The lively thread beneath the Guardian’s editorial in defense of the Goldstone Report included a commenter, with the moniker “SantaMoniker”, who alluded to and even pasted a couple of paragraphs from a post published by the Guardian’s unnamed ideological nemesis.
And, then there was a question by another commenter (HerbertH) who was curious about the identity of “the site which shall not be named”.
Then, “SantaMoniker” pushed the envelope and actually named “the site which shall not be named”.
While we don’t have a screen capture of the comment, I read it and the evidently subversive and dangerous information – which clearly represented an ideological security breach at the Guardian – looked something like this:
Read this quickly
And, then:
The Guardian again shows itself remarkably thin-skinned for an institution which purports to possess a liberal orientation, and which claims inspiration by their previous editor and owner, C.P. Scott, who said, “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.”
Given the steady stream of hatred towards Israel, which often includes calls for the Jewish state’s destruction and other narratives which fall within the EU Working Definition of anti-Semitism, below the line which apparently comport to their standards, the hypocrisy of such a powerful media company censoring “the voice of [their] opponents” – even deleting the briefest mention of a plucky little watchdog blog which seeks to hold them accountable to basic standards of fairness and decency – is stunning.
What exactly is The Guardian afraid of?
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 7, 2011 at 3:42 pm
A. Jay Adler
Like all authoritarian (hardly liberal) institutions, the Guardian is afraid of contending ideas.
April 7, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Mitnaged
it’s been said here before that the Groan is nothing if not authoritarian. Authoritarians are control freaks who get very wobbled by people whose views are different from theirs, and feel threatened.
And CiFWatch must have more power than CiF is comfortable with, otherwise it would have let all the above posts remain.
It must be a living hell to work there.
April 7, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Thank God I'm An Infidel
CiF Watch AKBARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Der Guardian NAKBAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
April 7, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Joshua
“What exactly is The Guardian afraid of?”
Jews armed with truth.
April 7, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Abban Aziz
Comment certainly is not free. At least with the Guardian you can spread your message for a little awhile before it is censored. A lot of these so-called progressive sites like Mondoweiss and huffington post have to confirm your comment.
Everything is pre-moderated. Here at CIF, I have yet to see any comment’s be deleted. I would love for BW or any other “journalist” employed at the Guardian to come and comment here.
April 7, 2011 at 5:59 pm
ziontruth
CiFWatchdemort, The Site That Shall Not Be Named. All shall regard and tremble. Muhahahahahahaaaaa…!
And what TGIAI said.
April 8, 2011 at 2:17 am
anneinpt
CiF are like vampires: they function best in the dark. Like vampires, they are afraid of sunshine. Along comes CiFWatch, shining a bright light on their nefarious ideology- and they’re terrified. They’re scared their bias will be exposed and their raison d’etre will melt away in the light.
April 8, 2011 at 3:58 am
Itay
while I completely support cif watch and agree that the guardian is strongly biased against israel, I think that in this case, the comment was automatically deleted for containing a url to an external website.
You can try it even with neutral websites like http://www.yahoo.com our anything really.
I also think that making such cases weakens your point…
April 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Yohoho
Itay, welcome. I don’t know whether you have been following CiFWatch for long, but those of us who post regularly below the line have come to refer to the sort of CiF “oversensitivity” (aka anti-Israel bigotry) which got the LtCol’s post removed as the Guardian World View (GWV).
The Guardian World View is obsessed with Israel to the extent that, were it a person, it would be under psychiatric care. To it, Israel is always wrong and “poor, oppressed Hamas” always right and “oppressed”). This means that Comment is not free, and your posts may be removed in the CiF lunatic asylum if you are open in your support of Israel and dare to contradict the poisonous “opinions as facts” above the line even with irrefutable evidence, and no matter how politely you do it.
This deluded behaviour is further bedded in by support given to the burblings of several permanent “patients” there, who seem Teflon coated and can be as deranged and can foam at the mouth as much as they like with Israel-hatred and yet not be banned.. One of the said permanent patients even made a right royal pain in the backside of himself here for a time.
Hatred of Israel is evident even below articles which ostensibly have nothing to do with the ME.
And Mitnaged is right that CiF is also obsessed with and terrified by the power of CiFWatch. Where it can it deletes mention of the site, except in one case I have seen – a post by someone called Beautifulburnout on the “What do you want to talk about?” thread in which he/she/it wonders where the CiFWatch crowd are! But it’s an above the line idiot savant so it won’t get its post deleted.
You may be right, Itay, that the LtCol’s comment was deleted because of an outside link, but I believe it’s far more likely that it was binned because it didn’t conform to the GWV and dared to tell the sort of truth which is based in objective reality and can be backed up by evidence, rather than the delusions which pass for truth in the CiF Asylum for the Terminally Bewildered.
Comments are removed also if you have the temerity even to point out that the Guardian IS so biased.
April 13, 2011 at 5:10 am
Cil
Apartheid in Arab states – Let’s see Guardian censor this
April 13, 2011 at 5:10 am
Cil
http://wikibias.com/2011/04/islamic-apartheid-and-wikipedia/