The lively thread beneath the Guardian’s editorial in defense of the Goldstone Report included a commenter, with the moniker “SantaMoniker”, who alluded to and even pasted a couple of paragraphs from a post published by the Guardian’s unnamed ideological nemesis.
And, then there was a question by another commenter (HerbertH) who was curious about the identity of “the site which shall not be named”.
Then, “SantaMoniker” pushed the envelope and actually named “the site which shall not be named”.
While we don’t have a screen capture of the comment, I read it and the evidently subversive and dangerous information – which clearly represented an ideological security breach at the Guardian – looked something like this:
Read this quickly
The Guardian again shows itself remarkably thin-skinned for an institution which purports to possess a liberal orientation, and which claims inspiration by their previous editor and owner, C.P. Scott, who said, “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.”
Given the steady stream of hatred towards Israel, which often includes calls for the Jewish state’s destruction and other narratives which fall within the EU Working Definition of anti-Semitism, below the line which apparently comport to their standards, the hypocrisy of such a powerful media company censoring “the voice of [their] opponents” – even deleting the briefest mention of a plucky little watchdog blog which seeks to hold them accountable to basic standards of fairness and decency – is stunning.
What exactly is The Guardian afraid of?