Guardian’s Julian Borger responds to CiF Watch, acknowledges error about genocide convention

Yesterday, I pointed out an error by the Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger, in a post he published on the recent U.S. presidential debate titled Fact-checking the final presidential debate’, Oct. 23.

Among the statements by the candidates checked for accuracy was the following claim by Romney, which Borger claimed was not correct.

I noted in my post that, contrary to what Borger wrote about “incitement to Genocide”, Article III of the ‘Convention on Genocide‘, adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1948, does in fact include, as a punishable crime, “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide“.

Shortly after our post, we Tweeted Borger, alerting him to the error.

This morning, we received this reply.

While we’ll monitor the post to make sure it’s indeed corrected by Guardian editors, Mr. Borger should be commended for responding promptly, and positively, to our post and Tweet alerting him about the mistake.

UPDATE: Borger’s piece has been corrected, and the error officially acknowledged.

6 replies »

  1. The Guardian is constantly making corrections about israel (often thanks to you) leaving only 2 options. Either they are completely incompetent and need to be sacked or they are biased and need to be sacked. Unless thy admit they have an agenda to distort reality to making israel always look bad and Muslims always look good, no matter how violent they are.

    • Either they are completely incompetent and need to be sacked or they are biased and need to be sacked.

      They are the kind of people who need ‘something to hate’ and after selecting a ‘something’, are at a loss to know exactly why they hate it.

      Others, more normal people, ‘need something to love’.

    • They will probably take the third option and sack Borger for respecting facts, evidence, and reality, which is against Guardian policy.

  2. So what would have happened but for CiF Watch? The Guardian readership would have been misled because at the least Borger is too lazy to check his facts. But then what makes him think he can write a “fact check” without checking the facts! Ignorant, arrogant or simply hell bent on having his political view dominate?

  3. Wait and see what the correction will look like. It’s interesting how often newspapers will splash inflammatory and inaccurate information and then hide the correction where hardly anyone will notice it.

  4. When I initially commented I seem to have clicked on the -Notify me
    when new comments are added- checkbox and from now on whenever a comment is
    added I get four emails with the same comment. Is there an easy method you
    can remove me from that service? Appreciate it!