Left Wing Guardian admits Israel ‘straightforward target’

[scribblet]

Well, whoda thunk it, I'm shocked I say, I'm shocked - that bastion of Liberal bias in the media has admitted that Israel ‘straightforward target’ - suspicions confirmed

http://justjournalism.com/the-wire/guardian-admits-israel-%E2%80%98straightforward-target%E2%80%99/

Assistant editor Michael White admits that Guardian journalists actively avoid reporting some subjects, such as immigration, in favour of easier ‘targets’ like Israel.

In an incredibly candid blog entry on media self-censorship by veteran Guardian journalist and staunch Israel critic Michael White, he confesses to:

‘middle class ill-ease in going after stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive tribal habits of the working class, which is more easily ignored altogether.’

By contrast, in, ‘Media self-censorship: not just a problem for Turkey,’ Israel is put forward as one of the archetypal ‘targets’ of The Guardian:

‘Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets.’

White, who has been at the publication for 30 years, also alleges that positive stories about Tony Blair are rarities despite other ‘tyrants’ being granted positive coverage:

‘Nor has it been easy to smuggle anything creditable about Tony Blair into the paper for several years now, though tyrants with more convincing leftwing credentials sometimes get the benefit of the doubt.’ ^{(say what)}

[waldo]

Well, whoda thunk it, I'm shocked I say, I'm shocked - that bastion of Liberal bias in the media has admitted that Israel ‘straightforward target’ - suspicions confirmed

http://justjournalism.com/the-wire/guardian-admits-israel-%E2%80%98straightforward-target%E2%80%99/

hey now, not to steal your thunder scribbler... but it's one journalist, on an external blog, throwing up a broad swath that's been interestingly paired down by an Israeli advocacy group. It's a rather humorous account with an emphasis, for ease, to favour writing about the "low hanging fruit"..... we read the particular insights of the journalist as he trots on down the list of British newspapers, tabulating the target writing predilections of each - quite funny! As for his stated self-described target writing predilections for the Guardian, we read a favouring towards, "Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets"... with less favouring towards, "stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive tribal habits of the working class"

ya... clearly... this was an authoritative account, one devoid of any humour/sarcasm! What's most significant is that the Israeli advocacy group that you're quoting from... took a mentioning of "governments of Israel" and parlayed that into a broad-brush suggestion that Israel, proper, was a "writing target". Of course, the Guardian journalist blogging, doesn't actually state anything about the nature of the writings, whether they would tend to be considered "favourable", "unfavourable", or "indifferent" themed. I guess the Israeli advocacy group, by it's stated objection/concern, must presume anything being written about, "governments of Israeli", would always be unfavourable to, "Israel". Oh my! Oh wait, on the other hand, perhaps the Israel advocacy group objects to the statements associative grouping... i.e., objects to having the, "governments of Israel", associated with royalty, Christians and U.S. Republicans!

[jbg]

hey now, not to steal your thunder scribbler... but it's one journalist, on an external blog, throwing up a broad swath that's been interestingly paired down by an Israeli advocacy group.

Can you show us the parts that are "paired" (should be pared but spelling is not one of your stronger suits) out?

[scribblet]

Can you show us the parts that are "paired" (should be pared but spelling is not one of your stronger suits) out?

It's a form of self censorship,just tell 'em what they want to hear. The Guardian tends to pride itself as being a 'guardian' of media ethics more or less, yet they are so blatantly anti Israel and anything that isn't left wing they are an oxymoron I was appalled at totally biased and incorrect piece about Canada last year, they made a partial correction only. We know many papers have a bias but when it becomes so malicious and craven......

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/guardian-decline-once-great-newspaper

The Guardian: Decline of a once great newspaper

For the past ten years Britain’s self-proclaimed voice for justice and human rights, The Guardian newspaper, has been on a steady course of increasing hostility towards Israel. The paper, which counts many of Britain’s intelligentsia among its readership, turns to Israel for a grossly disproportionate amount of the material it publishes. In fact the paper has become fixated and obsessed with the Jewish state.

Even one of their own senior staff writers wrote to me that when it comes to Israel the Guardian can lose its moral compass. Quite an indictment when it comes from within the senior ranks of the paper itself.

Periodically the Guardian and its website are inundated with reports, articles, letters, and commentaries deploring Israel. This past week has seen one such instance.

The cause for the latest torrent is the publication, jointly by Al Jazeera and The Guardian, of hundreds of internal Palestinian memos related to the peace negotiations with Israel. Consequently Israel is now sharing a spurious dock with the Palestinian Authority, the latter being derided for appearing too forthcoming in its negotiations.

In an editorial early in the week, the editors of the Guardian expressed their scorn for the ‘weak’ and ‘craven’ Palestinian negotiators and for the ‘contemptuous’ Israelis.

However, one Guardian staff writer did not entirely agree with his editors. Columnist Jonathan Freedland wrote:

“For the record, I disagreed with the Guardian editorial that described Palestinian concessions as ‘craven’: I prefer to admire the readiness of the Palestinians to move, urging Israelis to do the same.”

For the record, I didn’t agree with that editorial either, though I would be inclined to use much stronger words to describe my opinion of it. A maliciously conniving attempt to wreck any remaining chance of peace between the Palestinians and Israel might be a more accurate characterization of the editorial.

[waldo]

Can you show us the parts that are "paired" (should be pared but spelling is not one of your stronger suits) out?

and, apparently, linguistics is not one of your stronger suits... that was grammar - not spelling. Your impressive input is noted; I will endevour to improve, recognizing that grammar nazis are on the prowl! Let me leave you with the immortal words of the ShadyPractices guy, indubitably etched into member BubberMiley's signature: “It's grammar Bubbles. He didn't spell to wrong, he used the wrong version. Moron."

[waldo]

It's a form of self censorship,just tell 'em what they want to hear. The Guardian tends to pride itself as being a 'guardian' of media ethics more or less, yet they are so blatantly anti Israel and anything that isn't left wing they are an oxymoron

would you equally apply your self-censorship definition... "telling 'em what they want to hear"... to the practices of your illustrious and favoured fair&balanced FoxNews outlet... or it's mini-me in making version, FoxNewsNorth?

in any case, scribbler... you have perked my interest - I would like to see more from you on this... more than a blog accounting referencing an Israeli advocacy group or the op-ed from an Israeli newspaper. One noted, reputable, independent and admired institution within the British press/media, is it's watchdog group, the Press Complaints Commission. Clearly, you could start there, if you truly wanted to present an 'unbiased' accounting... if you have trouble maneuvering it's archives, I might even offer you up a freebee, hey?

[Bob]

Hey there, scribblet.

We already know that The Guardian considers Israel a "straightforward target". The Guardian has been, as long as I can remember, very anti-Israel. The bias is there for all the see, and the dishonesty from the Guardian with respect to its coverage of Israel is abundant. Whether it come from massaged language selected to generate certain anti-Israel/anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist emotions, dropping of relevant context in order to oversimplify and misrepresent a story an place Israel in a negative light, or using dishonest "starting points" for stories to create a false historical narrative - there are endless examples of The Guardian's bias towards the Israel/Arab conflict that can be seen in literally 100% of their articles dealing with the matter.

Basically, I don't need a comment from this or that "insider" to know the truth. The anti-Israel sentiment that is prevalent at The Guardian exists whether or not people are able to, or willing to, acknowledge it.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Bob

[waldo]

Basically, I don't need a comment from this or that "insider" to know the truth. The anti-Israel sentiment that is prevalent at The Guardian exists whether or not people are able to, or willing to, acknowledge it.

does your version of the truth extend to formalized complaints to the British Press Complaints Commission... and... has your version of the truth resulted in unfavourable rebuke/rulings/sanctions/etc. against The Guardian?

just with respect to the scribbler's linked article... taking it at face value... the article's extended grouping of low-hanging fruit writings included a reference to, "governments of Israel", which interestingly was trumped up to read and imply that "Israel" was the presumed "straight-forward" reference. Do you equate writing about, "governments of Israel" (in whatever light, favourable, unfavourable, or indifferent) as criticism of the country of Israel, proper?

