A CiF Watch reader has alerted us to the fact that on the Guardian website’s search page, entering the word ‘Israel’ brings up the following.
First, we get the “Editor’s picks”, the second of which is a series of five year old films made for the Guardian – about Gaza – and over two years after the Israeli withdrawal from the Strip.
Next come the “Most recent” articles.
After that, the “Most relevant articles matching your search”.
The “most relevant” that the Guardian search facility can come up with is a series of four to six year-old articles?
At the bottom of the search page it says:
“Our search has changed. Let us know what you think.”
Over to you, dear readers.
Related articles
- ‘Comment is Free’ places obituary for Israeli PM’s father on ‘Palestinian Territories’ page. (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood promotes the mantra of “death of the peace process”. (cifwatch.com)
- Comment is (apparently far from) Free. (cifwatch.com)
- You may need to read this twice – the Guardian Denies that Jerusalem is Israel’s Capital. (cifwatch.com)
- Racist stereotyping in the Guardian sports section (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report and the influence on perceptions of Israel. (cifwatch.com)
- Israel fires back at Harriet Sherwood over allegations that Palestinian kids were mistreated (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s “relative calm” in Israel continues, 130 rockets fired from Gaza in last 30 hours (cifwatch.com)
Categories: Guardian
Perhaps CiFWatch could donate some more relevant and up-to-date articles to the Guardian, seemingly as impoverished as it is in this aspect as it is in others.
A search for “Egypt” likewise delivers a bunch of articles from 2005 under “Most relevant articles matching your search”.
What is the point of this piece? Guardian conspiracy alert?!?
Come off it.
Whether it’s (as most likely) general incompetence or something else, it’s far from ideal.
The relative relevance to Duvidl is that perhaps moderator Bella’s back in town (cue canned laughter).