As CiF Watch readers no doubt know, though the Guardian rarely misses an opportunity to publish a report when someone, somewhere in the world, says something critical of Israel or their leaders, they typically omit news of similarly critical comments about Palestinians and their leaders. Indeed, a recent story by Guardian Washington correspondent Dan Roberts (Bill Clinton: Netanyahu ‘not the guy’ to strike lasting Middle East peace deal, Sept. 16th) represents yet another example of this principle.
Though the Guardian didn’t report comments by former US President Clinton, during the recent war, which blamed Hamas leaders for Palestinian civilian casualties, arguing that the terror group’s policy was “designed to kill Palestinians”, they urgently informed readers about Bill Clinton’s recent remarks during an impromptu conversation with a pro-Palestinian activist after a Democratic fundraiser in Iowa.
However, the article managed to mangle a key passage, falsely attributing words, during the off the cuff remarks, to Clinton that he didn’t say, and erroneously suggested that Clinton had listed the advantages of earlier peace proposals to the Israelis.
Here is the original version of the report, via News Sniffer:
Note that, in the original version, Clinton is reported to have said: “If we don’t force him [Netanyahu] to make peace, we will not have peace”. Also, the Guardian claims that that Clinton then “listed the advantages for Israel of signing up to earlier peace efforts…”
However, as was noted yesterday by Yair Rosenberg (and as videos and transcripts of the exchange in Iowa clearly indicate), both claims are incorrect.
About 4 hours later, the Guardian realized their mistake, and revised the article accordingly.
The Guardian also added the following addendum at the bottom:
Finally, a quick question in the context of the many such Guardian revisions, relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which we’ve either prompted or at least noted at this blog:
Has there ever been a Guardian error that was actually in Israel’s favor?
Like this:
Like Loading...
COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
Guardian mangles Bill Clinton's recent comments about Israeli-Palestinian peace
As CiF Watch readers no doubt know, though the Guardian rarely misses an opportunity to publish a report when someone, somewhere in the world, says something critical of Israel or their leaders, they typically omit news of similarly critical comments about Palestinians and their leaders. Indeed, a recent story by Guardian Washington correspondent Dan Roberts (Bill Clinton: Netanyahu ‘not the guy’ to strike lasting Middle East peace deal, Sept. 16th) represents yet another example of this principle.
The Guardian also added the following addendum at the bottom:
Though the Guardian didn’t report comments by former US President Clinton, during the recent war, which blamed Hamas leaders for Palestinian civilian casualties, arguing that the terror group’s policy was “designed to kill Palestinians”, they urgently informed readers about Bill Clinton’s recent remarks during an impromptu conversation with a pro-Palestinian activist after a Democratic fundraiser in Iowa.
However, the article managed to mangle a key passage, falsely attributing words, during the off the cuff remarks, to Clinton that he didn’t say, and erroneously suggested that Clinton had listed the advantages of earlier peace proposals to the Israelis.
Here is the original version of the report, via News Sniffer:
Note that, in the original version, Clinton is reported to have said: “If we don’t force him [Netanyahu] to make peace, we will not have peace”. Also, the Guardian claims that that Clinton then “listed the advantages for Israel of signing up to earlier peace efforts…”
However, as was noted yesterday by Yair Rosenberg (and as videos and transcripts of the exchange in Iowa clearly indicate), both claims are incorrect.
About 4 hours later, the Guardian realized their mistake, and revised the article accordingly.
Finally, a quick question in the context of the many such Guardian revisions, relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which we’ve either prompted or at least noted at this blog:
Has there ever been a Guardian error that was actually in Israel’s favor?
Related articles
Like this:
Scotland paper has ‘troubles’ with accuracy in reporting on Palestinian terrorism
You may also like
Palestinians arrested in Fogel family murder said they would have killed other children if they had the chance
AKUS’ postcard from Israel, Day 1: The Joe Alon Center for Bedouin Culture
Weekend long read