Guardian

A long week in Loch Wobegon


This is a guest post by AKUS

There’s a well-known radio show in the US  featuring Garrison Keillor called “A Prairie Home Companion” that has a weekly roundup of generally depressing news from a little town called Lake Wobegon, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” There were a few things happening in a couple of our favorite British media sources that for some reason made me think of Lake Wobegon – the home of some of the “frozen people”, as Garrison likes to call his fellow Lutherans.

The Guardian, a paper at Loch Wobegan known familiarly as the Daily Groan for its rich helpings of Lutheran-like misery-guts reporting, where it often seems to me that none of its women (or men) are good-looking, even if they are strong, and certainly many of its columnists are not above average, had one of its faux-pas moments when it printed a report by the Press Association on a fascinating study of the attitudes of British Jews towards Israel just released by the British research group, JPR . (Yes – that JPR – the one Antony Lerman spends so much of his time attacking after he left). The study included the responses from 4081 self-selecting Jews out of a population of, say 300,000, a number which provides a margin of error of only 1.5%.

To put the rigor of the JPR study in context, many polls carried out in the US regarding important issues such as, say, the President’s popularity or Lindsey Lohan’s jail time will include less than 1,500 responses and have a margin of error of 3%. The JPR survey is far more rigorous than the incredibly cooked and utterly unrepresentative effort put together in the US by JStreet which has been so widely circulated. It was puffed up by the Guardian – e.g., this article by none other than Antony Lerman. CiF Watch noted a poll the Guardian ran “under a picture of a torn and tattered Israeli flag” about JStreet at Enforcing the GWV: the Guardian J Street Poll . That JStreet study had 800 respondents representing a population of 3 million US Jews. The small sample size, unlike the large British sample size, did not permit a really good breakdown by various Jewish subgroups, and on two of the most critical questions about the I/P issues only 354 responses were collected. The margin of error is at least 5%, very significant when so many responses on critical issues involving Israel in that study hovered around the 50% mark.

Returning to the Daily Groan and the small piece on the JPR report (that it) titled British Jews favour ‘two-state solution’ in Israel . To cut a 43 page report short, the JPR study shows what can only be described as overwhelming though not uncritical support for Israel on the part in UK Jews. This may be why the Guardian tucked it away under “World News” rather than on CiF, even though for whatever reason it decided to mention the study. In contrast,  when the JStreet study came out in 2009 they even hitched the self-confessed mathematically incompetent Richard Silverman to their CiF wagon, printing one of his horrible pieces on CiF bragging incorrectly about the results to support the anti-Israeli bias of JStreet (in my pre-banning days I tore it apart and my footprints are still visible in the thread).

Well , every article dealing with Israel on the Groan’s web-site deserves a misleading photograph to go with it, so this picture showing what the Daily Groan’s editors think British Jews look like appeared:

Orthodox Jewish men in Jaffa, south of Tel Aviv. The survey found British Jews have a strong affinity for Israel, with 90% having been there. Photograph: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images

(This was from the recent protest about digging up a cemetery in Jaffa, I suspect).

Obviously the reference to “a strong affinity for Israel” was a blow to the GWV and I pity the poor soul who naively posted it – s/he is probably on mailroom duty for the duration, or condemned to bring booze to BellaM while she marinates – that is, “moderates”.

At some point, someone at the Daily Groan must have noticed that this was actually an article more about British Jews than Orthodox Israelis, so they had to dig up a picture of a REALLY TYPICAL British Jew to replace it, and they added a more politically correct summary of the report by way of a caption:

An Orthodox Jew walking through a London market. Research shows 77% of British Jews favour a 'two-state solution' in Israel. Photograph: Victor de Schwanberg/Alamy

So that’s what British Jews look like. Or perhaps it’s just what the editors of the Daily Groan think British Jews look like. They could instead have used this picture, which is apparently what the Loch Wobegon opposition paper, the Jewish Chronicle, thinks a British Jew SHOULD look like:

Uncovered: Philosemite stripper Benedict Garrett

(OK – I know he’s not REALLY Jewish but don’t we wish he was? And it wouldn’t hurt if Antony Lerman would take some lessons from this porn star who teaches classes on the love for Zion, a topic about which Ben – may I call him that? – it’s so much more …  Jewish – gets really passionate).

Well, if the unmasking of  Jewish identities in Britain was not enough from the Daily Groan for one week, Robin Shepherd had an excellent column making fun of the Groan’s ridiculous editorial about the decision in France to ban the burka: French niqab ban: Beneath the veil. The Groan’s header for its editorial suddenly reminded me of the BBC’s latest slip-up, which revealed what indeed lies beneath the veil, and why some at the BBC might think burka-wearing is a necessity rather than a religious obligation (even though it is not actually a religious obligation).

The BBC ran a piece headed French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public which now carries the relatively innocuous image of a Euro-burka-wearing fashionista  who also wears sunglasses holding up her closed passport in her gloved hand so that we can clearly identify her (the picture inside is obviously not going to be useful for that purpose so why open the passport?):

The bill envisages fines of 150 euros for women wearing the full veil

However, curious as that is when you stop and think about the difficulty of trying to identify a burka-wearer from her passport picture, the original picture that accompanied that article and revealed the full horror of “what lies beneath the veil” (and I am not making this up) was this one:


Yes, it’s been a long week in Loch Wobegan, where all the editors are biased and the photo staff are below average.

18 replies »

  1. I’m not surprised.

    The average Gardianista – sorry, Groanista – reads “Jew” and thinks “Fagin”. Reads “Jew” and thinks “Israel, I hate Israel”.

    If the Groan wanted a few pictures of British (male) Jews, how about David Beckham? Daniel (Harry Potter) Radcliffe? Robert Winston?

    Naw, far too popular.

    Let’s keep to the all-Jews-look-the-same trope.

  2. Great article AKUS – about as sarcastic as you can be.

    Although I don’t agree with the banning of the burqa, I can surely see why it represents a security nightmare. From your link to the BBC story, its fairly clear that Europeans support the ban in the name of women’s rights as well:

    “………The niqab and burka are widely seen in France as threats to women’s rights and the secular nature of the state……….”

    Seems a little hypocritical to me considering how Europeans support Hamas or at least ignore (or are silent about) the human rights abuses by the Islamic fundamentalist/terrorist organization that currently controls Gaza. How many editorials has been run by the Guardian denouncing Hamas and their abuses of the people of Gaza? This extends to so-called human rights organizations as well who denounce Israel at every opportunity, but ignore Hamas.

  3. I have an idea for all women reading this, and men too, who are against this burkha wearing madness: Carry in your purse or pocket a full face balaclava of the type bank robbers wear and, when you come up face to face with a burkha-wearing idiot, put on your balaclava.

    Better still, let’s have demonstrations against burkha wearers with all participants having to cover their faces.

    Thousands marching on parliament or the senate or county halls across different countries ought to do it.

  4. Girls who choose to cut themselves off from the sunlight under burkahs might have their own reasons and are entitled to bear the burden of not being able to return a smile or eat in a restaurant. It’s more or less their business.

    However women forced by their relatives to do the same are something else and how do we distinguish between them?

    Someone wearing a burkah might as easily be a man or a woman, either innocent or carrying a lethal weapon.
    Ban the burka

  5. SarahLeah, I love it! But I had decided that if ever I encountered anyone (remember Michael Jackson?) in a burkha I would do my best to pretend that they do not exist.

  6. Actually Ariadne, that’s what I do. A group of ’em sloping along by the river and I ploughed right through the centre of ’em on foot. After all they don’t exist, do they? They are treated like shadow, half-people who’ve either been talked or forced into not existing even in our democracy, the more fools they.

    When I don’t do that, I turn my back on them. I am not supposed to notice them am I?

  7. Margie, I heard this morning that women (they think) in burkas are responsible for the latest spate of suicide bombings in Afghanistan. How they know these bits are female is beyond me though.

  8. Yohoho, What would we do if one fell bleeding to the ground – assuming that we could see the blood?

  9. Sarah Leah,

    I am told that balaclava are forbidden to be worn in Britain in public unless they are for work purposes (F1 drivers, bikers, etc) or were precribed by your doctor (Sun protection, burns treatment, etc).

    This is something I was told by an English friend who said he studied this.
    It might be wrong, and I haven’t researched.

    But it makes sense.
    Police officers and the general public should be able to recognise you.
    Raoul Moat had his face covered on tghe media warning against approaching this dangerous men.
    It is known that one of the 21/7/05 attempted bombers was on the ran by taking the Burka from his partner afterr he failed to detonate his makeshift bomb 5 years ago.

    And last, as a specie who is very match in touch with his past (aka apes) we still rely heavily on facial expression to anticipate a response.

    This is extremely impoartnt es[pecialy when the person involved is in education.
    Young children must have a facial expression around them to learn basics in social development.
    Having teachers in kinder gardens and nurseries wearing Burkas or Nikabs is out of the question and should not be allowed.

    All people, and children are not excluded, have the human right to education. Burkas prevent that and as such are breaking some human right laws.

  10. I certainly agree with ItsikDeWembley that it should be banned for schoolteachers. But while I’m uncomfortable with the sight and concept of the burka, I feel that a general ban might be counter-productive.

    That aside: why the Daily-Mail-style hatred displayed by SarahLeah and others here??

    And what does this have to do with anti-Semitism on CiF?

  11. As for the first half of the post: f*ck knows why the Guardian had to use those two photos. If they really needed an image (which IMO they didn’t), then why not just one of the Jerusalem skyline, the Tel Aviv marina or Lake Kinneret etc.?

  12. Hey Duvid, if we wanted to go historical, one could have used a picture of Leslie Howard—parents married in synagogue in London(Ashley Wilkes, Gone with the Wind) or Laurence Harvey, two of the most “typical” looking Englishman Hollywood ever created—-chuckle

  13. The Burka should be banned,anyone who stood next to a woman wearing a Burka on a very hot summers day would know what it feels like,standing or passing by one of these Burka clad women.

  14. Zac Efron’s paternal grandfather was Jewish. His other grandparents were not Jewish.

    Zac does look like Logan Lerman, who is 100% Jewish.