The Guardian downplays a Palestinian detainee’s involvement in terrorism, portraying him as an innocent journalist persecuted by Israel.
The Guardian deliberately edits relevant sections questioning Jewish responsibility for an alleged arson attack from an AFP copy.
Palestinians have been killed while carrying out terrorism or confronting Israeli security forces. So why then does The Guardian refer to Israeli self-defense as “deadly retaliation?”
In The Guardian, author David Rieff argues that “Israel offers a florid illustration of how disastrously collective memory can deform a society.”
The Guardian refers to right-wing Israeli group Im Tirtzu as “extra-paramilitary.” Was this subconscious bias at work?
The Guardian’s sub-header states as fact, an allegation that a Palestinian woman was raped and tortured by the Israeli military after carrying out a terrorist bombing in 1969.
More Palestinian terror attacks mean more screwy headlines. Context and accuracy took a hit. Without question, today’s worst headline was served up by the Irish Times. For readers who initially wrote us about this screwy Associated Press header (cached version), the wire service subsequently updated the headline. Most papers around the world updated their AP wire…
According to a Guardian headline, Israelis are allowed to defend themselves against Palestinian attackers only once they have been injured.
Benjamin Netanyahu announces the building of security fences to keep out “beasts” that threaten Israel. The Guardian’s Peter Beaumont misrepresents who the “beasts” really are.
Stephen Pritchard, the reader’s editor at The Guardian, recently announced that the paper will start restricting reader comments posted in the Comment is Free section in articles on three “sensitive” topics: race, immigration, and religion. Why those sacred cows? Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes…