http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/21653/swedish-journalist-defends-organ-blood-libel-israel

Note particularly:

‘…Asked at the conference why he [ie Bostrom] had accused the IDF of killing Palestinians for their organs, he replied: “I never wrote that and didn’t claim that IDF soldiers killed Palestinians to harvest their organs. I wrote that Palestinian families are claiming that is the case.”

‘He accused the media of distorting his report and accusing him of antisemitism for political purposes…’

But whether he was conscious of it or not, Bostrom bought heavily into the antisemitic blood libel trope.

Excellent article. While the Guardian may not have supported the boycott approved by the British Union of Journalist (how would that look even to a partisan paper like the Guardian?), enough of the writers penning stories in the Guardian support BDS against Israel that the Guardian, in my opinion, holds the issue of a boycott like a gun to the head of Israel in their “campaign” to isolate Israel internationally. No doubt, they will support a boycott if necessary in the future.

“…The PCC decided that this was, while a lie, protected under the opinion rules which said that so long as something is clearly labeled opinion it is ok….

You then went on to say that the article with which you had taken issue had not been so labeled.

So, people, should we be pressuring The Guardian into flagging up very clearly in print when CiF articles are opinions rather than facts?

Given that the NUJ, for all its nice “Code of Conduct” is a toothless tiger, and the Press Complaints Commission is almost as useless in preventing abuses of fact, what do you recommend instead rather than just the equivalent of voting with one’s feet?

Even if one does that the poisonous lies are still there in print.

Whereas I very much doubt that their members in general are fundamentally dishonest in their representation of what they see, Medusa’s article raises interesting questions for me in the light of the information in Barbara Sofer’s article, quoted above, such as:

Is there in fact a “gold standard” for ethical journalism (or blog articles)?

What mechanism is there to complain about the offensive or incitatory in newspaper or blog articles – other than to the PCC in the UK, which I don’t really trust to be objective either.

For me the examples of the truly egregious and the absolute nadir of reportage are those of John Pilger on CiF at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/israelandthepalestinians.civilliberties

(I imagine the coven had to have its collective arm twisted almost to breaking point for them to print the retraction there)

And there is also the not-so-little matter of his reporting the “massacre” at Jenin which turned out not to have been any such thing.

The NUJ’s refusal to answer letters suggests they adhere to the same practices.

It should be allowed to publish a “Code of Practice” (which is in effect window dressing and a gross misrepresentation) since it cannot enforce it, nor can it take action against anyone who infringes it. As you say, JersualemMite, it’s there to mollify and keep the public sweet rather than to protect the good name of the “profession.”

This is totally different from other professional regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the British Psychological Society, which exist to protect the public from unscrupulous and unethical practitioners. Be proven to have infringed their regulations and you are slung out of the organisation.

The only recourse for people who feel aggrieved by newspaper coverage (although I am not sure whether this applies in respect of the rubbish put out by blogs like Stormfront and CiF) is to complain to the Press Complaints Commission, but I have real doubts about their capability or objectivity too.

According to the report,the Explorer scouts, who were taking part in Remembrance Sunday service in Romford, Essex who were heard to repeatedly shout “Lets kill the Jews” at the former soldiers.

This from boy scouts,Britain is slowly but surely being flushed down the toilet

It sets out a list of ‘standards’ which, on the face of it, seem to require maintaining a healthy press while in fact, it is a smotherer of genuine complaint.

It so reminds me of CI(F) ‘moderation policy’.

“Responsible Journalism: Let the buyer beware

“We reporters need to be conscious of our own prejudices and sympathies as well as the desires of those we interview to energetically promote their personal causes. A good knowledge of the region, common sense and a fair measure of scepticism are valuable antidotes to falling for a slanted story. It’s far worse than buying a street corner wristwatch that fails immediately after purchase. A damaging story can tick on forever.”

* Barbara Sofer writes magazine and newspaper articles, fiction and scripts for the short films she directs and produces. She is an Orthodox Jew, a feminist, a passionate speaker about Judaism, women’s lives and Israel, and one of three recipients of the 2008 Eliav-Sartawi Award for Middle East Journalism. Barbara Sofer may be reached at: bsofer@netvision.net.il and http://www.barbarasofer.com. This article is part of a special series on responsible journalism in the Arab-Israeli conflict written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). at http://www.commongroundnews.org

Chas N-B thank you for the link. I am not in the least surprised at its content. Someone I know left the NUJ having come up against this narrow-minded bigotry. This person is probably a socialist but couldn’t stand the infiltration of the union by the loony left and what ensued because of that.

As I have written in the article, my best guess is that the CiF Editors are members of the union. I would dearly like to know – and so far all my enquiries have been dead ends – about how they think their Code of Conduct applies to blogs.

However, CW’s increasing popularity and the stunning revelations of misdeeds. nepotism, mismanagement, financial ruin, and anti-Semitism it is reporting at the “Daily Hypocrite” are having a great effect at drawing attention to these peoples’ agenda, style, and general loathsomeness.