Guardian

CST secures amendments on the ‘Comment is Free’ website.


Readers may remember that back in February of this year, CiF Watch ran a cross post from the blog of the Community Security Trust regarding an article by Rachel Shabi posted on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ website, the title of which suggested that “Israel’s rightwing defenders” make false accusations of antisemitism

The Guardian has now amended that headline but, as the CST blog observes:

“So, after contact from CST, this particular false accusation has been removed. It is very little and it is very late.

The damage is done: to Guardian readers’ perceptions of antisemitism and to many Jews’ perceptions of the Guardian (yet again).”

The full CST blog post on the subject can be read here.

More recently, also on the ‘Comment is Free’ website, the Guardian ran an article by Raed Salah in which he claimed to be the victim of a “smear campaign” run by “Israel’s cheerleaders in Britain” and that a poem written by him “had been doctored”. 

No reference was made in the article itself to the CST, but in a comment posted under the article in Raed Salah’s name, it was falsely suggested that the “doctored” version of the poem had been provided to the British Home Secretary by the Community Security Trust. 

That comment has now been removed from the website. Details can be read on the CST blog here

2 replies »

  1. Well, at least CST got a correction, which is more than has happened on some of the Guardian’s more egregious campaigns against Israel (Al Durrah, Jenin, Mavi Marmara, for example).

    As satisfying as this is, and hopefully the publicity it receives at the CST blog, here, and perhaps elsewhere will draw attention to the Guardians perverse reporting about Israel, as CST says, “It is very little and it is very late.”

    I would add the word “typically” to CST’s comment.

  2. The Groan’s perversion of objective reality (ie witnessed and confirmed facts) should give cause for concern.

    I am old enough to remember when an organisation, newspaper or whatever would apologise unreservedly for misleading the public, whether wittingly or unwittingly. The Groan, when it has to be forced to admit that it has misled its readers, seems actually to be proud of the fact or at least not ashamed.

    For example, their reversion to their worse than useless “style guide” as an excuse for whatever egregious nonsense they are engaged disseminating in is proof positive that the editorial staff, and particularly Rusbridger who is after all responsible for what the newspaper publishes, are totally devoid of morality.

    Even more disturbing is that their sheeple don’t call them out on their mistakes and probably the intelligent contributors who do so are quickly deleted.

    What vested interest has the Groan actually wanting to appear to be stupid and unbalanced?