the NUJ?
Whitaker certainly and regularly breaches 2, 3, 4, and resoundingly and deliberately breaches 10.
October 29, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Ariadne
Has anyone noticed that Whitaker turned up as the final poster on the thread?
He referred to two reports from the Guardian on Palestinians firing rockets pre-Cast Lead, 20 and 22 Dec..
It isn’t much to set against what Hawkeye has listed above.
October 29, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Ariadne
SilverTrees: I can see why the NUJ one doesn’t say “differentiates between fact and fiction“.
October 29, 2009 at 8:12 pm
AKUS
Its time to expose Whitaker’s “dual loyalty.”
Incredible.
pretzel – everyone can choose their own moniler – I don;t have to comment. But don’t you think that “GuardianisObsessedwithJews” might be a reasonable one?
You’ve been actibe on the Freedman thread – isn’t a total bore and waste of space for the umteenth time to see the same Freedman article and the same response?.
Anyway, his starting point was wrong – as SantaMoniker, the surfin’ babe pointed out, the IDF does not allow its soldiers to take political positions while surving.
October 29, 2009 at 9:08 pm
AKUS
pretzel –
BTW your old friend talknic is back on the Freedman thread – as “whyisit ”
There goes the thread …
October 29, 2009 at 9:11 pm
AKUS
Silvertrees – if someone has the energy, it could make a good post – going through the list you linked to and demonstrating which articles the Guardian infringes, and where.
e.g:
“9. Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge”
Probably aimed at semi-retired stockbrokers writing for CiF …
October 30, 2009 at 9:28 am
John
AKUS
See this own site’s article “If my MEMRI serves me well” here: http://cifwatch.com/2009/09/15/if-my-memri-serves-me-well/
And also Tom Gross on Whitaker here:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000662.html
In 2002, when Whitaker wrote the article “Selective Memri:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker, his personal site – Al bab – contained no pages on Israel/Jews – he has since corrected that…
October 30, 2009 at 10:18 am
HairShirt
John, I have just looked at the Tom Gross link you posted above. It seems that the Al-Babbler was busily building up his paranoid fantasies a long time ago.
Does anyone know if the Al-Babbler is a member of the NUJ? Perhaps it might be interested in his activities, particularly those which infringe 2, 3 and 4 of its Code above.
And I doubt that the Al-Babbler has the moral integrity to defend himself in the way set out in 8 above, either, and what he writes is certain contra to 10, in that he is deliberately selective in ways which feed hatred.
October 30, 2009 at 10:38 am
Tony Lazzeri
Whenever Tony Lerman is getting ready to bash Israel, you know it will be preceded by a few crocodile tears about the holocaust. But Lerman will always tie the holocaust to an incident in which Muslims are victims. One thing Lerman will never admit about Israel. That is the fact that in 1999 Israel was the ONLY country willing to take in whole Bosnian families. The Europeans refused to take in whole families, fearing that they will stay forever. Israel sent EL Al airplanes to pick up entire Bosnian families, including some very elderly Bosnians and giving them refuge in Israel. There are Bosnian families in Israel today. Unlike Seth Freedman, the Bosnians in Israel are very grateful for their sage passage and don’t spend their days rooting under Israeli garbage cans desperate to find something to report negatively about.
October 31, 2009 at 2:09 am
Guardian Hates Jews
Pretzelberg, there have always been excuses for anti-Semitism – and you are particularly adept at finding them.
October 31, 2009 at 10:56 am
AKUS
Guardian Hates Jews – actually, pretzel, with whom I have had some angry exchanges, seems to try to find the middle pat and frequently calls the idiots on their inventions about Israel – e.g., “carpet bombing gaza”.
I for one can accept someone actually trying to be fair – its the namokals, morons, papagalis and the like that are a waste of space.
November 1, 2009 at 8:13 am
MindTheCrap
Pretzelberg:
I don’t understand why you think that I set a trap for Whitaker. As I have pointed out several times I was aware of the blatant absence of Guardian coverage in ‘real-time’ so I didn’t have to do homework to make my point (I added the link as proof for doubters). Whitaker chose to reply to me without checking the archives, which he then did later on after a string of comments supporting me were posted. His final comment (second-to-last on the thread) seems to prove my point rather than his contention that it was “rubbish”.
The moderator, as usual, deleted my initial comment but left Whitaker’s reply so readers saw his claim that I was ‘making up rubbish’ without seeing the reason why.
November 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm
canadaneil
I have just stumbled across this website. I think it is a good antidote to the disgusting (but strangely compelling) CiF. AKUS I enjoyed your posts – certainly didn’t always agree with them, but assumed you’d got fed up with posting. I didn’t realise you were banned. Quite a badge of honour!
I shall be following this site with interest