The Australian Press Council dismissed a complaint against Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton.
Background: On June 5, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton reacted to the Mavi Marmara incident. Complaints from outraged Jews sparked followup columns on June 12 and June 19 (scroll down to the second half).
A reader then filed a formal complaint against Carlton with the Press Council, saying the latter two commentaries were anti-Semitic. The APC regulates Australia's print media.
Is Carlton entitled to express his views? Yes.
Were the two columns offensive? Yes.
Were they anti-Semitic? I don't think so.
It was fair of SMH readers to write letters to the editor, for bloggers to fisk Carlton's pieces, for people to share their outrage on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. That's all part of the online conversation.
But accusing someone of anti-Semitism is too heavy a charge to throw around lightly. It changes the terms of the debate, and that's a shame because other issues raised by the substance of Carlton's columns were overlooked. Such as:
- Accusing a Jewish lobby of coordinating a response rudely dismisses legitimate criticism out of hand.
- There's no comparison between the Mavi Marmara and The Exodus.
- Calling Israel's prime minister a "thug addicted to the use of Israeli military might" is a cheap shot.
So I can't say I'm surprised by the Press Council's ruling. Even worse, it now became just a little bit harder to fight real anti-Semitism (especially Down Under).
With the chapter closed, I can only wonder if Carlton ever appreciated the more legitimate reasons why SMH readers were offended.
