Cifwatch standards! Misreporting Guardian emphasis on Hasidic element of Tottenham riot

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 14:54

Rate this:

0 points

As I think I just wrote CiFwatch are a bunch of seriously bitter and twisted one-eyed numpties. You expect any better? Good to see you back, albeit briefly.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:00

Rate this:

0 points

Oh dear unable to deal with criticism of his abject bigotry the poor Millis is left with ad hominem attacks on websites to try and discredit their message that the Guardian is anything but objective when it comes to Israel or Jews. where did you copy and paste this rubbish from Millis or did you think it up all on your own?

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:04

Rate this:

-1 points

I wrote this blog, not Joe.... This has nothing to do with what the Guardian may or may not be perceived to say...

This is about a deliberate obfuscation of one article by a website so desperate to perceive anti-Jewish sentiment that it sometimes needs to make it up.

You and Joe can have your little spats, but this has nothing to do with that...

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:08

Rate this:

1 point

hah ha! This is now on the CIF Watch site read it and weep Millis:

"The Guardian, all but assuredly as the result of the negative publicity generated by our post from yesterday calling them out on Paul Lewis’s curious reference to “Hasidic Jews” in his story about the UK Riots, just changed the text in the offending report.

So, while we’ll likely not see an official apology from the Guardian for singling out Jews in a series of reports which clearly took pains to not mention the race, religion, ethnicity, or national background of those participating in the riots, their revision still represents an acknowledgement that our initial complaint was meritorious.

In addition to calling out those, at the Guardian and their blog, Comment is Free, who engage in anti-Semitism and assault the legitimacy of Israel, this blog also takes quite seriously what seems to be their institutional obsession with Jews and Israel.

As such, we may have won this particular battle but the cognitive war still rages."

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:14

Rate this:

-1 points

More cut and paste, from the wannabe. Not one original idea. Your control, c and v buttons must be getting quite worn out. CiFWatch in common with other Watch sites are made up of people who cannot get their views published. Usually through the violent means they advocate and sometimes because of illiteracy. And they are all one-eyed and about as neutral as the sixth gear on my car.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:17

Rate this:

1 point

Mr Leigh Ellis seems you got it wrong too! The original article on the Guardina website mentions only Jews it has now changed the article. Unfortunately it appears going by what you say that the Jewish community in the UK is unable to perceive anti-Semitism even when it is staring them in the face.
As one poster on the CIF Watch website says in response to someone questioning the value of the original post by CIF Watch:
I have to respectfully disagree with your post, on both a micro and marco level. For the former point, of course it matters that the author originally wanted to make sure that anyone reading his article would come away with the message “no one was insulting the police during the worst riots London has seen in decades except for Jews”; there’s no other rationale for lying his ass off (and yes, that’s what he did, because he had to tell the truth in order to erase that 1st implication). And on the latter point, the Guardian’s ratio of treating Jews fairly to demonizing/one-sided portraying/outright lying where they believe they can get away with it crushingly falls on the d/osp/ol side of the scale. The volume record of how CIF in particular discusses any story that involves Jews is enormous, and what you call an “obsession” seems much more like a record and analysis of longstanding and (usually) unapologetically biased behavior. I’d love to believe that the writer here specifically mentioned Hasidim to illustrate police discontent. But from this paper? I don’t believe that at all."

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:17

Rate this:

-1 points

What world are you living in Adviser, there are so many references to race all over the Guardian... Are you deliberately refusing to see them, a la Cifwatch?

Furthermore, Paul Lewis, when acting as a BBC correspondent responded to the news anchors questions on the Hasidic Jews that were visible on the live feed at the riot in an incredibly fair manner... He at no point singled them out or suggested that they were responsible, just stated that it was a multicultural area and as such many different groups had turned out to see what is going on. In my opinion he was being incredibly careful not to imply that Jews were involved.

And once again, my name is David, I am not Joe... Just because our names end in the same way does not mean we are the same.. Are you Adviser, in fact, Helen Geller?

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:20

Rate this:

0 points

'But from this paper, I dont believe that at all.'

I'm sure you don't.

____

Jews are not a monolithic entity, our strength is that we are free to think and act in different ways.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:32

Rate this:

1 point

Mr Leigh Ellis the first article mentioned just Hassidic Jews as jeering the police. Do you not consider that coming from a paper which has a very poor record in dealing with blatantly anti-Semitic posts on its CIF site that it was deserving of adverse comment? Why did the article writer single out Hassidic jews as a group when he now has been forced to admit that there were other ethnic groups watching and may be jeering. Furthermore what evidence is there that the Hassidic Jews were jeering the police. Given the close relationship bwteen the heads of the local Hassidic groups in North London and the police on whom they unfortunately have to rely for daily security I personally find it hard to believe that they did in fact jeer the police with whom they have a very good relationship. As such this clearly evidences an attempt at showing Jews in a bad light.

