The Guardian and Mail Compete To Be The Most Bigoted

WRITES Peter Wilby in the Guardian:

The Daily Mail is in many (no, most) respects a dreadful paper, relentlessly stoking the worst human emotions: prejudice, bigotry and hate.

No so much stoking the worst as reinforcing fears and hatreds reinforcing them among its right-minded readership.

But what of the Guardian? The paper’s former writer Julie Burchill signed off her final column by citing the Guardian’s’s Jew hating, the “dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance”:

But if there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. Which, for all its faults, is the only country in that barren region that you or I, or any feminist, atheist, homosexual or trade unionist, could bear to live under.

Cranmer sense anti-semitism as the Guardian:

And Richard Ingram topped the lot with his Daily Mail, sorry, Guardian piece about how Jewish and gay writers should declare themselves as such so they can be dismissed:

I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.

Not only the Joos should sign their words with a yellow star but:

Too few people in this modern world are prepared to declare an interest when it comes to this kind of thing. It would be enormously helpful, for example, if those clerics and journalists who have been defending Canon Jeffrey John, the so-called gay bishop, were to tell us whether they themselves are gay. Some do, but more don’t.

Maybe if they wrote their letters could lean so far the left they almost lean very far to the right, like the Mail…

Anorak

Posted: 27th, October 2008 | In: Media | Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Share and Enjoy:

patch Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

I always thought the green ink was a dead giveaway!

Petronius Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Conflating criticism of a state which has the most UN resolutions against it and counting, which arbitrarily kills women and children in the street, ignores human rights and the Geneva convention regarding military operations in civilian areas equals anti semitism; really?

Maybe criticising what the Nazis did is anti-Christian?

It’s such an idiotic argument that only our cousins might fall for it, more shame on Julie Burchill’s menopausal musings for doing so, then.

What’s more interesting and real is the battle between the Observer and Grauniad, which still rumbles on among such issues as condemning Israel all week only for the Observer to praise it, so it’s not so cut and dried, let alone Coen’s Islamaphobic rants, which regularly get many inches in said Grauniad.

val Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

The British made a huge mistake initially by taking land from the Palestinians to give
to the Jews to form the State of Israel. Then the U.S.A. compounded this error by
selling Arms to Israel in return for being their Ally in the Middle East. No one can
doubt the way the Jews suffered in the War, but they continue to take more Land
from Palestine and the rest of the World is powerless to stop them.

Petronius Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

The UK warned against using Palestine; which was under UK mandate at the time, the Mandarins proposed Ethiopia instead, to which the refugees, or rather their rich representatives were mortally insulted, but in this case the Civil servants were right in their predictions, consequently the UK backed the surrounding Arab states in some convoluted “fair play” compensation for the US Israel in Palestine concept.

This is now used by Zionists to “prove” that the UK as a whole and all of us in it are Anti-Semitic. Clumsy, and ironic, as back in 1948 former Battle of Britain Comrades crossed swords with the UK pilots in Arab Spitfires and the Israeli ones in Spanish Palomas (Licence-built Me 109s), but not anti Semitism.

In 1948 there was no terrorism in Palestine or the Middle East; this was bought in by the likes of the Stern Gang and Irgun. A UK Lord was killed with a letter bomb and British peacekeeping troops were kidnapped, killed and their bodies were booby-trapped injuring more peacekeepers.

Eerily sinister, still, Val, totally agree with you sentiments.

Caveat; I’m not arguing against Israel in Palestine, just the way that it was implemented; again the Palestinian PM at the time said that they did not perpetrate the Holocaust, again in this he is right; he was protesting the loss of 51% of his country (now 77% and counting) and the militant terrorist campaigns in his country, the refugees and so on.

Anyway, too right that it was very clumsy International Relations on the part of the US, and why the UK For Office aparachiks at the time tried to pour cold water on it and rightly wanred that there would be trouble ahead.