Corrections

CiF Watch prompts Guardian correction over Iran Sanctions Bill claim


Earlier this month we criticized a Guardian report by Harriet Sherwood and Dan Roberts (Binyamin Netanyahu visit will test strains in US-Israel relationship, March 2) that included the following claim regarding efforts in the US Senate to pass a new Iran Sanctions Bill:

…the failure of an Aipac-supported effort to pass legislation blocking Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has led to a reassessment of the fabled ability of its lobbyists to wield a veto over US policy when it comes to matters of Israeli security.

We noted that this represented a significant mischaracterization of a bill (S.1881 – Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013) which, by all accounts, was designed to increase sanctions against Iran only in the event negotiations with the six world powers failed to produce an agreement, or if Iran failed to abide by the terms of any agreement.

Following our communication with Guardian editors, they agreed to revise the relevant passage. It now reads:

But the failure of Aipac to garner enough support in the Senate to oppose the Obama administration over its nuclear deal with Iran has led to a reassessment of the fabled ability of its lobbyists to wield a veto over US policy when it comes to matters of Israeli security.

Additionally, the following addendum was added to the article, noting the change:

amended

Though we are not totally satisfied with the revised passage – which still fails to clearly state the intent of the legislation  – it nonetheless represents an improvement over the original, and we commend Guardian editors on their positive response to our complaint.

Enhanced by Zemanta

6 replies »

  1. Good result Adam.

    I doubt the editors are thrilled with Sherwood and Roberts for dragging The Guardian down to the level of Press TV.

  2. Doesn’t matter–the Guardian will continue to publish its relentless antiIsrael often antisemitic drivel shamelessly, and Iran of course will continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions.
    Obama is an unmitigated disaster, for the U.S., Israel, and the world.

    • Alfred. I don’t pretend to be an expert on US politics, but I question whether Obama, or any POTUS, has any influence whatsoever over whether the Guardian continues to publish anti-Israel and/or antisemitic drivel.

      You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of Obama, but to tack that on to a thread that is entirely unrelated to Iran, US policy or anything other than the editorial policy of a British media outlet is strange, to say the least.