Guardian

Guardian makes egregious “error”; refers to Palestinian “terrorists” without quotes


A few days ago the Guardian made an egregious “error”.  They used the word ‘terrorism’, in the Israeli-Palestinian context, without quotes.  Here’s the relevant passage in the online edition of a story about the recent release of a second batch of Palestinian prisoners titled ‘Tension among Israelis after release of 26 Palestinian prisoners, Oct. 30:

terroristOf course, anyone who reads the Guardian would know that at least their unofficial editorial policy seems to forbid use such a value-laden term as “terrorist” to refer to Palestinian extremists who murder Israelis, at least without quotations or some other grammatical qualification. More typically, they use the word “militant” instead – even, as seen below, in reference to the 2011 Itamar massacre.

militant

Guardian headline, March 14, 2011

Sure, enough, a mere day after their online “faux pas” about the freed Palestinians, the Guardian “corrected” their “blunder” in the print edition of the paper.  In a shortened version of the Oct. 30 story about the released prisoners, the quotes were wrapped safely around the potentially offending term. 

print

Guardian print edition, Oct. 31

Finally, we should note that the one seeming exception to the Guardian ‘no terror without quotes’ policy relates to stories about the murder of innocent civilians by violent extremists which occurs on British soil.  

LondonWe of course eagerly await a column by the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor explaining the moral difference between the murder of Lee Rigby in London and the murder of more than 1400 innocent Israelis since Oslo.

7 replies »

  1. Heavens to Betsy! Terrorists without quotes? What were they thinking?
    Luckily they have an out. All they need to do is never ever tell their readers the crimes committed by the “terrorists.”

  2. I have been under pre moderation for two months on CiF for two single comments accusing Andrew Brown of hypocrisy. They have even stopped replying to polite queries about it’s length on email. As a result about 90% of my comments, serious or pithy, agreeable or disagreeable, are not published.

    This coming from a site whinging about government censorship all the time. I suspect it’s down to some of the islamists on there as I’ve not exactly toed the party line on the matter.

  3. The last example of the Guardian referring to a terror attack on British soil fails to acknowledge that it was motivated by religion – or at least that is what the “alleged” perpetrators had declared.

  4. We of course eagerly await a column by the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor explaining the moral difference between the murder of Lee Rigby in London and the murder of more than 1400 innocent Israelis since Oslo.

    Was Lee Rigby a Jew living in the Jewish State?

    No?

    Then there’s your answer.