Guardian revises headline on Gaza attack that evidently was too ‘pro-Israel’

Many of us who read the Guardian’s headline accompanying a Reuters report last night on a Gaza rocket attack on southern Israel, and the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) subsequent response, were surprised how relatively fair and accurate it was.

As the report notes in the second paragraph, the incident began on Saturday when terrorists in Gaza launched rockets into southern Israel. In response the IAF targeted four Hamas terror training camps.  Two Palestinian children, who lived close to the terror base, were reportedly killed by missile fragments that struck the Hamas military target.

Here’s the original Guardian headline:

origIt isn’t a perfect headline, but it at least clearly explains that the Israeli air strikes were prompted by a Gaza rocket attack.

However, at some point after the article was published, editors changed the headline and strap line.

Here’s how it looks now:


So, the important context about the IAF strike which appeared in the original headline (the rocket attack from Gaza) was removed, and relegated to the strap line.

Additionally, note the change in words to describe the Palestinian victims to suggest greater Israeli responsibility. In the original, we’re told merely that “a Gaza boy dies“, whilst in the revised headline editors make clear that “Israel kills.

Finally, the revised strap line resulted in the removal of text indicating that the IAF successfully hit four terror training bases.  This is important information, as it suggests to readers that the civilian casualties were unintended, and that the close proximity of civilian homes to ‘the training bases’ indicate Hamas’s use of human shields. (In fairness, the third paragraph of the article does note that the home where the children lived is close to the terror base.)

In short, Guardian editors scrapped a headline and strap line that originally included the accurate sequence of events and some edifying context – evidently deemed too ‘pro-Israel’ – and decided instead to once again go with a version designed to impute maximum Israeli guilt.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , , ,

18 replies »

  1. Der Guardian once again distorts facts to misinform readers.

    BDS Der Guardian.

    Notify advertisers that their company will be boycotted due to their support of the dishonesty and low journalistic standards of Der Guardian.

    • Yup, I bet your one-man boycott of the massive multinational companies that advertise in *The* Guardian is going to have the editor-in-chief quaking in her boots.

      • A bit like threatening to boycott humus and dates. Really impressive picking on inanimate objects in little shops and cafes around the country .
        The humus is quivering inside its pitta bread . ” Oh no – its a BDS protest against Jews . But why do they blame blended chickpeas for all the problems in the Middle East? Humus brings people together . It is the food of peace “

          • sorry. yes coffee was very strong this morning . In hindsight I shouldn’t have brought my neurosis about humus to the forefront .

            • LemonCurd that you are speaking to humus is not the problem, that it is answering you and you can hear it, while it is inside pitta bread, is.

      • Posturing aside, it would be nice if we could kind of get back to the salient point of this post: the original headline was accurate (facts, timeline, succinct summation) and it was changed to kind of agitprop bullshit that CiF traffics in all the time. I don’t personally plan to “officially” boycott a paper that I give $0 to, but I don’t really blame Edward for being that angry over their complete lack of professionalism and journalistic integrity, you know?

        • I find your work on this site invaluable and think Gabriel is an obnoxious troll who hasn’t raised a single interesting or valid point in his entire time posting here…but I don’t feel he should leave unless he wants to pack up and go of his own volition. If he wants to throw 50 MPH softballs for informed posters–like yourself–to slam over the fence, that’s his right as part of free expression. I don’t want to ban idiots; I just want to point out the many, many ways they are asinine.

  2. Its interesting how quickly Chris Elliott’s crew manage to “fix” headlines when they feel the original did not denigrate Israel sufficiently, and how much effort it takes to get them to do the same when they outrageously misrepresent Israel.

  3. Since we can never do ‘right’ no matter what we do or don’t do, we are automatically guilty of every single ‘war-crime’ ever invented we might as well let the crime fit the punishment.

    Level all of Gaza and then pump salt water into all the tunnels left

  4. In Guardianland to be a “good” leftist you must find Israel repugnant. The facts are always rearranged to meet this criteria.
    Rockets are fired into Israel from Gaza, an act of aggression. The IAF responds by hitting terrorist training camps. Collateral damage is two kids nearby, not 200, not 20, two.
    I can think of one, and only one reason why that would be the lede. It is to portray Israelis as baby killers, people with a disregard for innocent human life. It is to support a trumped up case of racism, and to buttress a slander of apartheid and genocide. This was in the first rendition of the headline and strap line and made worse in the second. The unfortunate deaths of a couple of kids, while sad, is not the main event, but rather an unintended consequence. The Guardian’s penchant for making it appear to be the main event is quite sleazy, and promotes a general distrust for the Guardian left’s capacity for journalistic objectivity when it interferes with its political proclivities to slander a peaceful democracy under attack for merely existing against the wishes of noble savages.

  5. No one likes a limp handshake – take ouur recommendatioon onboard
    and Future Proof your online business with
    an effective electronic mail handle.