Millis - please don't bother addressing me I have nothing to say to you.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:50

Rate this:

-1 points

I don't know the answer to all your questions, I am no oracle nor soothsayer. I think that as much as you cannot prove that Jews were jeering, it is also irrational to argue that they were not, simply because of your own prejudice re The Guardian. Many Hasidic Jews have suffered under cutbacks to welfare services, so it's not impossible to believe that some may be jaded. I would find it hard to imagine Hasidic Jews being violent or looting, but might they not have been chastising the police for not acting with greater authority and speed?

I agree, it does not fit with our image of the scholarly Hasidic Jew, but that does not mean its impossible, or even unlikely.

But to discount something, simply because The Guardian reported it is foolish - Similarly, if the Guardian have corrected a report, does that not show that their intention is to prevent offence? I have Jewish friends who happily work for The Guardian, they are not irreligious or anti-zionist and would not remain at the paper if it was institutionally anti-semitic.

I do not understand why people who oppose the Guardian so much choose to obsess over it like an unfaithful old flame. There is plenty of media choice, if you dont like it, dont read it... Vote with your wallet. If it makes you angry, don't publicise and romanticise the conflict. It just adds to the notoriety. Watch sites do not engage in debate, they shadow it, making pithy comments and then claiming 'victory' when an editor corrects something. It's quite pathetic!

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 15:57

Rate this:

-1 points

Don't bother, DLE, the wannabe is as one-eyed as the people he lionises.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 16:10

Rate this:

1 point

Unfortunately Mr leigh-Ellis were that one could just pretend that the Guardian was not there but it has been demonstrated that a considerable number of BBC jornalists read the Guardian as paper of choice and then repeat what they read over the air.
At the risk of you accusing it of being obsessive the Biased BBC website carried the following post

"How odd....an article in the Guardian by one of Ken Livingstone's mates echoes precisely a BBC article:
Both suggest it was Tory cuts wot done it....to youth clubs, jobs and police finances. Compare the beginnings of the articles:

From the BBC:
'Was Saturday night an orgy of mindless violence or a cry of rage from a marginalised, disaffected part of society? Riots polarise opinion and instant analysis is a dangerous game.'
From the Guardian:
'I don't know what could have been done to avoid last night's explosion of resentment and criminality. But I'm grimly confident of its potential elsewhere. Instant punditry on such events is a perilous and often irresponsible pursuit.'

and compare these two final words from each article....just how similar are they?

from the BBC.....
'Would that alone have stopped the violence on Saturday night happening? Unlikely. If police had come out of Tottenham police station and spoken to protesters would that have been enough to ease tensions? Hard to say. Any number of things can spark a riot; especially if temperatures are already running high.'
from the Guardian:
'Could the worst have been avoided? Might the police or the Independent Police Complaints Commission have made a better job of anticipating such trouble and so defusing it in advance? I don't know what the answers are, but feel grimly confident that such an awful, perfect storm of rumour, resentment and criminality could break in a dozen other parts of inner city London any day. These are nervous times.'

As we frequently observe here, the BBC is simply the broadcasting arm of the Guardian. The only difference is we are FORCED to pay for one."

That is why it is important to confront the Guardian any time it crosses the line from responsible reporting.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 16:26

Rate this:

0 points

But just the Guardian right? Because they lean to the left?

I'm guessing you don't frequent the Mail Watch site, which highlights misreporting in the Daily Mail. Last week the Daily Mail declared that the British public supported the death penalty, which was completely untrue, even according to their own logic. But that doesn't matter because its not left leaning I guess, and doesnt involve Israel.

Media misreporting is a giant snowball. To pick apart misreporting when you have a stake in a particular issue is hypocritical if you are not prepared to observe it and point it out in other publications. That is why obsessing over the Guardian is not as honourable as you claim it.

Why shouldn't the BBC use the Guardian? Most of the time it is a responsible and well researched publication. News International outlets feed their reports from one paper to another, that seems to be acceptable... That is just the nature of a 24 hour, rolling news society..

The fact is that the Guardian and the BBC are far more independent and responsible than most of the British press, which as I'm sure you know, is primarily owned by a single individual. The editor of the Guardian hasn't appeared before a select committee accused of malpractice.

If you want to talk about media bias, then The Guardian is nothing more than a left wing outpost fighting against a horde of right wing populism.

rushkin

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 16:36

Rate this:

-1 points

DLeigh-Ellis - I agree with everything you just wrote. One of the reasons why so many on this site hate the Guardian - including the JC staff and editorial team - is that Guardian articles are balanced and well researched. The Guardian is not owned by a single individual and neither does it have an agenda. That is what annoys the JC - that people read Guardian articles and can rely on their veracity. And of course the Guardian is not pro occupation and pro blockade.

Harvey

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 16:46

Rate this:

1 point

Youve all missed the point . What evidence is there that the Hassidic gentlemen were involved in jeering at the police rather then simply observing events as they unfolded . Care to provide some evidence that they were jeering such as a pod cast or You tube where they can be clearly heard to be jeering . It would likely be in Yiddish or a very heavily accented English so quite unmistakeable .

Waiting for the link Ellis .

Harvey

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 16:51

Rate this:

1 point

Apologies Advis3r . I missed your earlier comment and the assumption by the Guardian that the Hassids were jeering and repeated here by various CIF Groupies . Anyway we both picked up on it . Ellis will shortly be posting an audio link .Or then again maybe not .

http://cifwatch.com/2011/08/09/the-guardian-revises-story-about-uk-riots...

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:17

Rate this:

1 point

Incredible I point out that the Guardian exhibited bias and from that you project that I am a right wing fanatic who does not frequent the Mail watch site. I happen to think the Daily Mail is a rag and so I have no reason to frequent mail Watch. The Guardian on the other hand professes to be a quality newspaper and is read by a number of educationalists. Yet it allows anti-Semitic Blogs on its Comment is Free blog site. This has nothing to do with right or left.
So for example John Whitbeck would seem like an extremist to most – as he’s a full-fledged 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist, and an anti-Semite who characterized Israel as a “racial-supremicist, settler-colonial experiment” which should, of course, be annihilated.

Naturally, he was deemed perfectly respectable by Comment is Free, and published a post there in January, called, “On Palestine, the US is a rogue state“, in which he decried America’s “slavish subservience to Israel.”

After a complaint by the CST, the word “slavish” was removed but the phrase “subservience to Israel” remained.

Undeterred, Whitbeck, an international lawyer, presented a paper to an official UN Conference, in March of this year, in support of Latin American and Caribbean nations recognizing Palestine, which included the text from his CiF piece, and which included the original wording regarding “slavish” subservience to Israel. Whitbeck helpfully listed the publications who cross-posted the essay – which included radical anti-Zionist, and often anti-Semitic, fringe far-left magazines such as Counterpunch and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, the Palestine Chronicle, as well as Arab papers such as the Jordan Times, Arab News, Al-Ahram Weekly, whose editorial lines aren’t difficult to imagine.
The Guardian is far from a left wing outpost fighting against a horde of right wing populism especially where Israel is concerned.

Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:24

Rate this:

2 points

What a confused article by Leigh-Ellis

The whole point is that The Guardian changed the web article in response to CifWatch pressure!

CifWatch is a magnificent site and I am proud that they have published some of my articles.

Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:28

Rate this:

2 points

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pd...

The Guardian has hardly improved since I wrote this three years ago:

http://cifwatch.com/2011/08/08/phone-hacking-by-guardian-reporters-how-f...

And look at their hypocrisy in claiming the glory for exposing the NoW hacking scandal ...

Watchful Iris (not verified)

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:30

Rate this:

0 points

Do they show any of your videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH6XONDpes&feature=player_embedded

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:36

Rate this:

0 points

Watchful Iris=troll [Polite Notice:Please do not feed the trolls]

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:44

Rate this:

0 points

Of course cifVatch publish your stuff, Hoffman. They are one-eyed numpties with boer else better to do, like all self-appointed watch sites. Moral guardians of the seriously defective.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:46

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r=wannabe=small mythological creature that allegedly llives under bridges and eats goats. Don't feed it. Politely

Watchful Iris (not verified)

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:51

Rate this:

0 points

Don't feed it or read it.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:54

Rate this:

0 points

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 18:02

Rate this:

0 points

Not a single original thought enters that vacuum between the ears, eh. Go play with the other "watchers" who hide behind stupid names, probably out of embarrassment.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 18:02

Rate this:

0 points

Not a single original thought enters that vacuum between the ears, eh. Go play with the other "watchers" who hide behind stupid names, probably out of embarrassment.

Wed, 08/10/2011 - 18:04

Rate this:

0 points

Not a single original thought enters that vacuum between the ears, eh. Go play with the other "watchers" who hide behind stupid names, probably out of embarrassment.