The Guardian appears to be waiting for their Hitler. You know, the guy who finally says what every Jew-hater in the world is thinking and makes it cool again to persecute and eventually annihilate the Jews.
The Guardian wears its Jew hatred proudly, like this season's Galliano Dior bag. They make rational and decent human beings wanna throw up.
My question is, why are they still in business? Their editors and reporters admitted to phone hacking after "an extraordinary amount of space to the row regarding the illegal intrusion into private phone calls, which their editors have denounced as representing “a toxic influence over key areas of our civic life.”
They are guilty of same. So why haven't they shuttered their doors like Murdoch's News of the World? Ah yes, it's always different rules for Nazis.
The Guardian’s Editorial Code may not include any prohibition against licensing voices who are openly anti-Semitic, providing a platform to members of a terrorist group, nor legitimizing those who seek the Jewish state’s destruction, but does include the following:
“In general, we do not publish someone’s race or ethnic background or religion unless that information is pertinent to the story. We do not report of the race of criminal suspects unless their ethnic background is part of a description that seeks to identify them or is an important part of the story (for example, if the crime was a hate crime”
Yet, in a 1800 word Guardian report on the London riots, by Paul Lewis, titled, “Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest, then suddenly all hell broke loose, Aug. 8, which doesn’t mention the race, ethnicity, or religion of the rioters, somehow found it pertinent to note that some of those who gathered to jeer police were, allegedly, Hasidic Jews.
“The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10….But families and other local residents, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community, also gathered to watch and jeer at police. [emphasis mine]
So, the rioters – who have torched, ransacked and looted shops, pubs, banks and even residential properties, and have attacked journalists, police, and firefighters for the past three days – are characterized by Lewis as merely “racially mixed”, yet he somehow deems it relevant to note that some of Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community were among those who allegedly watched and “jeered” police.
To the Guardian, the particular race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation of the rioters is of no particular significance, but the religion of a few of those who reportedly witnessed the police response to the riots is apparently worth noting.
What possible relevance, per the Guardian’s own code of ethics, does the religious background of some of those who reportedly jeered police have?
Why wasn’t the race, ethnicity, or religious background of others who witnessed the riots and/or jeered police mentioned?
Is there really any question that Lewis’s report represents a flagrant violation of the Guardian’s Editorial Code?
UPDATE: Nothing like calling out nazi press, they've masked their antisemtism, a bit. CiF has this:
The Guardian, all but assuredly as the result of the negative publicity generated by our post from yesterday calling them out on Paul Lewis’s curious reference to “Hasidic Jews” in his story about the UK Riots, just changed the text in the offending report.
Here’s a screen capture of the original text from Lewis’s orignal Aug. 7th report:
Now, here’s the current version of the post:
So, while we’ll likely not see an official apology from the Guardian for singling out Jews in a series of reports which clearly took pains to not mention the race, religion, ethnicity, or national background of those participating in the riots, their revision still represents an acknowledgement that our initial complaint was meritorious.
In addition to calling out those, at the Guardian and their blog, Comment is Free, who engage in anti-Semitism and assault the legitimacy of Israel, this blog also takes quite seriously what seems to be their institutional obsession with Jews and Israel.
As such, we may have won this particular battle but the cognitive war still rages.