Does Al Guardian Have Something Against Jews?

“In general, we do not publish someone’s race or ethnic background or religion unless that information is pertinent to the story.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”

– Editorial Code, Al Guardian

Al Guardian's Paul Lewis

In its coverage of the rioting across the United Kingdom, Al Guardian lived up to its editorial code quoted above, with one notable exception. Paul Lewis, who has penned much of Al Guardian‘s coverage of the ongoing national disgrace, produced thirteen articles and over 12,000 words on the rioting, all of which refrained from mentioning the ethnic or religious background of any participants. That is, until an 1800-word August 7th piece with the headline: Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest, then suddenly all hell broke loose.

Two versions of the report exist. You will see why in a moment. The original August 7th article stated:

“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.”

How odd (well, not really) of Al Guardian to single out elements of the Jewish community in reporting the riots, yet at the same time, painstakingly avoid referencing any other racial, ethnic or religious community represented among those doing so much damage to this city.

It seems some people made a fuss. The story has since been edited:

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 representative of the area – black, Asian and white, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community – also gathered to watch and jeer at police.

HERE is a screen capture of the original report, and HERE is the new one. It may be a small example of Al Guardian‘s world famous bias, but keep in mind the cumulative effect of hundreds of such reports per year. After the United Kingdom, America and China, by some measures the Jewish State is the most reported country on this ‘newspaper’. I believe this is a chilling reminder that Al Guardian‘s anti-Jewish agenda extends beyond those Jews living in Israel. This ‘newspaper’ is simply hate and bigotry repackaged in a form unfit to wipe one’s tuchus.


About Cranky Notions
Reactionary. That fella from the Norris scandal.

8 Responses to Does Al Guardian Have Something Against Jews?

  1. baconbiter says:

    OY VEY, It’s those evil Juice again.

    Every time there’s violence those people in their smelly suits and wide-brim black hats are at the bottom of it.

    If the neighbourhood were made up of 100% Palestinians peace and serenity would reign supreme.

  2. Jonathan says:

    If this is the best you can come up with as an example of “hate” & “bias” then I think you are wasting your time. Your a libertarian so why do you care what a newspaper publishes? Only that it publishes stories that effects your world view. You don’t have to read it, like others don’t have to read islamaphobic stories in the express or daily mail. Isn’t it a free country?

    • Well, I am very interested in modern anti-Semitism, its relation to anti-Zionism and the hypocrisy of the leftist elite on these matters. Al Guardian is a natural point of study.

      One particular fascination of mine is the hi-jacking of ‘human rights’ in order to demonise Israel or to promote a specific, highly political and often bigoted agenda. See, for instance these posts:

      One cannot ignore the influence of Al Guardian in studying these phenomena.

      And come on, isn’t it quite funny how the champions of political-correctness worked so hard not to mention ethnic or religious identities and let it slip in just one case?

      • Jonathan says:

        1) Those links are opinions, not facts or proof of anything. You don’t like Human rights groups, well done!
        2) How is “modern” anti-semitism different from anti-semitism. in general. There is an implication there that there is some ‘conspiracy’ at hand.
        3)Left-leaning papers will report on matters that right-leaning papers will not report on and visa versa…. where is your condemnation for the daily express in relation its contribution to islamophobia?
        4)How is The Guardian influential in these matters and can you substantiate what influence it has and also how is this anyway dangerous to Israel?
        5)The very fact that they edited the article soon after means that their checks and process actually work, unlike what Newscorp owned newspapers have done the last few years, where is your condemnation on these newspapers or does the Sun and NOTW get a free pass because they are owned by the Murdochs?
        6)Do you believe in free speech?

      • 1. Amnesty allowed an Islamist group to use their venue and latch on to their good reputation. Ezra Nawi’s sexual offences and his Communist beliefs were unreported because he was a ‘human rights’ campaigner, the developed world’s new unquestionable clerics. Nick Griffin on his Question Time appearance actually claimed the BNP are a human rights group, as do the vile hate group that is Muslim Public Affairs Committee. Anyone who calls themselves a human rights campaigner nowadays earns extra scrutiny from me.

        2. Anti-Semitism has gone through trends, evolutions and different incarnations. I don’t know what you are referring to when you say I am crying conspiracy.

        3. This is a new blog with less than 60 postings. I do this in my spare time, and I am not the head of a news organization. I also have some specific interests that make me prioritize certain affairs.

        4. Al Guardian is one of the most influential broadsheets in the United Kingdom.

        5. They were forced to save face, thanks to the power of the internet I believe. We finally have a Fifth Estate to keep an eye of the Fourth Estate! If NOTW hacked my phone you could bet I’d be crying for their blood. I condemn that practice absolutely.

        6. Yes. Which implies freedom to criticize others and provide dissent.

  3. Jonathan says:

    1)As I said, you don’t like Human rights groups. Well done! Gold star? I also love the way you associate someones human qualities to their political beliefs in such a steadfast way.Pity.

    2) So why did you use the word ‘Modern’. Why not just call is Anti-Semitism if its not a modern phenomenon?

    3)’Specific Interests’ ….as in an agenda.

    4)The guardian is a broadsheet, well done! Along with about half a dozen others in the UK. It is no more or less influential.I could call my cat influential if I wanted to, or my local church paper. Is it to be feared though?

    5) Thanks to the Guardian actually who kept running this story for months after it first appeared. Nobody wanted to face down News Corp as they all wanted it to go quietly away. I am glad that you condemn it but I see you were busy the last few months writing about em… the usual stuff. (anti-Zionists, leftist)

    6)But only when it suits your political view point (see point 5). You have your agenda and that is fine as its your right. Your an intelligent drunk with a thesaurus.

  4. Pingback: BlackPrideNetwork » Blog Archive » Rightbloggers Find the Cause of England’s Riots: Gun Control and Black People

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: