Take a look at what Matt Seaton, editor of “Comment is Free”, wrote in the Boyd thread earlier this week.
mattseaton
18 Nov 2009, 6:52PM
@ Ranong:
Why is the writer of this piece given the opportunity to traduce the programme -makers in The Guardian so soon after another anti (but polite) article by another writer?
I don’t accept that the programme-makers are traduced by Boyd. That would imply a wilful misrepresentation, whereas I don’t doubt that Boyd sincerely believes they made a bad and borderline antisemitic programme. No one is obliged to accept his POV on that.
The fact is that Oborne and James were given the first word in the Comment pages (reproduced online here, of course). Further, there will be a response to Cesarani and Boyd here before the end of the week. We are naturally wary of publishing too much on the topic, but we do aim to give a fair balance of views overall. So please look at our comment coverage in the round.
Staff Let me first take issue with this: “Oborne and James were given the first word in the Comment pages (reproduced online here, of course).”
Yes where else! Don’t you feel just proud of yourself to have republished the writings of Oborne and James that reeked of Jewish conspiracy theory. Moreover, you published the Oborne and James piece prior to the airing of the Channel 4 documentary that no doubt gave it a huge boost in terms of viewership and you primed the prejudices of those susceptible who watched the program. Good job Matt.
You then go on to say that you are “[n]aturally wary of publishing too much”.
What utter BS. You published four articles during the week that generated over 1,500 comments in the aggregate (and the comments are still coming in at the time of writing). The amount of antisemitic discourse in each of these threads was simply astonishing. And you’re wary. You’re not wary of anything. You’ll publish anything that will get guardianistas riled up against the Jews and boost the Guardian’s much needed click thru rate.
And you then claim that you “aim to give a fair balance of views overall”. More BS. What utter audacity.
Lets take a look at your comment coverage on Israel in CiF Middle East during the month prior to the Oborne report (Nov 16, 2009 – Oct 16, 2009):
13 Nov 2009 – Antony Lerman “The Community Leadership We Deserve” (anti-Israel)
13 Nov 2009 – Charles Grant “Israel’s Dark View of the World” (anti-Israel)
12 Nov 2009 – Ben White “Fragmenting Palestinian Land” (anti-Israel)
11 Nov 2009 – Seth Freedman “Erdogan’s blind faith in Muslims” (anti-Israel)
9 Nov 2009 – Hussein Ibish “Abbas’ Mixed Messages” (pro-Palestinian)
2 Nov 2009 – Hussein Ibish “Palestinians Must Prepare for Statehood” (pro-Palestinian)
1 Nov 2009 – Richard Silverstein “Obama Must Try Harder” (anti-Israel)
1 Nov 2009 – Jeremy Sharon “Writing Jews Out of Jerusalem’s History” (pro-Israel)
30 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “The Far Right That Killed Rabin” (anti-Israel)
29 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Israeli Military Gives Settlers Free Rein” (anti-Israel)
28 Oct 2009 – Michelle Goldberg “Driving Up J-Street” (anti-Israel)
28 Oct 2009 – Ahmed Khalidi “The Palestinian Authority’s State’s First Mistake” (anti-Israel)
26 Oct 2009 – Editorial “Roadmap or Roadblock?” (anti-Israel)
26 Oct 2009 – Isi Leibler “J Street’s ‘Pro-Israel’ Stance is Phoney” (pro-Israel)
22 Oct 2009 – Simon Tisdall “Israel is in Denial Over Turkish Rage” (anti-Israel)
22 Oct 2009 – Antony Lerman “The Liberal Jewish Challenge” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Palestinians Send Blair a Wake Up Call” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Richard Goldstone “Israel’s Missed Opportunity” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Michael Lerner “A War Crime Whitewash” (anti-Israel)
20 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Filling Up Israel’s Jails to No Avail” (anti-Israel)
20 Oct 2009 – Harold Evans “A Moral Atrocity” (pro-Israel)
18 Oct 2009 – Olivia Hampton “Reviving Hope for Middle East Peace (neutral)
Out of 22 articles there are a mere 3 pro-Israel articles and about half of the 22 articles were penned by the Guardian’s coterie of Theobald Jews.
Very fair. Very balanced.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm
peterthehungarian
Hawkeye why are you surprised?
Seaton only does what he is paid for – publishes articles showing the Guardian’s truth… Truth as Pravda in Russian…
November 21, 2009 at 12:54 pm
zkharya
“We are naturally wary of publishing too much on the topic”
i.e. concerned that the critics of Osbourne and James are given the last word.
November 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm
peterthehungarian
And by the way from the mouth of a beloved representative of the GWV …
Chavez lauds Carlos the Jackal as ‘great’ pro-Palestinian fighter
———————————————————————————————–
“They accuse him of being a terrorist, but Carlos really was a revolutionary fighter,” Chavez said during a televised speech to socialist politicians from various countries, who applauded.
In his speech, Chavez also sought to defend other leaders he said are wrongly labeled bad guys internationally, including Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chavez called both of them brothers and said he now wonders whether Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was truly as brutal as he was reputed to be”
———————————————————————————————–
I’m looking forward to read something from this revolutiaonary hero on the CIF.
November 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm
FoolMeOnce
echh… numbers.
Numbers: 19 out of 22 articles.
19 articles extremely critical of Israel with zero criticism on Palestinians, out of 22.
Yuck, all those pointless numbers. I’ll be honest, boyo- we don’t care for numbers here on “The Guardian”.
Numbers just don’t fit into our scheme, don’t you see? They’re too rigid, too… PRECISE. We prefer a LOOSER FORM OF TRUTH here on ye old Manchester Guardian, yesiri.
A truth you could really shape they way you need to sell newspapers.
No, we feel numbers restrict us- they just won’t do I’m afraid. OR.. was it a number given by Hamas?
THAT WE’LL TAKE!
November 21, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The Watcher from CifWatch
Three categories only: Pro-Israel and its accompanying anti-Israel. That’s fair enough (except for the proportion).
Then we get pro-Palestinian but hey, no anti-Palestinian to balance it.
Are we to understand that Palestinians are above criticism or are they not to be criticised?
Strange, innit?
November 21, 2009 at 1:42 pm
MITNAGED
The Watcher from CifWatch – actually it’s neither. Palestinians are the charity cases of the extreme loony left, infantilised and absolved from all guilt and blame for any of their reprehensible behaviour. Every bleat is “there there’d” in a “poor ickle diddums” manner so misguidedly adopted by people who either spoil their children or are afraid to discipline them. Without their charity case with which to beat up the rest of us, the loony left would have no reason to exist.
If you brought up a child in that way it would probably turn out to be a thug.
Hey… hang on a minute….
November 21, 2009 at 1:55 pm
FoolMeOnce
@The Watcher from CifWatch
Pro-whatnot and anti-whatnot are really only simplifications for a lack of better words.
I don’t like these distinctions either. Perhaps “pro-Israeli VS pro-Palestinian” are more to your liking?
They’re kind of “half-glass-full” versions of the same.
November 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm
cityca
Good post Hawkeye. Seeing the numbers is very instructive.
MITNAGED
Spot on again. They are professional victims from cradle to grave, all paid for by funds supplied by a world class team of charities and much of that money syphoned off to the bank accounts of their leaders and never reaching its intended recipients.
November 21, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The Watcher from CifWatch
Mitnaged and FoolMeOnce. Actually I would prefer to see a realistic criticism of the Palestinian lack of initiative, some conjecture as to the reasons why they have never accepted any of the offers made to them and even a call for them to make a peace offer to Israel, setting out the terms and conditions that they are prepared to accept.
I would like to see a criticism of the way that they educate their children and of the content of their Friday night sermons and of the lack of attention to human rights. I would like to see criticism of the way that Palestinian solidarity groups in the UK call for boycotts of Israel on falsified grounds.
I would in short, like to see the Palestinians treated as adult and responsible people who can be asked to behave as full members of our society, instead of people to be pitied and babied.
November 22, 2009 at 3:48 am
FoolMeOnce
@The Watcher from CifWatch
You’re preaching to the quire. We are in agreement. The Palestinians are treated like babies, because if they’re not helpless babies than the Israelis can’t be omnipotent thugs.
The loony left, as described here, need babies for its patronizing righteousness. Just as Arab, African, and other 3rd world regimes are given less criticism than old Israel (and the US and often Britain for that matter) as if they are not to be expected to do any better, so are the Palestinians reserved the role of “the oppressed indigenes”.
I don’t agree that the Palestinians lack initiative. They seem to have a lot of it in the “resistance” department. So far all of their extremely corrupt leaderships (Fateh being even more efficient than Hamas in diverting cash to their Swiss bank accounts) have thrived on misfortune and violence.
Because the more misfortune, the more European aid flows in.
In short, they themselves are playing the role of the pitied babies, because nowadays victimhood is big bucks. Victimhood in the media is the new form of victory in the 21st century battlefield.