From the 9/11 thread:
From the 9/11 thread:
Someone who goes by the name of “M U Haq”, who comments under “myshout,” commented in today’s hateful anti-Zionst (and anti-American) piece by John Whitbeck, “On Palestine, the US is a rogue state.” Though his comment was deleted, apparently “myshout” has been commenting since at least 2008.
“myshout” describes himself on his Guardian profile page:
“I am an active and healthy pensioner reving [sic] to reach out to expose the colonial occupations through the international interventions by the world powers and Jews world order...and supporting any resistance to get back what was theirs.”
So, on the pages of the Guardian sits a reader profile which calls for “resistance” against “Jews world order.”
It is important to note that other commenters have been banned from the Guardian for engaging in rhetoric that wasn’t hateful or bigoted.
The profile has been reported as abuse but to no avail.
However, whether it’s deleted or not, it’s no small matter to note the company the Guardian keeps. Our blog continues to expose this dangerous dynamic whereby the Guardian, a “liberal” mainstream widely read publication, gives license to those whose views would normally have been on the fringes of society. But, no longer. To paraphrase Lee Smith, in his revealing look at anti-Semitic comments tolerated by mainstream blogs in the U.S., the Guardian has become “the cesspool’s avatars.”
Palestinians’ future is in their hands, CiF, Dec. 14, by Carlo Strenger and Akiva Eldar, elicited nearly 300 comments.
Among those deemed not fit for Guardian reader consumption were the following:
Just to give you a sense of the comments (apparently deemed perfectly acceptable by CiF Moderators) by JRuskin which inspired the rebuttals above, see this:
So, to recap: Passionate rebuttals in defense of Israel? Not allowed. Thinly veiled threats of violence against Israelis? Perfectly acceptable.
Mya Guarnieri’s hideous diatribe against Israel on Dec. 8, in a piece modestly titled, “Israeli rabbis racist decree strikes at the heart of Judaism,” concerning a petition by a group of bigoted rabbis against selling land to non-Jews, attracted 316 comments – many of which rightly savaged Guarneri’s rhetorical excess as well as her shamefully sloppy journalism. (See CiF Watch’s reply)
Of particular interest was her insinuation that the racist rabbinical edict was state-sanctioned, and that Israeli public officials were silent over the matter.
A commenter named ariehnyc cited a Jerusalem Post article which contradicted Guarnieri’s claims:
And there was this comment, backing Guarnieri’s assertions, and charging that Zionism is inherently racist – a claim, in case it needs reminding, codified as anti-Semitic by the European Union.
Evidence contradicting Mya Guarnieri’s assertions that the rabbinical edict was state sanctioned? Forbidden. Invectives asserting that Zionism = Racism? Perfectly acceptable.
This is a guest post by AKUS
To borrow SantaMoniker’s words, this was an utterly disgusting deletion by the Guardian.
There is a gaping void where the Guardian’s morals should be and it should have removed the article, not comments condemning it and its revolting author.
From the Seth Freedman thread last month.
This comprehensive analysis of The Guardian’s Comment is Free website was written by Hadar Sela at the MERIA Journal, published by The Gloria Center (Global Research in International Affairs)
The British newspaper, the Guardian, has been described as waging a high-priority campaign against Israel in its pages and on its popular website. Does the evidence available–especially regarding the latter–support this opinion, and if so, in what way does this bias express itself, how far-reaching are its effects and consequences, and what–if anything–can be done to counteract it?
The Guardian is Britain’s third most read newspaper after the Daily Telegraph and the Times. As is the case with many newspapers, the sales of its print edition are declining: In January 2009, its daily circulation was 358,844 (a drop of 5.17 percent from January 2008) and by March 2010, its daily circulation had fallen further to 283,063. However, this trend has been offset by the Guardian’s decision to expand the publication of all its material, together with that of its sibling paper, the Observer, online without charge. In January 2010, the Guardian’s website was the most popular of all UK newspaper sites, with some 37 million unique users per month, 12.6 million of whom were British. In 2008, it was runner-up in the “Webby Awards” for the best political blog, and in 2009, the guardian.co.uk site won the “best newspaper” category in those same awards.
Describing itself as “the world’s leading Liberal voice,” the Guardian takes a left-of-center stance. A poll by MORI in April to June 2000 showed that 80 percent of the Guardian’s readers were Labour voters. A 2005 poll by the same organization indicated that 48 percent of Guardian readers voted Labour and 34 percent voted Liberal Democrat. In the same year, Sir Max Hastings was quoted as saying “I write for the Guardian because it is read by the new establishment.” In the 2010 UK elections, the Guardian backed the Liberal Democrat party, which for the first time in its history gained a foothold in British government.
See the full essay here.
Tony Lerman is still Israel-bashing on CiF, and readers may judge for themselves whether he is telling us anything new or interesting. The article reflects his own conflicted and tortured relationship with his Jewishness and Zionism (he used to be a youth leader in a Zionist youth group) when he tells us (yet again) that the “cherished assumptions of Zionism” are being questioned by Jews themselves – nothing new here, Jews are nothing if not critical thinkers – and again he pushes his own agenda for a one state solution to the conflict. There is precious little new there and I do not propose to go further into it.
The whole thread is, however, a prime example of the sort of confusion brought about when a moderator/staff member is allowed to comment freely and give opinions on the thread. As I have argued elsewhere on this blog, this, from a person whose agenda is plain and who is more powerful than the commenters whose contributions he can easily get removed, is neither professional nor ethical. Lerman seems unable or unwilling to defend himself, so Matt Seaton has once again taken upon himself the mantle of his rescuer. The result is highly educative about the “group mind” of CiF and is painful and hilarious by turns. It seems that Seaton still has not learned to stop digging when he is in a hole.
There seem to be two parallel themes in this thread – one being the deletion of MarkGardner1’s post (Mark Gardner is Director of Communications at the Community Security Trust): His post, which follows, was deleted but subsequently reinstated following an appeal to the moderators by Seaton:
Seaton’s comment about Mark Gardner’s post follows. I would imagine that the moderators were wobbled by Mark Gardner’s notion that people should make up their own minds. Note also that Seaton says that the moderators “have exercised some latitude” presumably about what is or is not off-topic It would appear so, otherwise most of Seaton’s subsequent comments to the following might have been deleted too: