Guardian

Guardian’s PaliLeaks unleashes disturbing volume of hate in reader comment section


One of the more telling aspects of the way the Guardian covered the shooting in Arizona – which targeted congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and left six dead – was the way in which they used the deadly attack to demonize their political opponents.  Like much of the American hard left, the Guardian concluded that the attack was motivated by “inflammatory right-wing rhetoric”, without the slightest evidence that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was a fan of the conservative talk show hosts and politicians being mentioned.  Of course the mere death of evidence wouldn’t stop CiF’s Michael Tomasky from assigning such blame, acknowledging that “it can’t really and truly be proved”, before insisting, “but everyone knows.”

Those who read this blog regularly are fully aware of the time we spend documenting the hate and vitriol directed against Jews and Israel in the comment section of CiF which is unleashed by Guardian stories even tangentially related to Israel.  As we’ve noted previously, the Community Security Trust has named the Guardian as a major purveyor of antisemitic rhetoric in the British mainstream media in their 2007 and 2008 reports.

As CiF Watch actually takes empirical evidence seriously, we’ve taken the time to document “what everyone knows”: that the Guardian’s recent PaliLeaks reports have unleashed a wave of hate – towards Jews and Israel – below the the line that reaches new depths.

As you read the comments below, elicited from the Jan. 24 Guardian piece “Papers reveal how Palestinian leaders gave up fight over refugees,” please also note how many fellow Guardian readers recommend the remarks.

We posted previously on this comment about Israel’s unique evil, which still hasn’t been deleted, and has now garnered 870 Recommends:

Accusation that Israel is engaged in Ethnic Cleansing (506 Recommends)

Israel and the U.S. are the true rogue states in the world (484 Recommends).  Also, see our posts (here, here, and here) on John Whitbeck’s CiF piece, “On Palestine, the U.S. is a rogue state.”

Pro-Hamas comment (261 Recommends):

“Wealthy U.S. Jewish people” are to blame. (371 Recommends):

Reader now hates Israel and the U.S. even more than he/she used to (225 Recommends):

More general hate: (480 Recommends):

The Guardian has now freed the reader to condemn Israel’s “ethno-religious purity.” (187 Recommends)

Israel and the U.S. are terrorist states, similar to fascist war-mongering regimes of past. (155 Recommends).

Israel is evil, Zionism needs to be defeated, like fascism before it. (44 Recommends):

Israel wants to cleans the country of non-Jews to maintain its purity. (44 Recommends):

Israel is a barbaric country.

While I don’t think the commentary above requires much more contextualizing, I will simply add that it cannot be reasonably claimed that the Guardian (who has a professional staff of moderators) isn’t aware of the bile their hostility towards the Jewish state elicits. So, assuming they do know that their commentary nurtures and engenders such hate, we’re left with one depressing question: Do they even care?

17 replies »

  1. But it doesn’t happen only in ‘The Guardian’ and its ilk. I’ve just spent 20 minutes responding to a slew of mindless antisemitic gibberish from the usual quarters which appeared below an understated, well-written report in The Daily Telegraph about Google’s involvement in digitalising material from the Yad Vashem archives. Google’s work, quite reasonably – like Yad Vashem’s own new Youtube channel in Farsi – has been accomplished to coincide with International Holocaust Day.

  2. So, assuming they do know that their commentary nurtures and engenders such hate, we’re left with one depressing question: Do they even care?

    Of course they do. Inciting this kind of hate is their main goal.

  3. @Natalie

    “But it doesn’t happen only in ‘The Guardian’ and its ilk.”

    You’re right. But what is perhaps unique is that the Guardian claims to be the “worlds leading liberal voice” where racism is the antithesis of what they are supposed to stand for. On top of that there are full time moderators paid to weed out the bigotry and racism – yet they don’t and worse still they delete pro-Israel comments that dont comport with the Guardian world view.

  4. Yes they care – there must be a connection to their getting revenue from it

    I think it was in thos piece about Assange that I learned that by now revenue doesn’t come from readers anymore but from stuff that has nothing to do with news. Now since London is supposed to be the capital of the Arab world in the west, do they happen to be the other sources? If yes then the Guardian may find itself currently in a nice bind between loyalties unless the whole thing is a charade to keep happenings in Lebanon from getting the attention they deserve.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=all

  5. “Yes they care – there must be a connection to their getting revenue from it”.

    I DO keep wondering – and worrying (as if that helps anyone!) about this.
    How much of the hate-filled garbage is genuine and how much of it is earned quite cynically? I’ve heard about people actually receiving an income from ‘sources unknown’ for filling the comment pages of cyberspace with anti-Israel-cum-anti-Jewish rhetoric. I wonder further, what sort of backing The Indie and the LRB receive – as they’re both supposed to be in deep financial trouble. I remember Martin Kelner slighty from junior hack days in Manchester and certainly knew Ian Black really quite well when his family lived between Leeds and Sheffield in our teens. I really can’t relate the lovely guy I knew to the character who now edits the M.E. section of The Guardian. It simply doesn’t add up. By the way, anyone calling me ‘naive’ receives my personal ‘nerd of the year’ award before the end of January!

  6. Natalie, since Politcal Correctness became a feature of everyday life people of all sorts have told lies to stay in their position.

    Since there was publicity to be had by trying to destroy Israel through BDS Saudi Arabia (for a while) was shown to be funding Israel’s enemies.

    Of late however I haven’t seen very much on whom and what Saudi Arabia might be funding.

    And in relation to nothing here: I heard the Bungler described today as a “moderate”. By the Guardian’s other partner in crime, the BBC.

  7. Natalie
    either in that Assange-piece I linked or elsewhere I learned that the newspaper Guardian on itself is in dire straits but if you take the whole that comprises the Guardian “empire” then it seems they are doing quite well and that makes me ask to they nourish the antisemitism in the newspaper to attract Oil-Money-people for to their other business who might quit if the newspaper wouldn’t please them.

    I remember one figure. The London Times who aims for the same thing with a paywalled model is said to make 250.000 per ? out of its wine-customers alone.

    i.e. there is some serious change going on behind what we the cash-wise uninteresting public are getting to see.

  8. Modern day “socialism” is descended from it’s 1930’s national socialist parentage.

  9. Heil Guardian!

    (Not just a tasteless quip – the evil of the Jew-baiters at the Guardian and associated circles is equivalent to mass psychosis which had Germany in its grip.)

  10. Question any company that advertises in the racist Der Guardian whether they share Der Guardians racist views and goals.

    Inform patrons of companies that advertise and thus support the racist Der Guardian that their purchasing power supports islamofascistphilic jihad.