[Bob]

does your version of the truth extend to formalized complaints to the British Press Complaints Commission... and... has your version of the truth resulted in unfavourable rebuke/rulings/sanctions/etc. against The Guardian?

just with respect to the scribbler's linked article... taking it at face value... the article's extended grouping of low-hanging fruit writings included a reference to, "governments of Israel", which interestingly was trumped up to read and imply that "Israel" was the presumed "straight-forward" reference. Do you equate writing about, "governments of Israel" (in whatever light, favourable, unfavourable, or indifferent) as criticism of the country of Israel, proper?

Look, it is irrelevant to me whether or not you recognize the Guardian's bias (rooted in either ignorance or prejudice) in its reporting on Israel. It's there, no ifs ands or buts. Spare me your absurd suggestion to file a complaint with some journalistic authority. The Guardian is hardly alone in this respect, as much of the international media is hostile to Israel and Jewish independence in our land.

And no, criticism of the Israeli government isn't inherently anti-Israel rhetoric. I've never suggested such a thing. That being said, most criticism against Israeli governments goes hand in hand with criticism of Israeli/Jewish principles (Zionism). In other words, criticisms of Israeli governments are not necessarily criticisms on Israel's fundamentals - but in practise, they often overlap and are inextricable.

[waldo]

Look, it is irrelevant to me whether or not you recognize the Guardian's bias (rooted in either ignorance or prejudice) in its reporting on Israel. It's there, no ifs ands or buts. Spare me your absurd suggestion to file a complaint with some journalistic authority. The Guardian is hardly alone in this respect, as much of the international media is hostile to Israel and Jewish independence in our land.

And no, criticism of the Israeli government isn't inherently anti-Israel rhetoric. I've never suggested such a thing. That being said, most criticism against Israeli governments goes hand in hand with criticism of Israeli/Jewish principles (Zionism). In other words, criticisms of Israeli governments are not necessarily criticisms on Israel's fundamentals - but in practise, they often overlap and are inextricable.

interesting... I've not categorically accepted... or denied... said bias - I'm simply reserved in accepting it stated wholly on the basis of a blogged reference and an op-ed. It is irrelevant to me whether or not you fail to substantiate said bias, your said truth, through, for example, such an arbiter as the reputable, unbiased and independent, British Press Complaints Commission. I most certainly was not suggesting you register a complaint/concern, I simply asked if your version of the truth was recognized, by extension, "to formalized complaints to the British Press Complaints Commission... and... has your version of the truth resulted in unfavourable rebuke/rulings/sanctions/etc. against The Guardian." Apparently, your categorization of my presumed position as "irrelevant", suggests you won't be following up with the British Press Complaints Commission to provide the missing corroboration for your suggestion of bias and, by extension, your stated version of the truth.

thanks for highlighting your concern that this unsubstantiated claim of The Guardian bias, extends to, as you say, "much of the international media", as expressed through, as you say, "hostility to Israel and Jewish independence".

equally, thanks for acknowledging that, inherently, reference to Israeli governments (whether critical, uncritical, or different) does not extend to broad-based anti-Israeli rhetoric... if only the author of scribbler's linked reference was as astute and forthcoming as you.

[Bob]

interesting... I've not categorically accepted... or denied... said bias - I'm simply reserved in accepting it stated wholly on the basis of a blogged reference and an op-ed. It is irrelevant to me whether or not you fail to substantiate said bias, your said truth, through, for example, such an arbiter as the reputable, unbiased and independent, British Press Complaints Commission. I most certainly was not suggesting you register a complaint/concern, I simply asked if your version of the truth was recognized, by extension, "to formalized complaints to the British Press Complaints Commission... and... has your version of the truth resulted in unfavourable rebuke/rulings/sanctions/etc. against The Guardian." Apparently, your categorization of my presumed position as "irrelevant", suggests you won't be following up with the British Press Complaints Commission to provide the missing corroboration for your suggestion of bias and, by extension, your stated version of the truth.

thanks for highlighting your concern that this unsubstantiated claim of The Guardian bias, extends to, as you say, "much of the international media", as expressed through, as you say, "hostility to Israel and Jewish independence".

equally, thanks for acknowledging that, inherently, reference to Israeli governments (whether critical, uncritical, or different) does not extend to broad-based anti-Israeli rhetoric... if only the author of scribbler's linked reference was as astute and forthcoming as you.

