In May we posted about unflattering photos of Bibi Netanyahu which the Guardian used to illustrate stories about Israel.
Well, “unflattering” is not a fair characterization. To be more accurate, I’d say that he looks downright dangerous, indeed a menace.
As one of the photos highlighted in our post, taken by EPA’s Jim Hollander, was used again recently in a story by Harriet Sherwood, I decided to see how frequently the Guardian used it by doing a simple Google search using the photo’s URL. Here are my results.
Guardian Live Blog, Feb. 1, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/feb/01/egypt-protests-live-updates
That’s seven times in less than two and a half years.
However, the Guardian occasionally deviates from their routine and uses this photo by Hollander instead.
However, upon viewing additional photos of Netanyahu taken by Hollander I guess we should feel lucky the Guardian hasn’t published this one, used by a Swedish paper to illustrate a story in 2009 about the Aftonbladet organ harvesting libel.
Finally, while we’re on the topic of organ harvesting charges against Israel, here’s a Guardian story featuring that tireless defender of liberal values who, in his spare time, advances the medieval blood libel by accusing Jews (in poetry and in prose!) of using the blood of children to bake their “holy bread”.
Raed Salah looks like a lovely man.
Know what you mean Adam. To be fair we have always been careful to use the most flattering pics of you we could find. See our facebook page.
Don’t know what Adam Levick means. Bibi does not look threatening in this photo, he looks clueless.
The Guardian is a journalist institution. You can’t expect a journalist institution to photoshop Mr Netanyahu’s photo just because CIF Watch seems to think that he is not handsome enough.
Why not? They photoshopped photos about the Flotila and the 2nd Lebanon war.
Itsik, do you know that libel is an offence?
The Guardian photoshopped pictures of the Flotila and the 2nd Lebanon war? Where and when was that?
The Guardian’s support of Raeed Salah was one of the low points of British journalism. That a so-called liberal newspaper would defend a racist is almost unbelievable. It shows just what a stinking pit the Guardian now lives in. It has become a truly anti-semitic paper, and I can’t wait for it’s circulation to dwindle to zero.
No point in beating around the bush when it comes to McGreal. By now he’s a well-known hack with not the slightest concern over honesty or integrity, a long-time antiSemite, and basically a pathetic lying sack of shit.
This is libel, and can land you in front of a court.
Then let McGreal sue, unless he is scare he will lose?
Please give testimony, we want some laugh.
“This is libel, and can land you in front of a court.”
You’re joking, of course.
(In case you’re not, Nat, add this to that ever growing list of things you still don’t understand.)
He looks dangerous? A menace? Erm …. no. Not at all.
What on earth is CiFWatch on about here??
I guess nobody has a valid answer to that very simple query …
pretz,
I would agree with you about the first photo used. The second seems to me unflattering, and Aftonblatt photo, especially coupled with the accompanying story, downright anti-Semitic.
As for Raed Salah, a razor, eyebrow trimmer, and tooth paste are in order.
Jeff,
you have the right to think that Bibi does not look good or is not handsome enough for you.
However there’s nothing the Guardian can do about it. They’re not a Hollywood studio, they’re a journalistic institution. They take photos of people and publish them.
So as regards the Guardian, we have a) an inconspicuous pic and b) an unflattering one.
This CiFwatch headline “The Guardian’s Bibi will scare your children” is just preposterous.
It was a light-hearted piece. The headline was not a serious critique
@ Adam Levick
Light-hearted maybe – but this article is based on something that simply isn’t there, i.e. the notion that the first image of Bibi makes him look menacing.
Pretz its called bottom of the barrel scraping.
Not really.I can clearly see the point being made.
But I will spell it out slowly : u s i n g u n f l a t t e r i n g p h o t o s t o d e n i g r a t e s o m e o n e .
They’d use one with horns and smoke if they could find it.It’s the Guardian doing its Der Sturmer thang.
I think that Bibi always comes across as measured,thoughtful and determined in footage.
This must be very irksome to those at the Guardian,who obviously wouldn’t use this photo http://honestreporting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/raed_salah.jpg or this one http://canaryinthecoalmine.typepad.com/my-blog/2011/02/israeli-muslim-brotherhood-leader-arrested-on-arson-charges.html or this one http://electronicintifada.net/content/following-al-aqsa-clashes-israel-mulls-banning islamic-movement/8484 of the lovely cuddly Salah,but plummed for him with a lovely big smile.I just want to give him a great big hug.
Censor, the Guardian is not responsible for the fact that you find Netanyahu not so good loking in his photos. I’d suggest contacting his PR person instead.
“Pretz its called bottom of the barrel scraping.”
rz, I think we can all agree that “barrel scraping” is your particular forte.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Pingback: Bibi angling for fall-back career on Broadway | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?