Daily Mirror refers to #Israeli victims of Munich Massacre as “terrorists” (UPDATE)

Is this merely an “editing error”, or does this British tabloid really think that the Israeli athletes brutally murdered by Palestinians during 1972 Olympics were “terrorists”? Here’s the strap line in an article published today.

mirror 2

They also used the term in the opening passage:


Note also, how the Israeli victims are somehow characterized as “terrorists”, but the Palestinians from Black September who murdered the athletes are merely ‘militants’


UPDATE: Moments after our post, and a tweet to the writer, the article was amended, and the term “terrorists” to describe the Israeli victims has been removed.

64 replies »

    • Then how did it turn up not only in the strap line, but in the second sentence of the article as well?

      • Straplines are normally copy-pasted from the first paragraph of the article.

        More to the point: what possible basis could the Daily Mail have for deliberately describing athletes as terrorists?

        • The person who wrote the story can’t tell the difference between a terrorist and a militant. Something that put down to being more than careless, or more to the point reckless.

          • As a journalist, it’s quite common to make absent-minded errors: particularly if you’re thinking about or hearing someone in the room with you saying a particular word, you often subconsciously type it. Admittedly proof-reading wouldn’t have gone amiss…

            More to the point: what possible basis could the Daily Mail have for deliberately describing athletes as terrorists?

            • Yes Gabriel. Give me an example where mistakes were made where say the French victims of terrorism were said to be terrorists and the terrorists were called militants? Absent-minded of course. It’s difficult to find another example isn’t it?

              Your point is correct. Subconsciously, the Israeli has become the terrorist in the mind-set of the media. It’s an easy slip alright and that’s the problem. The Daily Mirror has since corrected it.

              • “Give me an example where mistakes were made where say [sic] the French victims of terrorism were said to be terrorists” – I think this basically shows that you don’t know what a mistake is.

                • Joshua’s point is valid. Can you show similar examples involving the issue of terrorism and calling the victims the “terrorists” that have not been applied to Israel or other radical leftist targets?

                  • No, I can’t.

                    Joshua’s point isn’t valid because what we are talking about here is a *mistake*. It doesn’t disprove that it’s a mistake just because the same mistake hasn’t also been made in relation to other people. It would be less forgivable if that were the case, to be honest, because we expect people to learn from their mistakes.

                    In 2003, CNN accidentally released the obituaries of a dozen public figures who hadn’t died yet ( – none of them were Jewish, does that mean CNN was anti-Semitic for not publishing obituaries for Jews?

                    No, because what we are talking about here is a *mistake*.

                    • Inappropriate comparison. The word terrorist has a negative sense, it is an evil person, as opposed to dead people. It may have been a mistake, i.e., a freudian slip, but that is due to the “blame Israel”-mentality that is rife throughout the British press.

                    • Your basis for being certain that it was a Freudian slip rather than a simple random error (perhaps because someone in the newsroom happened to say the word ‘terrorist’ out loud while the journalist was typing their story) is what? Sorry, think you forgot to say.

                    • It’s a “mistake” if one is willing to proffer a benefit of doubt.

                      15 years after the 2000 peace offer, this same Western Media has blurred the lines between terrorists and their victims. And here they’ve blurred it so much, they’ve proven they’ve got no fucking clue.

                      After all, this is the response Israel gets in the Media. Hospital bombed? Must’ve been Israel. Pizzeria blown up in Jerusalem? There must have been a reason. Right?

                    • But it is not as simple as that Gabriel, because it wasn’t a “mistake” but 2 “mistakes” that was repeated in the body of the piece. It does not make sense if we were to reverse the descriptions ( Israeli/Militant and Palestinian /Terrorist) in the same sentence. How do we explain this?

              • Gabriel,
                What motive could they have in describing the terrorists as militants, and their victims who would fit neither description as terrorists? Why do these errors always seem to run in one direction?

                • And why does do these errors happen in the British Press? The constant drumbeat in Der Guardian and the BBC of vilifying Israel and coddling Islamofascists, Hamass, Hezbullah, PLO, Abbas steer people, even “journalists” towards a false and dishonest perspective.

            • Ok Gabriel. The article was partially “corrected” . Black September is still referred to as “Militant”. Black September castrated a defenceless man in front of 9 of his countrymen. Murderers, terrorists even killers are more apt descriptions of the people who did this . It’s beyond Israeli Government and another entity politics. Why was this “mistake” also not corrected? Unless of course the writer holds sympathy for the perpetrator of the crime. That’s a problem we can’t get away from. This is not a case of one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is it and that the newspaper has become “neutral” when it comes to Israel, but would not be neutral with ISIS or Daesh as Cameron insists we call them.

              I appreciate your point in any other situation, but not here.

          • Sam Webb must have been in a room at the Daily Mirror where Israelis are “terrorists” and Palestinians and people who behead British soldiers like Lee Rigby and bomb London transport killing 50+ people are “militants”.

            That explains his absent-mindedness and his absent-journalistic-standards-ness – as well as the editors.

        • Adam,They always play pass the buck. The reporter says its the Editor the Editor says its the reporter or some ‘lowly’ employee they supervise. If it’s a caption under a picture no one seems to have put it there and the ‘Good Paper’ knows nothing, they merely sell newspapers,Yaakov aka Jack/Lehi48

    • I was a newspaper editor for 5 years, writing headlines just like this. While it’s certainly true that the British media generally is biased against Israel, this is OBVIOUSLY an editing error, nothing more. A particularly stupid one, for sure, and one that should have been caught. It’s altogether possible that either the subeditor or the editor who reviewed the work saw the mistake and decided, for political reasons, not to fix it. But the original writing is an error, and most likely just slipped through the cracks.

  1. How history becomes distorted due to lack of knowledge! It is todays curse that this type of rubbish penetrates young minds. The Dail Mail should be taken to task by the regulatory authorities and the journalist dismissed.

    • The journalist should be dismissed for making an editing mistake? Have you never made an editing mistake? (I genuinely don’t know: for all I know your entire comment might be one, it’s daft enough.)

      • Gabriel – Do you doubt that the pro-Palestinian narrative considers all Israelis terrorists because Israel has a mandatory draft for all its citizens? Do you doubt that the reason why it was okay to blow up the Sbarro was because the people inside were either former, current, or future IDF? Don’t doubt it, dude, because this is the official PA standard line.

        Mistake? On a sane planet, sure. But this debate has long lost its merits. The other side is batshit intent on demoralizing every Israeli because of their nationality. They are vile, disgusting, castrating bastards. So a mistake? Why should anyone think it’s a mistake?

      • It was 2 misleading errors though. The Israeli was a victim, not a terrorist. The Palestinian was a terrorist and not a militant.

            • I don’t think this is a debate. I’m trying to figure out the real motivation of Gabriel Webber who is posting on this thread right now. You say that mistakes are found by paranoid people, and then you complain about the responses you get. You’re a funny one. And you claim to be a journalist? See, the point has been made, and you continue to make it. What’s the point?

              Answer: Western Journos think they know everything, and that the Jews who complain about their sincere naivete re Arab public opinion and how it infiltrates Western news coverage re Israel are uppity folk, amiright?

              Hypothetical question, Gabe, since you don’t like answering real questions.

  2. Great catch. The bastards made a mistake. And I do believe it was a mistake, not malice.

    However… the mistake made it through proof because they couldn’t give a flying F` whether or not they get it right on Israel, or on Jews, or on Palestinian terror.

    It was a mistake. It got printed as a result of their own sick mentally deranged environment.

    That’s how I see it anyway. And please don’t ask me to prove it. We all know I can’t.

    • The real mistake the DM made and is still making is to call Black September militants. What very likely happened here is that the writer was thinking which word to use. He typed in Terrorist. Told (himself) “may be not” and then typed in Militant but forgot to delete Terrorist . His cut and paste job went all wrong and he inadvertently left typed in and uncorrected the Israeli as terrorist and Athlete got deleted in the first correction process. However if he’d had stuck to his principles , we wouldn’t be having this debate. The fact that the DM made only one correction – the obvious one – but not the other clearly shows the moral confusion the media has with Israel. The same mistake would not of course be made about ISIS or any other situation though to give him some credit Gabriel did try to make a general point that would apply anywhere but Israel.

      • And that’s the point – that these “mistakes” always seem to cut in one direction. The pressure is on to be politically correct for the “brown people,” i.e., someone who butchers and mutilates an athlete to achieve a desired political outcome must now be called a “militant,” because terrorist might be too “insensitive” a designation that could affect perceptions about his culture, but whether or not Israeli athletes are mislabeled as “terrorists” is not so much a concern in a society where Israelis (only jewish ones) are regularly and maliciously referred to as “Nazis” in polite company as well as by some in the halls of power.

  3. Gabriel seems to know a lot about Mistakes. Thanks for the esteemed journalism in this thread, I’ve learned so much. Like how Gabriel is above it all, as he likes to imply over and over again.