Guardian’s up to its usual tricks again

Check out this article.

Note the headline. What is the message that the headline conveys?

Then read the article. Look carefully at what was discussed: aid for Syrian refugees.

It appears the Guardian is trying to put the boot in because it’s Israel, and only because it’s Israel. That twisted headline would never appear for coverage of another country’s affairs. It also appears – actually, not so much ‘appears’, more like ‘is pretty damn certain’ – that the Guardian is more interested in bashing Israel, any friend of Israel, or any potential friend of Israel, than it is in securing help for Syrian refugees. How’s that behavior for a so called liberal newspaper?

I tweeted about this. Not that it will make a difference, but somebody has to call out this dreadful narrative.

Share:

Radiohead Report

As you may have heard, Radiohead‘s Tel Aviv concert went ahead. By all accounts (locally) it was a great success.

This is how the Guardian chose to headline its report:

This is how the Guardian, had it been a bit more frank, should have headlined its report:

And this is how the Guardian, had it been completely honest, should have headlined its report:

The Guardian’s (rarely seen) honest face

Share:

Guardian true to its propaganda mission

I heard about it. You must have heard about it. Everyone heard about it. As the Times of Israel reported:

Intel to buy Mobileye for $15 billion in largest purchase of Israeli tech

By any sensible definition, that’s news. It’s the “largest ever purchase of an Israeli high-tech company” and it’s by one of the most famous companies, involving technology in an area everyone is talking about, interested in, and keenly watching developments there.

If you depend on the Guardian for your news, however, that deal is not there for you to read about. Some earlier activity of Mobileye, for example its Intel and BMW tie up, was reported (see here) and the report even included the dreaded (for the Guardian) “Israel” word.

But it appears this mega deal, this BDS ball-buster, this wonderful, wonderful confirmation of all that’s good in the world of Israeli high-tech – all of that was too bitter a pill for the Guardian to swallow and publicize.

What bitter, twisted, propaganda obsessed thinking.

Share:

Peres

More loss, this time for the whole country, with the passing of Shimon Peres earlier this morning. I see the Guardian took the opportunity to mark the occasion by attacking the Israeli government.

As recently as last year Peres strongly criticised the direction of the government of Israel’s rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, although he did not name Netanyahu directly.

Peres said he believed the values he and Rabin, who was assassinated in 1995, had inherited from Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, were in jeopardy as he defended a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Israel should implement the two-state solution for her own sake, because if we should lose our majority, and today we are almost equal, we cannot remain a Jewish state or a democratic state.

“That’s the main issue, and to my regret they [the government] do the opposite.”

For something that’s not trying to make a political point, and actually deliver a decent obituary, see the Times of Israel piece here.

Share:

Don’t mention the hatred

The terrible suicide bombing in Istanbul was jumped on by one Israel hater, as reported by the BBC:

Soon after the Istanbul blast, a tweet from a woman claiming to be a junior official of Turkey’s governing AKP party caused consternation on social media.

Irem Aktas, described as head of public relations for the women’s branch of a local AKP bureau in Istanbul, tweeted that she wished “all Israeli citizens in the area had died.”

The Twitter account now seems to have been taken down.

Another official from the same AKP party branch later confirmed Ms Aktas was a party member, but said her tweet did not reflect the party’s position and that the process of expelling her had started.

The Guardian report omits this. Presumably they would say that it doesn’t fit their definition of news. However, to me it seems more likely that they wouldn’t mention the hatred because it does not fit their world view. They do not see any hatred. And for sure, the Guardian cannot see that they are responsible for stoking the fires of hatred. Oh no, they are far too liberal to be doing that…

Share:

Another Nelsonian eye from the BBC and the Guardian (updated)

In the light of this story not being deemed fit for proper coverage by the Guardian or BBC, here’s another rough and ready calculator I created for the benefit of their less experienced staff and future recruits:

bbc-guardian-poster-2

The first calculator poster is here.

[Update: the Guardian finally stepped up to the plate. See here. And the BBc has now covered the story, as local news. Wow. I think the Media Coverage Calculator still stands.]

Share:

Some people can see better than others

Ynet has a decent story that offers a huge chunk of hope about the current security situation, and the future:

Why Jenin is staying out of current wave of terrorism

Jenin, once the home of suicide bombers, is now the quietest city in the West Bank. After 4 attempted attacks at the Jalamah checkpoint, the residents realized their economic prosperity could stop, and rushed to restore calm; ‘an attack at the checkpoint is an attack against us,’ says local businessman.

Continue reading

Share:

Guardian guarding its old guard

UK Media Watch has an on target post about the Guardian‘s latest media manipulation. Adam Levick does a great job of sorting through the rubbish to clearly portray what is going on.

This sets the background:

To sum up: Palestinians violated two fundamental principles of political freedom:

<> They denied access to a journalist due to her nationality and/or religious background.

<> They responded to Johnson’s contrary political views not by engaging in an argument with him, but by dis-inviting him and creating an atmosphere whereby his physical safety couldn’t be guaranteed.

What happened?

…how did the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont – who presumably supports absolute freedom of the press and free speech more broadly – cover the row?

First, he completely ignored the Palestinian discrimination against a Jewish-Israeli reporter.

Think about that for a moment. This reporter ignored a blatant case of discrimination. He pretended it did not exist. Why? There are several potential reasons, but none of them do Mr Beaumont or the Guardian any credit. By their behavior they are taking sides, and not with the good guys.

Additionally, he framed the dis-invitation and threats of violence against Johnson not as an offense against the principles of free speech and a free press, but as a faux pas by mayor known for his “flippancy” and “hyperbolic enthusiasm for Israel”.

On this part, the criticism is valid, but the Guardian’s perspective is at least defensible. However, only if they hadn’t ignored the free speech issues. In other words, they should have mentioned both, and let the reader decide.

Beaumont also conveniently omitted the part of Johnson’s statement to the media where he noted one other fact inconsistent with the Guardian narrative on boycotting the Jewish state. As The Independent, Daily Mail, and other papers noted, Johnson reminded Palestinians that Mahmoud Abbas himself “said very clearly and several times that he was opposed to a boycott of Israel.”

Beaumont would likely be familiar with Abbas’s opposition to BDS, as the Guardian reported the news when the story broke in late 2013.

Now that is funny. Beaumont had to engage in cherry picking what Johnson said, so as to guard the Guardian’s world view. That is not journalism. Adam Levick makes this point very well:

But, of course, this is more than simply one example of a biased journalist covering for Palestinians based on his personal sympathy for their political cause. Rather, it’s a small part of a larger pattern, prevalent in within the opinion elite, of denying Palestinians moral agency and failing to hold them to the same political standards Israelis are held to – a view which demands that Palestinians only exist as passive victims of Israeli oppression and Western arrogance.

Whatever you say about Boris Johnson, his rejection of such a patronizing view of Palestinians almost guaranteed such coverage by the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent.

If Beaumont and other reporters based in the region want to be a political activists that’s of course their right. However, those who read such reports from Israel and the Palestinian territories must understand that what they’re reading is advocacy, not professional journalism as it’s normally understood.

Read the whole post, here. And do what you can to spread the word. This material deserves a much higher circulation. Just like the Guardian deserves a much lower circulation, given its abominable non adherence to standards, and its activism based campaigning, or whatever you want to call it. It’s not journalism. It’s guarding their world view, just for the sake of it.

Share: