This is a guest post by AKUS
The effect that CiF Watch is having on “Comment is Free” was dramatically illustrated on February 8th, when readers were treated to a brief but fierce debate that suddenly erupted in the thread attached to the latest rather innocuous offering from the Arsonist before the moderators at CiF could swing into action and remove any comments referring to “that other site”, as CiFWatch is known on … well, “that other site”. The debate centered on the interesting question –“Is Comment Really Free on CiFWatch?”
In a strange response to the following on-topic comment by frequent poster Jubilation1:
“grahamew” tossed out what he hoped would be a bombshell (don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later):
Of course, it was a bombshell, but perhaps not as he intended. Interestingly, I captured it when it had received at least 5 recommendations, so we know that there may be as many as 5 CiFers who don’t show up on CiF Watch lurking on the site (perhaps even reading this, eh, grahamew?).
Well, that was too much for some-time poster properbostonian who sprang to Jubilation1’s defence, and contributed an interesting new idea – that CiF Watch may be an organ of Hamas – possibly a little tongue in cheek (as before – don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later):
Despite the best efforts of the moderators, his post remained long enough to attract some attention.
Snowed in in the far north, occasional poster MiniApolis applauded his Eastern seaboard co-commenter, pointing out that it is indeed on CiF Watch that debate IS possible:
Note that MiniApolis bases his/her support on the debate raging between Matt Seaton and the Jewish Chronicle over the Alderman affair (as before – don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later).
But this drew a final comment in the thread on this issue from rabid anti-Israeli poster, Gareth100 (as before – don’t look for it – it was deleted some time later):
Now, Gareth100’s comment indicates a severely closed mind – not someone who pops over here to get the real story – since the Alderman affair has received very wide coverage here and in the blogosphere. In fact, Matt Seaton has referenced it himself:
So we had the interesting spectacle of seeing a string of comments discussing CiFWatch vs. CiF and referencing the Alderman Affair which no less a commenter than Matt Seaton himself had referred to on another thread – all deleted.
You be the judge – which site permits freedom of speech which is in no way abusive, and how scared have the powers that be (holed up at CiF HQ) become of CiF Watch’s scrutiny of their actions?












66 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 10, 2010 at 1:04 am
Margie
A fascinating tale, Akus. It takes dedication to the truth to get the real story out of a thread at cif, since when you come to it later, after it has received the attentions of the mods it is a pale shadow of its former self with all the guts ripped out of it. Even during its development they try to harry it, pushing the comment in this or that direction. Sometimes they get angry and make little growling remarks that may be translated as ‘death to all evil comments’, a threat they actually carry out by deleting and sometimes even double deleting them to make sure that they are not only dead but that the memory of them is dead too.
They didn’t count on you being there!
February 10, 2010 at 2:24 am
JerusalemMite
Could hardly imagine a better progression of ‘captured’ comments from the bigoted double standard Guardian to demonstrate that ‘Comment Is Free’, (CIF), is infact ‘Comment is Not Free’ (CINF).
But I have known this for a long, long time.
February 10, 2010 at 3:03 am
commentscount
I mark an X on my pad every time that I get deleted,I must be doing something right to get deleted so many times.
February 10, 2010 at 5:22 am
Duvid Crockett
“I must be doing something right to get deleted so many times,” says commentscount:
I’ve Just Been Deleted (to the tune of “Some Enchanted Evening.”)
(Hat tip: R. Rodgers and O. Hammerstein)
I’ve just been deleted,
At Cif, what’s stranger,
I’m not the masked Lone Ranger,
Neither a Baptist nor Jew,
I’m just not a Trot,
And Trots’re all they’ve got.
But when they’ve not got the trots,
Plain diarrhoea will do.
(Core Anglais solo with string section backing)
I’ve just been deleted,
By the Guardian Stazi;
I’m not even a Nazi,
Blackshirt or Iron Guard.
I’m just not a pissed
International Marxist.
Still, I’m on their list.
But they sure won’t be missed.
(Sweeping string section finale) DS Al Coda
February 10, 2010 at 6:02 am
pretzelberg
The effect that CiF Watch is having on “Comment is Free” was dramatically illustrated on February 8th … how scared have the powers that be (holed up at CiF HQ) become of CiF Watch’s scrutiny of their actions?
Sorry, but this reeks of delusions of grandeur.
CiF has a moderation policy – CiFW does not.
As the post by grahamew was clearly off-topic, both it and related posts were deleted.
Why make such a big deal out of grahamew’s inane comment?
February 10, 2010 at 6:24 am
THH
Incredible
I was put on pre moderation because i mentioned that Hamas throw Fatah from balconies , but when someone writes Israel are murderers its ok …
What a load of Shit this guardian .
February 10, 2010 at 7:46 am
modernityblog
Most sites have a comments policy, what is commendable about CIF Watch is that it allows its opponents (mostly, but not exclusively, those hung-up about the existence of Jews/Israelis) ample space to put their arguments.
I’ll be honest and say I haven’t found it always very agreeable, because some threads are ruined by these trolls, bigots, cranks and suppose defenders of the Guardian’s reputation, but it does have the merit of giving them enough rope to hang themselves, argumentatively speaking
Not unsurprisingly these Guardian reading bigots are fairly intellectually inconsistent, advance trite arguments and are conspicuous for their lack of knowledge of the Middle East.
I think there is a tendency in some of the threads to get distracted or turn into a bun fights, but there’s no question that CIF Watch is a much freer environment than CiF.
February 10, 2010 at 8:01 am
Independent Observer
TwistedPretzel
CiF has a moderation policy – CiFW does not.
I used to think you an incompetent fool. Now I’m sure of it.
http://cifwatch.com/about/terms-of-use/
February 10, 2010 at 8:28 am
Chas N-B
Has there been anything in the JC from the CiF team about the Alderman affair?
February 10, 2010 at 8:29 am
Chas N-B
I realise the print edition isn’t out until later this week, I wondered if anyone had seen anything on the website. I can’t find anything myself.
February 10, 2010 at 9:22 am
pretzelberg
@ Independent Observer
If allowing people to call others “piggish goy” is moderation, then it’s clearly of the minimal variety. Either way: you (deliberately?) overlooked my point.
Not sure why you got so aggressive there, but I suppose that’s your anger to manage yourself.
February 10, 2010 at 9:38 am
modernityblog
pretzelberg,
I don’t normally agree with Independent Observer, but in this instance he is correct and if you took the trouble to read my previous post you’d understand something, maybe.
Again you shouldn’t be so sensitive and then try to abuse people?
Have you apologised to IsraeliNurse yet?
February 10, 2010 at 9:50 am
Biodegradable
The BBC and The Guardian in cahoots:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/that-bbcguardian-thing-again.html
February 10, 2010 at 9:56 am
AKUS
Biodegradable – interesting sequence of tweets. I always wonder why people seem so eager to tell the whole world about everything they do – specially when they don’t realize what it tells us about matters such as collusion between the Guardian and the BBC.
February 10, 2010 at 10:02 am
Biodegradable
AKUS – Perhaps they’re actually proud of what they do and want the world to know. So convinced of their righteousness are they.
The BBC are instrumental in keeping The Guardian afloat – all the BBC job vacancies are advertised in The Guardian. Not only is the licence fee payer maintaining the BBC and its world view, the telly tax is also paying for the Guardian, and CiF’s, constant drip-drip-drip of anti-Israel propaganda.
February 10, 2010 at 10:41 am
JerusalemMite
modernityblog
Most sites have a comments policy, what is commendable about CIF Watch is that it allows its opponents (mostly, but not exclusively, those hung-up about the existence of Jews/Israelis) ample space to put their arguments.
Sounds nice Modernity but, as far as I have seen, there has been no arguments from the CIF crowd. Just one long dribble of hate, revisionism and misinformation.
Let’s face it. Nobody is going to convince Berchmans/LaRit/Orwell/Preemptive/GazaGirl etc about anything. Only a pre-frontal lobotomy will effect any change there.
but.
Some, like me, were probably horrified to come across and see the manipulations and misrepresentations employed by The Guardian/Cif to denigrate and delegitimise the one Western Liberal Democracy in the Middle East.
The commenters mentioned above are social rejects who spend their time pumping out hate in different forms. One at least, has instantiated his own site where he muses on the dark ideas that roam inside his sick skull. It is sad to see that CiF still allows comments from such an obviously mentally disturbed person.
February 10, 2010 at 10:56 am
FoolMeOnce
Is it just me being optimistic, or has the pressure been making at least SOME difference and some of the more vehement Israel-haters on CiF have been gradually shown the door?
I mean, I don’t want to respect this numskulls by naming them, but you all know the usual suspects (Moeron, Krusty, Beaton, Satan, etc). Lately when I log on to CIF for my daily treatment of nausea I just get this moron called (very appropriately) “FalseConsciousness”.
The riot is that this guy has a picture of TROTSKY for his icon! Has anyone else found this amusing?
Is the CIF crowd really become such a caricature of the left that this conspiracy-theorist Marxist has become CiF’s most venerable and popular commenter?
February 10, 2010 at 11:12 am
THH
@FoolMeOnce
you are wrong .
Its enough to look at today articles to see that most of the pro Israeli posts are being systematically deleted and pro Palestinian post are standing proud with hate speeches about Israel .
February 10, 2010 at 11:20 am
FoolMeOnce
THH, I have no doubt about pro-Israeli posts being deleted. That is very clear from every single post. I just thought (maybe wishful thinking) that at least there is a NEW crowd of haters replacing the old ones…
In a way that could give a small sense of accomplishment. But maybe the older numskulls just get tired of posting… Or they have burst from their own venom.
February 10, 2010 at 11:46 am
AKUS
What is amusing is that the Bronner article, which I thought was quite amusing and initially attracted a lot of funny comments till the humorless green meanies got going is flooded with references to CiF Watch.
The Guardian can no longer try to hide the fact that there are people watching its incessant attacks on Israel and calling them on its policies.
Monitoring little CiF Watch’s success in fighting back at the huge resources available to the Guardian reminds me of Israel turning the tables on the Arabs in 1973!
Kol hakovod Hawkeye!!
February 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
AKUS
FoolMeOnce – I’ve also noticed this – maybe they are being pre-moderated? Or maybe even those suffering from incurable verbal diarrhea – we know who they are – have finally realized that repeating the very same nonsense for the 1,000th time makes no difference and have given up in boredom?
The Guardian is now damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. Due to its obsessive articles about Israel and Jews it has made itself a target site for anti-Semites, Israel bashers of all stripes, people calling for the murder of Jews, assassination of politicians, etc. Since most of its clicks on the Middle East threads derive from these numskulls, they either allow them (looks increasing bad) or shut them out by moderating them or banning them (reduces the number of clicks).
As for your Trotskyite – he ought to consider that he is posting on a site that looks either like Pravda or something run by the youngest contingents of Mao’s Little Red Guards. Trotsky did not do well with the Stalinistas.
February 10, 2010 at 11:56 am
wearenotblind
I think foolmeonce is right. CiF has tamed down the more vicious anti-Israel posts. They are no less biased, but more careful. Now, if someone had screamed “death to Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians” at some Oxford presentation, and that person was a Jew/Israeli/American, the news coverage in the Guardian and the CiF smug outrage would have been of collossal proportions. Followed by the typical comments like “in 1949 Ben Gurion said the same thing”, with 1500 comments and comments not closed in 24 hours. As it was, “nothing to see here, move along”.
February 10, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Benito
Just a quick thought:
Guardian comment is free articles on antisemitism:
1) January 25 2010
2) January 26 2010
3) January 27 2010
4) January 28 2010
5) January 29 2010
6) February 5 2010
7) February 10 2010
Despite the fact that it was Holocaust Memorial Day, does this not seem like a disproportionate amount of focus on the subject of the hatred of Jews? I am not making any implications, or judging the Guardian in any way, I just find it incredibly strange….
February 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm
JerusalemMite
I would be nice to think that CW has made an impression and, to a certain extent it really has. The most outstanding FACT is that Geoffry Alderman has put the finger on The Guardian exposing its lapse/s on ‘free speech’.
But let’s face it,the same management is still there and until they are sent to the dole queue, their peverted interpretation of reality is constantly going to seep through.
They must be sent on their way. They are a disgrace to journalism which is supposed to present ‘balance’. There is no ‘balance’ in the Guardian and its readers are treated to a subtle mind fuck instead.
February 10, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Abandon hope
wearenotblind
” CiF has tamed down the more vicious anti-Israel posts. ”
I agree . Comparisons of Israel with the Nazis has disappeared ( I am not claiming all the credit here BTW) It has also ..of course.. stopped any openly Muslim hating posts.. which you may remember were an every thread occurence before some of us began our campaign to rid CIF of hatred.
Furthermore sarcastic anti Semitic posts , although still by far the most common kind of anti Semitic posts on CIF .. have been greatly reduced . They still abound on other sites of course….but one site at a time!
February 10, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Abandon hope
AKUS
“The Guardian ..a target site for anti-Semites,..people calling for the murder of Jews, ”
You ..of course ..mean ” one people ” calling for the murder of Jewish settlers . I agreed with his banning and condemn him ..but it was a single guy ..your post could be read as if there was more than one.
February 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm
PT
Ignore the troll.
February 10, 2010 at 3:19 pm
sababa
Oh, so grahameouw or whatever the name thinks “CifWatch never sleeps”? I’d say this is a compliment — it echoes commercials like New York, New York — the city that never sleeps; or (and more true) Tel Aviv as the city that never sleeps… It definitely adds some glamour, James Bond style…. OK, I’m going to have my martini now…
February 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm
TomWonacott
My, what a magnificent display of hypocrisy by the…..well, hypocritical Guardian. A moderator will delete based on what he believes is offensive. Since most believe that the worst lies about Israel are true, you cannot really blame them for letting posts stand that are truthful (in their eyes). To delete the truth would be offensive.
On the other hand, Daniel Pipes is obviously anti Muslim and George Galloway supports and funds the freedom fighters, Hamas.
February 10, 2010 at 7:14 pm
peter1
The Bronner article is wonderful, a free piece of self promotion to get Neve Gordon’s buddy on board.
He takes his time to demonize a site, presenting it as a caricature using all the traditional anti-semitic portraits while oy vavoying about being on a list of theirs.
Nu so what puts him on their list?
Weaseling out of miluim?
Its oh so honourable to refuse to serve, but during disengagement there was a deliberate assignment of settlers in the IDF to oversee it. A large percentage of the soldiers were acting against their own political beliefs.
He could volunteer to sit in restaurants or buses to be a buffer or “protector” during the terrorist campaigns instead of spending his time lobbying to remove the security fence.
February 10, 2010 at 7:30 pm
peter1
How many posts were removed from the Netanyahu thread while some joker posting the zionism is racism bullshit isn’t deleted.
How does one get away with claiming that “disputed territory” is an OMG, Zionist Construct.
Geez, Taiwan, Kashmir, Western Sahara are occupied eh?
Australia and East Timor aren’t in dispute eh.
China has “occupied” the Paracel Islands, claimed by Viet Nam and Taiwan but its referred to as disputed territory.
Far from being a “Zionist Construct” it is a prime example of the double-speak that the guardian loves to promote when Israel is involved.
