Corrections

UKMW prompts Guardian to restore omitted paragraph on Palestinian violence


Yesterday, we posted about an Associated Press (AP) article published at the Guardian about Temple Mount clashes instigated by rioting Muslim worshipers objecting to a small number of Jews who were initially allowed to visit their faith’s holiest site.

Our analysis showed that, based on a review of other news outlets that published a version of that same AP article, the Guardian was the only outlet that omitted AP’s paragraph noting the Palestinian violence which caused the clashes.

Here’s the paragraph in question, omitted by Guardian editors:

Large numbers of Palestinians had gathered at the gates of the compound early Sunday after rumors circulated that police would allow Jewish visitors to enter the site. The protesters chanted “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) and threw stones at police, who then charged into the compound while firing stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets.

We complained to the Guardian, arguing that the omission of this edifying paragraph was extraordinarily misleading.

Later that day, the Guardian readers’ editor upheld our complaint, and restored the deleted paragraph:

Related Articles

8 replies »

  1. Wait, a small but meaningful triumph for basic fairness and journalistic integrity with respect to covering Israel from the Guardian? This is pretty rare, nice job!
    They’ll be back at it, though, as everyone knows by now.

  2. Will the Guardian as an institution ever evolve such that Adam’s relentless examination and fair complaints are simply not necessary? That is, will it evolve so that someone or some number of people at the Guardian and in other news outlets covering these areas scrutinizes the content of articles about Israel, Palestinians and Israel, Jews, Judaism, anti-Semitism, and so on, with a sensitivity to accuracy and basic fairness?
    It’s one thing to criticize this or that Israeli governmental policy as being too harsh or whatever, and a very different thing to deploy double standards, omit fundamental, relevant facts, use rhetoric that borders on Hitlerian or quote it without making the historical connections, feature “opinion” writers who are so damn biased against Israel they really don’t deserve a platform, etc.
    I complain not only about the biases against Jews (I’m not Jewish) and Israel (like every educated person I have some knowledge of its history but have never been there, at least in this life, would love to visit) but because I enjoy and learn so much else from the Guardian! It strikes me as shameful they perpetuate so many of the faults Adam Levick has been exposing over the last decade. Precisely because on so many other topics they do a very professional and fair-minded job, it is an embarrassing contrast when they feature anything related to Israel and get it so wrong in such a biased fashion.

  3. Well spotted. Well handled, Adam. You showed up all the Guardian’s grim reliance on base trickery to maintain their claim that the Palestinians are the innocents in this battle.

  4. Another Terrorist pig, this time in Sydney Australia, meets his Nakba.

    Sydney, Mert Ney, shouted Allah akbar (god is great)