For those of you following the BellaM story, I’m pleased to report that the Independent picked the story up:
Red faces at The Guardian, where a moderator of the Comment is Free website has been reprimanded for likening Melanie Phillips to a character from Little Britain.
Read the rest here.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Margie
Well done Hawkeye and Cifwatch. You scooped the major media though there’s no acknowledgement.
November 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Serendipity
One thing is certain, the Indie will not hesitate to score points off the Guardian.
November 23, 2009 at 6:03 pm
effher
“Eff me, I’m famous.But not in a good way.Or maybe in good way.Depends.”
One very confused daddy’s little girl.One very confused little automaton,in a good way ,or in a bad way,who cares.
BTW,Isabella Rusbridger is still moderating,getting effed in the process.
November 23, 2009 at 7:47 pm
AKUS
A good indicator of CW’s increasing influence and reach. But they should have provided attribution!
November 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm
effher
CiF Watch was mentioned in Haaretz too.
November 24, 2009 at 12:08 am
effher
Reading BellaM’s comments on “Do you believe in Shakespeare” in the Guardian.You can safely come to the conclusion that she wasn’t hired by the Guardian for her brains.I would have to say that it had something to do with her genes.
November 24, 2009 at 12:54 am
Callie Ewing
Alas poor Bella/Isabella, I knew her well. She stands exposed, the whole world knows that her job as the moderator at the Guardian stems not from a brilliant resume or a solid job history but from the mere fact that her real name is Rusbridger. Despite its supposed commitment to freedom of information and the peoples’ right to know, the Guardian and Bella didn’t want its readers to know this little tidbit. Maybe Hemingway should have titled his great work “The daughter also rises”.
November 24, 2009 at 1:05 am
JerusalemMite
Yes.
That must be a source of embarrassment to Rusbridger.
One wonders.
If Rusbridger can ever be em embarrassed?
The Guardian ‘projects’ to the effect that the moderators are somehow independent. This does rather explode that view.
How they must grit their teeth about CIFWatch.
Watchout! As their ‘moderation’ is nothing of the sort and simply a device to protect the GWV from shining a light on its abominations, The Guardian might be considering how to ‘remove’ CIFWatch from the blogsphere.
November 24, 2009 at 1:32 am
Margie
JerusalemMite:
their ‘moderation’ is nothing of the sort
——————-
Have you ever asked their moderators a question? I have asked questions in the abuse reports, in the threads themselves and by email. At least you can praise them for consistency. I received no reply from them at all on all three occasions
November 24, 2009 at 7:08 am
AKUS
Callie Ewing – I think it verges on male chauvenism to call BellaM “a little tidbit”
November 24, 2009 at 7:52 am
JubelFoster
Little Bella got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. She presented herself as a qualfied journalist and now we know she used an alias to conceal the fact that she was the editor’s child. In a deep recession with subscriptions and advertising rates dropping like flies, the Guardian found the money to hire Bella. College kids looking for internships were turned away while they found room for daddy’s favorite daughter at the Guardian.
The Guardian has been caught so often in ethical lapses you need a scorecard to keep track of it all.
November 24, 2009 at 10:13 am
Richard
I think its important to point out to all of the guardian “moderators” that the manner in which they conduct their job can have an impact on them being employed in journalism in the future. Our dear bella should be made well aware of that.
Unethical censhorship, personal attacks and biased commenting conducted by the protectors of free speech will be weighed carefully by future employeers. And perhaps that’s exactly what publications like the Guardian look for, though I’d like to believe that most other mainstream organiziations would do their best to hire writers and editors that uphold journalistic code of conduct.
I believe that if we really wanted to change the way publications report on Israel, it will be through their readership demanding they uphold journalistic integrity and sign onto a Journalistic code of conduct: http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/01/code-of-conduct-new-era-in-modern.html
November 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
JerusalemMite
Richard. I believe that if we really wanted to change the way publications report on Israel, it will be through their readership demanding they uphold journalistic integrity and sign onto a Journalistic code of conduct:
The advertisers should be approached too. That would really make the editors pay attention.
November 25, 2009 at 12:22 am
Margie
JerusalemMite:The advertisers should be approached too. That would really make the editors pay attention.
Good point. If you are subsidising it you are complicit, aren’t you?
November 25, 2009 at 4:51 am
Richard
JerusalemMite:The advertisers should be approached too. That would really make the editors pay attention.
I think the concept is good, only again, you have to convince the consumers to think twice about buying products or services of the advertisers, and then from there it will trickle down to the papers. If advertisers don’t feel their reputation (and subsequnently their bottom line) is threatened, it won’t make much of a difference. The advertisers will advertise anywhere they think will lead to increased sales.