Guardian

Guardian erases “Palestinians” from Reuters story on Jerusalem terror attack


At least five Israelis were killed and eight wounded Tuesday morning when Palestinian terrorists armed with knives, axes and guns began attacking Jews in a Jerusalem synagogue during morning prayers.  The terrorists, who were reportedly shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the attack, were eventually shot and killed by police.

The Guardian’s first report on the incident was a Reuters story which they posted at roughly 9 AM Israeli time.

First, here’s a snapshot of the original story, as it appeared on Reuters’ website, titled ‘Up to five dead in suspected Palestinian attack on Jerusalem synagogue‘.

reuters

However, as you can see, the Guardian’s version (Deadly attack in Jerusalem synagogue) deleted the word “Palestinian” from the headline.

guardian

But, that’s not the only revision to the Reuters article by Guardian editors.

Here’s the opening passage of the original Reuters report:

(Reuters) – Two suspected Palestinian men armed with axes and knives killed up to five people and wounded four in a Jerusalem synagogue on Tuesday before they were shot dead by police, Israeli media said, the worst such attack in years.

Now, here’s the Guardian’s version.

Two men armed with axes and knives killed up to five people and wounded four in a Jerusalem synagogue on Tuesday before they were shot dead by police, Israeli media said after the worst such attack in years.

Consistent with the omission in the  headline, the word “Palestinian” was deleted from the lead sentence, despite the fact that Israeli police have clearly identified the attackers as Palestinians from east Jerusalem.  (Indeed, other UK media outlets we reviewed have clearly identified the terrorists as Palestinian.)

Once again, the Guardian has demonstrated their institutional bias when reporting on Israeli-Palestinian issues – specifically, a pattern of obfuscating even the most unambiguous examples of Palestinian culpability for terror, violence and incitement.

(See also CAMERA’s recent blog post, ‘In CNN Headline on Jerusalem Terror, Integrity is Another Casualty‘)

15 replies »

  1. How many Jews have died in this latest surge from the savages ?

    Counting from the train attack on the baby and Rabbi Glick..?

    We need to keep count because when Israel strikes back, those victims will disappear into the swamp of “Palestinians killed”, “Palestinian Children wounded”, “Palestinian watches as his house is demolished”, “Palestinian woman mourns her son”, “Palestinian looks on after his home was hit by IAF bomb”, “Palestinians are being rushed to Hospital”, “Palestinians allege war crimes”. UN convenes special assembly to discuss civilian deaths” “Netanyahu’s heavy hand not helping prospects of peace” ” Israel’s attacks hinder Obama’s peace effort with Iran” …..

    These are the pre made headlines to be printed once the response comes….

  2. It was a given the story would read like this. What sixth sense powers I have. I will post this link on my FB page inviting Palestinian supporters who are (meant to be) friends their rationale and explanation. Mostly the response is deafening silence

    I do this not because I think their minds will be changed necessarily but because – and unfortunately – there are many more people who really are too timid (to use the kindest interpretation) to speak out and/or who sit on the fence unsure what to think. Information needs to be out there to counter the misinformation. To me and I think perhaps to others such silences may at least plant seeds of doubt in people that there is something very wrong with this media picture.

  3. A dreadful attack which I condemn.

    I Notice that the Reuters report carries the word ‘suspected’ in terms of the identity of the assailants. The Guardian’s report, while not using the word ‘Palestinian’ in the headline, is more definite in making an assertion of their identity in the second paragraph: “The Palestinian assailants were killed in shootout with police at the scene,..”

    I’m not sure if this specific example shows bias on the Guardian’s behalf.

    • Yes, I’ve noticed that too- that they DO assert their Palestinian identity in the second paragraph. Why do you think that is? if they do acknowledge they were Palestinians, why hide it from the headline? Not coincidental. They do these word-plays all the times.

  4. Al Guardian supports the terror of Palestinians. The left line goes that the desperate (ISIL, Hamas, young criminals) have no other choice than violence and terror being depraved of land, country, education, patental caring, state caring, caring at all and so forth. They are all structural victims of neocolonialism, neoliberalism and male whiteness.
    You can`t explain a jerk (Al Guardian) the fact that he is one.

    • The existence of Jews and other minorities in their midst is a provocation and too much to bear. Wanton murder called resistance is the “natural” reaction.

  5. “Two men armed with axes and knives killed up to five people and wounded four”

    I’m surprised the Guardian didn’t change this to the passive voice. They must have been in a rush. They could have left the perpetrators out entirely.

  6. What’s with the “up to five people” phrase, anyhow? Either it was five people or it wasn’t. “Up to five people” is something you use when there’s a limit on how many can be included at an event or activity; not for reporting the number of murders.

  7. Hi would you mind letting me know which hosting company you’re working with?
    I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most.
    Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a honest price?
    Kudos, I appreciate it!