Disputed territory is called “occupied” to conjure up images of Occupied Europe and nod nod wink wink portray Israel as Nazis and the Arabs as the poor unwashed, unfed masses huddled under a jackboot.
Goering would be oh so proud.
February 10, 2010 at 7:41 pm
unconsciousness
On the Jonathan Freedland thread,there is a poster called Falseconsciousness.
He posted,……….”The murderous Israeli regime has no interest in peace”………the rest of the post is in the same loony vein,which I can’t be arsed to repeat.
As of now that post is still standing up there and has racked up 59 recommendations till now.Even though it was reported,it wasn’t deleted.
No serious newspaper would allow that sort of slanderous comment.
But then as we all know by now that the Guardian isn’t a serious newspaper.
The Guardian and CiF in particular have become a mouthpiece for racists,bigots,and for posters whose sole reason for being is to smear and smirch Israel
A loony bin for anti Israeli/Semitic posters.
February 10, 2010 at 7:54 pm
PeterParker
Abandon hope:
You ..of course ..mean ” one people ” calling for the murder of Jewish settlers . I agreed with his banning and condemn him ..but it was a single guy ..your post could be read as if there was more than one.
It took the mods a while though, didn’t it.
Call for the slaughter of Muslims and they send “the boys” around to beat you up and erase you from history “Men In Black” style in seconds.
Thing is Birchy, CiF does have a habit of attracting the likes of Bapthorpe. Sadly, him and his ilk means more considerate posters like you get the flak.
Live long and prosper.
February 11, 2010 at 12:14 am
Abandon hope
peter1
“Disputed territory is called “occupied” to conjure up images of Occupied Europe Goering would be oh so proud. ”
Peter this is outrageous paranoia. They are not called occupied because people want to compare them to Nazis. They are occupied because that is the most apt word. I would accept ” disputed”
Peter P
“Live long and prosper”
I dont really expect to do either. But thanks!
February 11, 2010 at 2:57 am
PT
Please, ignore the troll.
February 11, 2010 at 5:01 am
JerusalemMite
Chas N-B
Has there been anything in the JC from the CiF team about the Alderman affair?
I suspect that you will have to get in line and it is probably a long line.
February 11, 2010 at 11:08 am
Biodegradable
Actually, Seaton has gotten his “right of reply”
Geoffrey, you fell foul of our hate speech policy
He’s ‘aving a laff, right?
I’m sure we can find plenty of examples to prove that lie.
Just a few minutes before that post Prof Alderman clarifies:
You didn’t understand me, says Geoffrey Alderman
February 11, 2010 at 11:35 am
JerusalemMite
I just loved the following from Matt Seaton’s ROR.
This is because CifWatch is not an objective media monitoring organisation, but a site run by anonymous activists dedicated to misrepresenting Cif as anti-Jewish.
Matt. I thought that you of all people would not want to use the word ‘misrepresentation’.
Does Georgina know that you wrote that. She would think it was a great hoot too.
Not publicly of course.
February 11, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Mitnaged
Would you recognise sarcasm, Berchmans?
So you believe your mission is to prevent antisemitism, do you?
You would be more believable if you began by apologising to me for the post in which you said you didn’t blame Hamas for hating Jews “now” and that I made it sound like antisemitism.
As it is you are coming across as quite a disturbed “man with a mission”, replete with narcissistic tendencies and a distinction in denial.
February 11, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Mitnaged
JerusalemMite, I am watching with concern the increasing divorcement from reality of Seaton who is more and more entrenched in denial the more threatened he feels.
And he must feel very threatened to have to resort to the serious economies with the truth he is purveying at the JC in an attempt to dig himself out of the hole Georgina has thrown him into.
And Berchmans, Hitler himself was only one person wasn’t he? He attracted like-minded followers when he promulgated his views. Who’s to say that similar damage hasn’t been done by CiF by allowing a climate to develop whereby Bapthorpe felt free to post as he did?
February 11, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Amyisraelchai
I’ve just read Seaton’s excuse in the Jewish Chronicle for banning Geoffrey Alderman! Inter alia:
“Regarding CifWatch, when we noticed Geoffrey had written an article for that site, I let him know that, much as we value him as a contributor, we could not share him with CifWatch. This is because CifWatch is not an objective media monitoring organisation, but a site run by anonymous activists dedicated to misrepresenting Cif as anti-Jewish. If there were a “JCWatch”, which misrepresented the JC as racist, we imagine JC editors would take a similarly dim view of its writers lending such a site legitimacy by contributing to it.”
Methinks Seaton doth speak with forked tongue! He deleted my own posts on CiF the very first day of posting, and since they did not in the least offend in any way but for their defence of Israel I can only assume it was the latter reason that Seaton made them bite the dust.
February 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Biodegradable
Surely Seaton’s reply at the JC merits a separate post here?
{nudge-nudge wink-wink}
February 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Abandon hope
Mitnaged
.
“Hitler himself .. similar damage .. done by CiF ”
.
Im sorry. It is not called “Godwins theory” ..it is “Godwins law. “Conversation really does grind to a halt when people try to associate the sandal-wearing Guardianistas with jackbooted mass murderers .
February 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm
P
Out of curiosity, how many comments are deleted on CIF versus CIFWatch? That would be an interesting statistic.
February 11, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Arabella Meller
Seaton means that they don’t permit nazi comparisons unless the mods think them justified. If you’ve got the patience you can look through the old comments and find shocking things still corrupting the atmosphere.
February 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
peter1
As I mentioned above, the most glaring “Nazism” is not only CiF’s continued use of false terminology Occupied as opposed to Disputed in order to tar the issue.
“Occupation” has all the subtlety of a Mack truck through your door and drives home the images of Occupied Europe, the Nazis running roughshod.
Of the 50 or so cases of disputed territory, some going back over 100 years, only in Israel’s case do we hear the term Occupation.
Nu, what do you think….had the combined Arab armies succeeded when they attacked the nascent state of Israel, would the guardian be talking about Occupied Israel?
February 11, 2010 at 7:57 pm
pretzelberg
peter1
As I mentioned above, the most glaring “Nazism” is not only CiF’s continued use of false terminology Occupied as opposed to Disputed in order to tar the issue.
That constitutes “Nazism”???
February 11, 2010 at 8:34 pm
modernityblog
I believe what he means is:
“the most glaring usage of the false “Nazism” analogy is not only CiF’s continued use of false terminology Occupied as opposed to Disputed in order to tar the issue.”
February 12, 2010 at 3:26 am
Margie
That was most timely, and doubtless correct, Modernity.
Pretzel you are constantly halting the flow of conversation by focusing on minor points of order instead of the actual discussion. What do you think would have been happening in the Middle East if the Arab armies in 1948 had wiped out the newly born state of Israel?
It is a very relevant question.
Do you think that today the Guardian would be running article after article about the occupied Israel? Do you think that the UN would be commissioning reports about occupied Israel? Do you think that there would have been a strong medical and rescue unit sent to the people of Haiti by Occupied Israel? Do you think that world hi-tech would have been supported and given wings by the talents of the people of occupied Israel?
Or do you think that the whole area would have been just like the rest of Lebanon or Syria or Egypt or Jordan, bickering, niggling and unproductive – since it would have been divided up by them and there would have been no Palestinians.
February 12, 2010 at 3:34 am
Biodegradable
Good morning Margie;
Or do you think that the whole area would have been just like the rest of Lebanon or Syria or Egypt or Jordan, bickering, niggling and unproductive – since it would have been divided up by them and there would have been no Palestinians.
Exactly.
Didn’t Egypt “occupy” Gaza until Israel liberated it? And didn’t Israel then offer to return it to Egyptian control as part of the peace deal? And didn’t Egypt say, “thanks, but no thanks”?
And did Egypt at any time during its period of control over Gaza offer it to the Palestinians?