The reality of the Guardian's hostility to Israel remains, whether or not you're aware of it. Unlike persons like you, those of us who carefully follow events in Israel don't need a statement from the British Press Complaints Commission to validate reality. People who are ignorant, such as yourself with respect to Israel, depend on third-parties to make up their opinions (about other opinions) for them. So basically, when The bias at The Guardian is there and has been for as long as I can remember. I can pull articles from there nearly ten years old dripping in the same anti-Israel rhetoric. Basically, your opinion is made up for you by the British Press Complaints Commission, because you don't have enough knowledge to have a substantiated opinion. That's fine. It's not a field you know much about, so... you trust an institution with a nice sounding name.

Although this should be an obvious point, the very concept of a government-institution dedicated to examining bias (assuming that's what the BPCC does) is ridiculous. Moreover, your assumption that somehow this institution, upon which you base your opinion of bias in British media because you don't know enough to formulate an informed opinion, is staffed with people knowledgeable enough to carry out such an analysis is quite funny. The same types of people who work at The Guardian are the same types of people who work at the BBCC - supremely unqualified to provide analysis regarding Israel.

Lastly, this thread points out something that's been obvious, at least to me, for a very long time. The same anti-Israel crowd (of which I believe you're a part of, if I recall your posts on this issue correctly), will continue in its hate-filled campaign against Jewish national rights by lying to advance its agenda. Nothing really changes here.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Bob

[GostHacked]

Israel wants to be a soveriegn nation but cannot take the criticism of their actions because they are a soveriegn nation. Damn that shit gets tiring.

Edited March 13, 2011 by GostHacked

[Bob]

We are a sovereign nation. The criticisms that are often made against us are precisely because we are a sovereign nation - through which Jewish independence is actualized. That's one of the big problems, which you can't seem to bring yourself to understand.

So in a way, I agree with this post on a technical basis. I just reject the message you intended to send with it, in spirit. You got those two points right (kinda). There's a little bit of irony here, as you're reinforcing something that I've been saying for awhile, and you don't even realize it.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...Gosthacked thinks there are Jewish settlers in Gaza and that ther Grand Mufti is an extra large muffin one can order from Tim Hortons.

[Bob]

Meh...Gosthacked thinks there are Jewish settlers in Gaza and that ther Grand Mufti is an extra large muffin one can order from Tim Hortons.

You're right. I'll stop wasting my time.

[DogOnPorch]

You're right. I'll stop wasting my time.

Ah...he's OK...just not on this subject.

[Bob]

Ah...he's OK...just not on this subject.

You're probably right. Everyone's got their strengths, and Israel is no easy subject to tackle. Moreover, it's just not that important enough to most people to motivate them to really learn about it. I honestly don't fault people for being ignorant of these issues - why should I expect Joe Canadian without any connection to these issues to know a lot about Israeli?

So GostHacked, let me just add one thing - I don't mean to disrespect you. It's just that when it comes to this issue, you've got a lot way to go. Trust me, that's VERY true for myself on MOST issues. So in a way, you're in good company.

[waldo]

The reality of the Guardian's hostility to Israel remains, whether or not you're aware of it. Unlike persons like you, those of us who carefully follow events in Israel don't need a statement from the British Press Complaints Commission to validate reality. People who are ignorant, such as yourself with respect to Israel, depend on third-parties to make up their opinions (about other opinions) for them. So basically, when The bias at The Guardian is there and has been for as long as I can remember. I can pull articles from there nearly ten years old dripping in the same anti-Israel rhetoric. Basically, your opinion is made up for you by the British Press Complaints Commission, because you don't have enough knowledge to have a substantiated opinion. That's fine. It's not a field you know much about, so... you trust an institution with a nice sounding name.

part of forming an opinion on suggested bias includes availing oneself of recognized, reputable, independent and unbiased arbiters of review... in the case of a British newspaper, in the particular case of the suggestion of The Guardian newspaper/online bias, that definitive arbiter is the British Press Complaints Commission. At this stage of the discussion I've simply asked if the British Press Complaints Commission can support your/scribbler's claims of bias, and by extension, your stated truth version (as represented by the only information provided to this point... scribbler's linked reference). It is quite revealing, quite telling, that the mere suggestion of channeling the overview of the British Press Complaints Commission brings forward such a strong reaction from you.

Although this should be an obvious point, the very concept of a government-institution dedicated to examining bias (assuming that's what the BPCC does) is ridiculous. Moreover, your assumption that somehow this institution, upon which you base your opinion of bias in British media because you don't know enough to formulate an informed opinion, is staffed with people knowledgeable enough to carry out such an analysis is quite funny. The same types of people who work at The Guardian are the same types of people who work at the BBCC - supremely unqualified to provide analysis regarding Israel.

further to the revealing/telling nature of your commentary... you acknowledge, with your "assuming" word usage, that you don't know what the British Press Complaints Commission is, as you say, dedicated to. You extend further to categorically label that assumed dedication as ridiculous... because, apparently, you interpret it as a, as you say, "government-institution". For your edification, one of the vaunted cornerstones of the procedural mechanisms of the British Press Complaints Commission is it's self-regulatory nature... there is no government statutory regulation involved. Equally, the transparency of the Commission's work and its revolving staff makeup, inclusive of newspaper editors (in the minority) and laypersons (in the majority), presumes to reinforce the integrity of its practicing code, one founded upon ensuring accuracy in reporting.

Lastly, this thread points out something that's been obvious, at least to me, for a very long time. The same anti-Israel crowd (of which I believe you're a part of, if I recall your posts on this issue correctly), will continue in its hate-filled campaign against Jewish national rights by lying to advance its agenda. Nothing really changes here.

to this point on MLW I've had little engagement in "Israeli themed" threads... but thanks for your attempted marginalization.

[GostHacked]

We are a sovereign nation. The criticisms that are often made against us are precisely because we are a sovereign nation - through which Jewish independence is actualized. That's one of the big problems, which you can't seem to bring yourself to understand.

So in a way, I agree with this post on a technical basis. I just reject the message you intended to send with it, in spirit. You got those two points right (kinda). There's a little bit of irony here, as you're reinforcing something that I've been saying for awhile, and you don't even realize it.

I understand it. But if you want to be soveriegn, get used to the criticism. Can't have it both ways and cry foul whenever something happens to you. End up sounding like the spoiled kid on the block.

[Bob]

Look waldo, it's quite funny how you hold this institution up which you probably know very little about in such high-esteem. You've conceded that you take your pointers from them. Bias doesn't exist in British media unless they say so.

This is simple, if you know a lot about a subject and are honest, you can identify bias on your own. Whether or not the BPCC recognizes or acknowledges The Guardian's hostility to Israel doesn't change the fact that The Guardian stakes out an anti-Israel position in its reporting.

I'll say it again, the assumption you make that somehow people who work for this institution are capable of understanding the issues well enough to recognize bias is laughable. The institution is more than likely staffed by the same people we see working at The Guardian and the BBC. Basically, persons who are completely unqualified to examine Israel and its related issues in an accurate and honest manner. It's the blind leading the blind.

Part of me feels like this whole discussion was some attempt of yours to try and impress us with your "knowledge" of the existence of this institution, as if somehow this qualifies you to render an opinion of The Guardian's anti-Israel bias. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just telling you the truth. I follow Israel-stories closely. I've read many, many, many Guardian news stories and op-eds. I've seen Guardian journalists speak of the record. I have a well-informed sense of what they're about.

If you don't want to believe me, that's cool.

[scribblet]

The reality of the Guardian's hostility to Israel remains, whether or not you're aware of it. ---------------------------

Lastly, this thread points out something that's been obvious, at least to me, for a very long time. The same anti-Israel crowd (of which I believe you're a part of, if I recall your posts on this issue correctly), will continue in its hate-filled campaign against Jewish national rights by lying to advance its agenda. Nothing really changes here.

Good points Bob...

The Guardian is known for it's left wing bias and is admitting to it's anti Israeli stance. Back in 2003 a Guardian Columnist quit because of it.

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/guardian_column.html

Regular HonestReporting readers are familiar with our critiques of London's Guardian -- one of the most virulently anti-Israel publications around. Guardian columnist Julie Burchill has published an open letter, explaining that she is leaving the Guardian because its anti-semitism (a "dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance") has simply gone overboard:

f there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. Which, for all its faults, is the only country in that barren region that you or I, or any feminist, atheist, homosexual or trade unionist, could bear to live under.

Didn't MLK say in a letter:

"Anti-Zionism is inherently anti-semitic, and ever will be. What is anti-Zionism? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the globe. It is discrimination against Jews... because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-semitism."

[waldo]

part of forming an opinion on suggested bias includes availing oneself of recognized, reputable, independent and unbiased arbiters of review... in the case of a British newspaper, in the particular case of the suggestion of The Guardian newspaper/online bias, that definitive arbiter is the British Press Complaints Commission. At this stage of the discussion I've simply asked if the British Press Complaints Commission can support your/scribbler's claims of bias, and by extension, your stated truth version (as represented by the only information provided to this point... scribbler's linked references). It is quite revealing, quite telling, that the mere suggestion of channelling the overview of the British Press Complaints Commission brings forward such a strong reaction from you.

further to the revealing/telling nature of your commentary... you acknowledge, with your "assuming" word usage, that you don't know what the British Press Complaints Commission is, as you say, dedicated to. You extend further to categorically label that assumed dedication as ridiculous... because, apparently, you interpret it as a, as you say, "government-institution". For your edification, one of the vaunted cornerstones of the procedural mechanisms of the British Press Complaints Commission is it's self-regulatory nature... there is no government statutory regulation involved. Equally, the transparency of the Commission's work and its revolving staff makeup, inclusive of newspaper editors (in the minority) and laypersons (in the majority), presumes to reinforce the integrity of its practicing code, one founded upon ensuring accuracy in reporting.

to this point on MLW I've had little engagement in "Israeli themed" threads... but thanks for your attempted marginalization.

Look waldo, it's quite funny how you hold this institution up which you probably know very little about in such high-esteem. You've conceded that you take your pointers from them. Bias doesn't exist in British media unless they say so.

look Bob, the value I place in the British Press Complaints Commission (BPCC) reflects upon its earned reputation; I've had occasion in the past to recognize some of its work related to the atrocious handling of climate change related writings from some of the worst serial liars and disinformation campaigners within the British tabloid press. That's my starting, going in reference point. Most pointedly, I've not offered a single bit of information as to whether or not the BPCC has had occasion to handle complaints related to your concerns; to provide rulings and/or apply sanctions that might reflect upon the British press writings concerning the, "governments of Israel"... or by extension, Israel proper. I've provided bupkiss in that regard! I've simply asked the question whether or not the BPCC can support your/scribbler's claims of bias, and by extension, your stated truth version. I don't know... but... apparently, just mentioning the BPCC has sent you into a lengthy, convoluted discharge. One can't help but wonder why???

This is simple, if you know a lot about a subject and are honest, you can identify bias on your own. Whether or not the BPCC recognizes or acknowledges The Guardian's hostility to Israel doesn't change the fact that The Guardian stakes out an anti-Israel position in its reporting.

we really should have you clarify... more precisely, have you define the focal point of your concern. Bias might suggest prejudice... might suggest unfair treatment, might suggest preferential treatment - all of which may, or may not, reflect upon actual accuracy. You keep using the word "bias" (or more correctly, bias has been the common word used so far). Are you categorically stating that The Guardian newspaper (as well as the entire British press, since you've extended your reach in that regard), holds a biased view towards Israel... more pointedly, a view that presumes upon the British press printing inaccuracies, purposeful or unintended? I'll defer to whether or not you'd also like to qualify that purposeful or unintended aspect of written inaccuracies...

