Take a look at what Matt Seaton, editor of “Comment is Free”, wrote in the Boyd thread earlier this week.
18 Nov 2009, 6:52PM
Why is the writer of this piece given the opportunity to traduce the programme -makers in The Guardian so soon after another anti (but polite) article by another writer?
I don’t accept that the programme-makers are traduced by Boyd. That would imply a wilful misrepresentation, whereas I don’t doubt that Boyd sincerely believes they made a bad and borderline antisemitic programme. No one is obliged to accept his POV on that.
The fact is that Oborne and James were given the first word in the Comment pages (reproduced online here, of course). Further, there will be a response to Cesarani and Boyd here before the end of the week. We are naturally wary of publishing too much on the topic, but we do aim to give a fair balance of views overall. So please look at our comment coverage in the round.
Let me first take issue with this: “Oborne and James were given the first word in the Comment pages (reproduced online here, of course).”
Yes where else! Don’t you feel just proud of yourself to have republished the writings of Oborne and James that reeked of Jewish conspiracy theory. Moreover, you published the Oborne and James piece prior to the airing of the Channel 4 documentary that no doubt gave it a huge boost in terms of viewership and you primed the prejudices of those susceptible who watched the program. Good job Matt.
You then go on to say that you are “[n]aturally wary of publishing too much”.
What utter BS. You published four articles during the week that generated over 1,500 comments in the aggregate (and the comments are still coming in at the time of writing). The amount of antisemitic discourse in each of these threads was simply astonishing. And you’re wary. You’re not wary of anything. You’ll publish anything that will get guardianistas riled up against the Jews and boost the Guardian’s much needed click thru rate.
And you then claim that you “aim to give a fair balance of views overall”. More BS. What utter audacity.
Lets take a look at your comment coverage on Israel in CiF Middle East during the month prior to the Oborne report (Nov 16, 2009 – Oct 16, 2009):
13 Nov 2009 – Antony Lerman “The Community Leadership We Deserve” (anti-Israel)
13 Nov 2009 – Charles Grant “Israel’s Dark View of the World” (anti-Israel)
12 Nov 2009 – Ben White “Fragmenting Palestinian Land” (anti-Israel)
11 Nov 2009 – Seth Freedman “Erdogan’s blind faith in Muslims” (anti-Israel)
9 Nov 2009 – Hussein Ibish “Abbas’ Mixed Messages” (pro-Palestinian)
2 Nov 2009 – Hussein Ibish “Palestinians Must Prepare for Statehood” (pro-Palestinian)
1 Nov 2009 – Richard Silverstein “Obama Must Try Harder” (anti-Israel)
1 Nov 2009 – Jeremy Sharon “Writing Jews Out of Jerusalem’s History” (pro-Israel)
30 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “The Far Right That Killed Rabin” (anti-Israel)
29 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Israeli Military Gives Settlers Free Rein” (anti-Israel)
28 Oct 2009 – Michelle Goldberg “Driving Up J-Street” (anti-Israel)
28 Oct 2009 – Ahmed Khalidi “The Palestinian Authority’s State’s First Mistake” (anti-Israel)
26 Oct 2009 – Editorial “Roadmap or Roadblock?” (anti-Israel)
26 Oct 2009 – Isi Leibler “J Street’s ‘Pro-Israel’ Stance is Phoney” (pro-Israel)
22 Oct 2009 – Simon Tisdall “Israel is in Denial Over Turkish Rage” (anti-Israel)
22 Oct 2009 – Antony Lerman “The Liberal Jewish Challenge” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Palestinians Send Blair a Wake Up Call” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Richard Goldstone “Israel’s Missed Opportunity” (anti-Israel)
21 Oct 2009 – Michael Lerner “A War Crime Whitewash” (anti-Israel)
20 Oct 2009 – Seth Freedman “Filling Up Israel’s Jails to No Avail” (anti-Israel)
20 Oct 2009 – Harold Evans “A Moral Atrocity” (pro-Israel)
18 Oct 2009 – Olivia Hampton “Reviving Hope for Middle East Peace (neutral)
Out of 22 articles there are a mere 3 pro-Israel articles and about half of the 22 articles were penned by the Guardian’s coterie of Theobald Jews.
Very fair. Very balanced.