This post could turn a bit Glenda Slaggish.
Earlier today I praised the Evening Standard - well, maybe not the whole paper, just it's Deputy Political Editor, Paul Waugh.
Let me now slag it off. On page 26 of today's paper, it carries a news article on the Israeli elections. This is the headline above it...
ISRAELIS GO TO POLLS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THREE WARMONGERS
What a disgrace. It's a headline you might expect to see in the Tehran Evening Echo, not the Evening Standard. Their defence will no doubt be that on the same page there is an anti Israeli commentary piece.
Shame on them. The new editor, Geordie Greig, should discipline whoever was responsible.
29 comments:
You're right Iain, it's a shocker.
I'd only categorise two of them as warmongers. Livni isn't in the same league as the other two, yet.
But what do you expect when the paper is owned by a Russian?
how is this balanced by an anti Israel comment piece?
I'm shocked that someone so pro Israeli like yourself would take issue with this. Shocked I tell you!
Every news organisation takes sides, and the Evening Standard has taken theirs. Where's the issue here? The fact that they should be independant? What? Like all the other news organisations are you mean? Yeah right.....
Gert Wilders has been banned from the UK
"Warmongers"?? I am truly shocked. The standards at that paper have been going downhill for years. Whoever subbed that article deserves to be sacked.
The correct spelling of "War criminals" is W-a-r -space- c-r-i.......
Which edition are you reading? In my West End Final, this is buried on page 26. Under Mira Bar-Hillel's byline - which sounds, er, a bit Israeli to me.
My great grandfather built Labour - tribe?
Maybe you could get the Conservative Friends of Zion to give him an all expenses paid trip to Israel.
Like they did for you
I'm more shocked the Evening Standard printed something true about Middle Eastern politics!
And what's incorrect with this information? Sounds reasonable to me.
I think only two of them have initiated war to date, perhaps the third has only promised war yet sstill technically a warmonger?!
Enough already! Two warmongers and the vegeterian from hell. Jeez, you do go on.
Well, I live in France and am hopelessly out of touch. Nonetheless, 10-plus years ago I semi knew Grieg.
He struck me then as a properly half-witted chancer, greasy and slimy in equal measure, properly bird-brained, obviously untrustworthy. In short, a regular tosser shamelessly trading on a spurious upper-class background.
To think that he is now editor of the Standard. It beggars belief.
This the man who, after what was obviously a very, very long lunch, sent me an e-mail that contained not a single capital letter and precisely three words out of 200 that were not mispelled – I know because I counted them, stunned that so oafish a figure could possibly have been working for The Times, as he then was (though Christ knows what 'work' he was actually doing then beyond showing off).
He is now the editor of the Standard?
Charles Wintour would long since have given up turning in his grave.
They'll be giving regular columns to Ken and George, next...
"ISRAELIS GO TO POLLS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THREE WARMONGERS"... seems to me like a perfectly accurate headline from any Israeli general election in my lifetime...
Iain, for God's sake give it a rest.
Your blog is a great success and even your political enemies would probably concede that you seem to be a decent guy - but as for this constant Israel crap - enough already.
Whether you are right or wrong on any particular issue, you have made it clear that you lack the objectivity required for your words to carry any weight in the debate.
It is always the default response.
Some guy pointed out that you had completely misunderstood the Croydonian post re Gaza attack near the UN compound and that you had repeated the same error when linking to Danny Finklestein with the same story a couple of days later. This guy challenged you about it and, as far as I am aware, you did not respond.
You do not have to be anti-Semitic, nor anti-Israel, to fear that a more aggressive stance from Israel will lead to death and misery on all fronts.
The last thing the world needs is knee jerk reaction, whether it be from the Standard or from you.
So you think that headline was OK then?
As far as I can recall I made no comment about Israel in the post, merely about the unbalanced headline. I'd have thought even you could see that it was a reasonable point to make.
It appears not.
Sadly the headline is at least 66% accurate
Dear Mr Weygand,
Presumably, the "default response" that you so object to would be supporting Israel would it?
And this "fear that a more aggressive stance from Israel will lead to death and misery on all fronts" - when has Israel ever attacked its neighbours without the utmost provocation?
The ever increasing settlements are an attack on its neighbour.
What is the provocation for increasing the settlements ?
Right, I am going to stop this thread from deviating into a pro-anti Israel debate. The subject is the appropriateness of a headline like that on a news report.
Keep on subject or I will delete your comments.
Spoilsport!
@Iain Dale
"So you think that headline was OK then?"
Please explain how it's any different from any other headline? Yes it's sensationalist and biased, but it's the same as all the other headlines from all the other news organisations.
If you're going to whine about this, then be prepared to whine about all the headlines....every single day!
During the Israel-Palestinian conflict there were headlines of "Israel kills hamas terrorists" when what actually happened was that Israel levelled an apartment block killing hundreds of people, 4 were reported to be hamas terrosists. On the other hand there were headlines from other organisations saying "Israel slaughters civilians".
You're only objecting to this because you're ridiculously pro-israeli. The headline is no different than any other, you just don't care about the others because you're not principally opposed to their content.
In what way are any of the candidates peace seekers given their records and attitudes?
It's hard to see any of the three who are peace seekers. And indeed the've all got track records of disproportionate warring.
What's to argue with? I must agree that it is a very unusual headline for the hitherto moderate ES.
Well Iain, you are shocked (or sound to be) by the headline, but in the past certain Israeli PM have been given Noble Peace Prizes, whereas they rose to politics because of their membership and leadership of terrorist organisations Haganah and Ignun.
How can you and other pro-Israel justify how a terrorist became a noble peace winner??? What peace did he bring to the region??
There are two sides to the argument, you unfortunately only pay attention to one and demonstrate no impartiallity.
Israel should go back to its origional borders as agreed in the 60's, all Israel want is the whole of Palestine.
I see that the headline to the online edition changed "warmongers" to "hawks".
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
While, the amendment to the headline is to be welcomed for reasons of politeness, the message remains the same. It introduced (and fairly reflected) a commentary by Mira Bar-Hillel, who went to school with Netanyahu's brother, and can hardly be stigmatised as anti-Israeli.
I note that very few people posting have indicated that they share your outrage. Even you (if I may return the compliment of your reply to me) must admit that.
"What a disgrace."
Well the suffix "and alleged War Criminals" would have made for increased accuracy.
But we can't go calling a spade a spade when referring to our Favourite war criminals now can we?
You faux outrage really is quite comical where matters of Apartheid Israel (and a few other pet blind-spots) are concerned. The only reason I continue to keep tabs in fact, since the rest of your commentary has all the gravitas of a wannabe teenage political science student.
Nice and cosy though - a bit like a political Dale Winton - and clearly what the punters want. You should go far.
"a bit like a political Dale Winton"
OMG that is just SO true. hilarious. a teddy bear.
Iain asks: ""So you think that headline was OK then?"
Spot on actually.
I also complained to the website. It's completely reprehensible, but I cannot say I'm surprised
Post a Comment