Guardian

Guardian revises highly inappropriate terror headline


Yesterday we commented on an extremely problematic headline and strapline accompanying a Guardian report on yesterday’s terror attack in Jerusalem, where 2 Israeli policewoman were wounded by three Palestinians who stabbed and shot them outside Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.

We noted the following:

  • The headline led with the police reaction to the Palestinian terror attack, not the attack itself.  
  • The strapline claims the terrorists merely had knives, despite the fact that the article itself makes clear they had knives and guns, and that the attack began when “one of the suspects drew his gun and opened fire”.
  • Finally, we criticized the photo caption for misleadingly telling readers that Israeli officers “shot dead” three Palestinians without noting that the Palestinian attack precipitated the police response.

Several hours after our post, the headline and strapline were improved. Here’s a before and after:

before

As you can see, the headline now includes the death of the policewoman, and now deals entirely with the Israeli victim, not the perpetrator.  Also, note that the strapline now includes the fact that the terrorists were armed with guns and pipe bombs, not just knives.

Though we didn’t complain directly to Guardian editors, there’s a strong possibility that the strong reaction on social media sites played a part in their decision to revise the article.

9 replies »

  1. Assuming that some more mature adult, or one of the few remaining editors or journalists at the Guardian with some sense of proportion, morality, or reality rewrote the headline, a significant question remains.

    Who are the politically motivated or morally bankrupt staff who are now steering the paper who can get away with inserting such a headline? Who are the people who have managed to insert themselves to positions where they can essentially turn the Guardian into a copy of Electronic Intifada?

    The first answer must be, of course, Katharine Viner, cheerleader for the unfortunate and misled Rachel Corrie via the play she co-authored. As Editor in Chief, she must be held responsible recruiting the staf that can create a distortion of the incident that could only be compared to the sort of anti-Israeli lies that pour out daily from sources such as the Palestinian media, the PSC, Electronic Intifada, and so forth.

  2. How would the Guardian know the history of violence of the three young men? Not all violent people have rap sheets to warn us of their intentions. The incident itself speaks to their penchant for problem solving through violence. The Guardian, even though it later was pressured to change the strap line, is simply not a worthy or reliable news source for information on Israel and most probably a whole lot of other topics. I don’t trust them.

  3. @jeff21st –

    RE: “How would the Guardian know the history of violence of the three young men?”

    Taking a wild guess … from total faith in Israeli journalists to faithfully report statements issued by Israeli police, army, government, etc.

    This line in the Guardian story seems kinda pertinent to your question: “Israeli journalists, quoting the Shin Bet Israeli security agency, said none of the men had a prior history of violence.”

    • The BEFORE headline in Der Guardian demonstrates the bias and dishonesty of Der Guardian.

      Pressure needs to be put on companies which advertise in Der Guardian to cease their support of the propaganda that passes for journalism in Der Guardian.

    • “Taking a wild guess … from total faith in Israeli journalists to faithfully report statements issued by Israeli police, army, government, etc.”

      Yes, Miranda, that indeed is a wild guess.