I'll say it again, the assumption you make that somehow people who work for this institution are capable of understanding the issues well enough to recognize bias is laughable. The institution is more than likely staffed by the same people we see working at The Guardian and the BBC. Basically, persons who are completely unqualified to examine Israel and its related issues in an accurate and honest manner. It's the blind leading the blind.

I've already stated the BPCC is wholly transparent... the complaints it acts upon... are the complaints it receives. In the face of nothing more than simply inquiring as to whether or not the BPCC has reviewed/ruled/sanctioned in this regard, you’ve offered up a broad based indictment on the qualifications of this recognized, reputable, independent arbiter. Your indictment of the BPCC would appear to rest on nothing more than your say, your opinion.

Part of me feels like this whole discussion was some attempt of yours to try and impress us with your "knowledge" of the existence of this institution, as if somehow this qualifies you to render an opinion of The Guardian's anti-Israel bias. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just telling you the truth. I follow Israel-stories closely. I've read many, many, many Guardian news stories and op-eds. I've seen Guardian journalists speak of the record. I have a well-informed sense of what they're about.

so… you’re a truth-teller! If you haven’t quite connected the dots yet, you really should take a few deep breaths and compose yourself… I’ve not rendered an opinion. I’ve simply asked a question as to BPCC engagement. A mere questioning that has you labelling me as anti-Israeli, that has you attempting to marginalize me.

If you don't want to believe me, that's cool.

the question isn’t one of “wanting to believe you”… the question is why should one believe you in the face of nothing more than what’s been presented in this thread. I appreciate you value your opinion.

[waldo]

The Guardian is known for it's left wing bias and is admitting to it's anti Israeli stance. Back in 2003 a Guardian Columnist quit because of it.

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/guardian_column.html

ya, ya, scribbler, your ongoing MLW tirade against The Guardian is well documented... I believe I've responded to some of your expressed "interest" previously, hey? Let's make sure to correct your continued use of the "Guardian admits an anti-Israeli stance". Your initial link was nothing more than a blogged reference from an Israeli advocacy group; one that included statements from a Guardian journalist's article, written in a most tongue-&-cheek manner, suggesting a preponderance of writings that favoured so-called "low-hanging fruit"; i.e., the easy stuff to bang out. More pointedly, the article extract statements read as favouring writings that include, "Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets"... with less favouring towards, "stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive tribal habits of the working class". Now, of course, as is your way, you've opted to extend upon a reference from a single journalist, one that includes nothing more than a satirical theme and the words, "governments of Israel"... your exaggerated and inaccurate scribbler extension is one that now reads as, wait for it... "The Guardian admits it's anti-Israeli stance"!

as for this, your latest googly effort, the kindest handling would be to highlight that the writer in question was so put off concerning her stated view... that she ultimately returned again as a full staffed writer for The Guardian... it is also prudent to highlight that The Guardian itself published her article. The unkindest handling would be to apply my easy googly effort and dredge up exactly what kind of opportunistic, controversial and exploitative writer she has been throughout her career - one well documented, one well profiled, one well criticized. But really... we could avoid all of that... we could simply reflect upon real provided examples of said anti-Israeli writings by The Guardian... by the British press proper (since Bob went there). I mean, surely... there must be no shortage of articles to present a story-line that depicts a long established pattern... it's got to be an easy googly for you/Bob. Examples for real evaluation... something beyond your personal opinions or the linked references from advocacy groups. Surely... or not... since Bob says he really doesn't care if one doesn't automatically buy into his stated version of the truth.

Edited March 14, 2011 by waldo

[Bob]

The truth is, waldo, I can find bias in about 95% of BBC and Guardian articles relating to Israel. And by bias, I mean explicitly omitted context that misrepresents history and contemporary events in order to mislead the readership. it also includes massaged language intended to send a false message. It is beyond easy to do so. It can be done in virtually every article.

Go ahead, give me any article (or background history piece), no matter how old, you want from either the BBC or The Guardian. The bias and misinformation is everywhere among those two outlets.

[Black Dog]

Next you'll tell me there's newspapers (see: the National Post) that have an clearly pro-Israel editorial policy.