🗞 Trust in mainstream media

:newspaper_roll: Trust in mainstream media


It’s very easy to fit something to a pattern retrospectively. It’s also, very often, inaccurate. In this instance, how exactly did the Guardian “have no other choice”? If they’d been somehow forced to cover this story against their will (and I really can’t see how they would be), they’d have given it as little prominence as possible. As it was, they gave it several articles - and prominent ones at that. It was from the Guardian that I first knew about this particualr episode.

Not only that, but they also published an article analysing the issue, written by Patrick Wintour, one of their senior journalists. Presumably they also “had no other choice” than to do this?

There’s a difference - and a very large one at that - between reporting an allegation and saying that it is a fact. If someone prominent is accused of anti-semitism, for example, this is likely to be reported. Such a report is not necessarily agreeing that the person in question is anti-semitic, it is merely reporting the accusation. Your view seems to be that reporting such an accusation is tantamount to agreeing with it.

Lewis mentions the Guardian’s treatment of Malia Bouattia as an example of its alleged pro-Israeli, McCarthyite stance. He accuses the paper of smearing her. Try searching on her name on the Guardian web site and these are the first lot of results, in order of their appearance in the list:

Such smears. Such McCarthyism. And yet you’ve desribed Lewis’ article as “extraordinarily well researched”. Well yes, as long as your idea of research doesn’t stretch as far as the writer actually reading the paper that he’s making accusations against. It seems to me that, in this instance at least, Lewis seeks to establish a pattern that suits his way of thinking, then fits things into said pattern where possible. Anything that doesn’t fit the pattern is simply ignored.

Over the years, the Guardian’s reporting of Israel has, for the most part, been anything but pro-Israeli, or at least that’s how 've read it. They have voiced strong opposition to any number of Israeli policies, and continue to do so.


There have been a few nice pieces in the Guardian about Corbyn too. There have also been plenty of smears.

Is a smear not a smear if other parts of your publication are nicer? If columnist A refers to celebrity as a wife-beater, does columnist B who writes a strident defence saying he does a lot of work for charity correct it?

I’d say not. I’d say a smear is a smear, and I’ve watched the Guardian pour them on a week before local elections, and just watch, they’ll do it again this year.


Hmm, more than a touch of Barry in there - the goalposts appear to have shifted a little. :lou_wink_2: Weren’t we talking about the Guardian’s pro-Israeli bias (alleged)? And can you explain why it was that the Guardian “had no choice” other than to publish the articles and analysis piece that I previously mentioned?

And what exactly were these smears against Mania Bouattia?


The smears were exactly as Lewis described them as. Almost every single article you’ve linked has linked her with anti-semitism, ISIS, or has discredited groups such as UJS as sources. Bouattia has three Guardian contributions to her name, and her first is her having to explain why she is not an anti-semite.

Apart from the two later pieces she herself wrote on education, is there another article on the Guardian that doesn’t mention her in the same breath as antisemitism or ISIS?


What is Farage doing on the TV?

As the former leader of a party that has zero seats in Westminster, why is he given so much airtime?


She was accused of anti-semitism and this was reported in articles about her. Should it not have been? How much later were these “later pieces” by the way? This article was published on the 21st April, this one on the 22nd. To use your own yardstick on this, an article headed “Malia Bouatti is no anti-semite and I’ll deck any cunt that says otherwise” is still mentioning her in the same breath as anti-semitism, is it not?

On a broader note, would a news outlet that’s in thrall to the Israeli state (which is pretty much how you and Gavin Lewis are describing the Guardian) give time and space to Malia Bouattia to write an article defending herself against accusations of anti-semitism? Would such a news organisation have published an interview with her that was anything other than a hatchet job?

Finally, before I bugger off to bed, can you explain why the Guardian “had no other choice” than to publish the articles that they did that I’ve mentioned some way above? This is the third time I’ve asked you this and I’ve had no response thus far.


And you’re happy with that, are you? A culture of news reporting whereby accusations, baseless or not, can be repeated alongside almost every instance of one’s name? Is there any substantiation, at all, for the labels that she has had to spend her own time defending herself against?

For someone that speaks of broader notes, you’ve done one hell of a job of narrowing Lewis’ down to one set of articles, despite the fact he catalogues years of partial reporting. Frankly, I think you’ve picked an area which illustrates the points made just as clearly, even though you may feel it easier to defend.

In context, pretty much all of the content on the Guardian reference her alongside either anti-semitism or ISIS, even those that just about get around to depicting her in a positive light.

She did get to write a couple of articles about education which did not refer to this, but at that point, who’s listening?

You’re defending an organisation which under-reports Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, smears those who speak out against them, and still continues to publish the wailing of the UJS (exposed as being setup and helped by the Israeli Embassy) as if they’re relevant to the argument. Their accusations (which you love to see in print so much) were STILL the basis of front-page news stories AFTER their part in the anti-semitism witch-hunt that began before the local elections was exposed.

Perhaps that’s the question you should be demanding an answer for. The question of why they let Malia Bouttia write a defence of accusations printed in their own paper should be rather obvious and trivial by comparison.


And that, I’m afraid, is a classic example of playing the poster and not the post. If you can point out where I’ve said how much I love to see accusations against Malia Bouattia in print then fine, please go ahead and do so.

You’ve failed on three occasions to answer a perfectly simple question that I asked; you’re now (as far as I can see) simply ignoring that question.

For me, that’ll be it in this discussion.


Twice now you’ve defended what the Guardian printed because they were _just _accusations. Now you may not _love _them, but you’re using that fact as a central plank of your argument. If you want to equate that with playing the man, do so, but it’s a very tenuous case, not a classic one.

I’m calling the whole practice, applicability and validity into question, @fowllyd .


The Guardian and Israel. 20 years ago the Guardian had a quite a reputation for calling out Israel on it’s illegal activities. No more alas. The case of Dr Nafeez Ahmed is a good example of where they sit on the subject now. He found a quite shocking link between Israels activities and natural gas in Gaza and was dismissed without notice for putting it in his article, because they said he was supposed to write about the environment not politics. As if the two weren’t linked.

Jonathan Cook wrote about it.

I look at the Guardian as an establishment rag nowadays.


From my perspective, The Guardian was happy to bang on about any old principle until it actually mattered.

It’s not just the issue of Israel we’ve seen it with. How many utopian left-wing pieces preceded Corbyn’s arrival, and how many hit pieces have we seen since?

Owen Jones is a fascinating study of this pattern in microcosm.


The “joy” of a benevolent Dictatorship. Papers report news not the views of their Editor or Shareholders…

Actually took a long time to get used to that & must say been very aware of how low UK & tbh Western Media have become #foxnews is the obvious example.

Now I would never fight against a truly free press, but can it be argued that the Fail is “free” anymore?


Oddly enough, the Fail came top in my little “what can you comment on” project. They would allow you to comment on pretty much everything, although in context, we know that’s probably not out of a fervent belief in free speech :lou_lol:


Seeing as some genius somewhere has no doubt noticed that the Fail can make more money from Big Data than from Publishing, it’s obviously click bait…

More outlandish more comments…

Yep, that’s it


That religion of peace is at civil war and sectarianism if rife, it makes Catholic/Protestant division seem like a picnic.


The Telegraph has appointed convicted phone hacker Andy Coulson to handle their PR.

Within his mandate it says his aim is to promote the paper as truthful… :astonished:

With Gideon playing newspaper editors as well, our ‘free’ press currently looks more ridiculous than a late night Tweet from the leader of the free world after a couple of cans of Top Deck shandy.


The National Trust and Cadbury have wiped Easter from their promotional campaigns as another example of England losing its identity!

No they haven’t, the Telegraph made it up.

But the story is out there now so it must be true.

Welcome to 2017.


One thing I’ve noticed for a while, but has been particularly prevalent in the last few days, is how much of a fucking house of cards the mainstream media is.

The coverage of Syria has been a great example. The highly contested and never proven claim that Assad was responsible for the attacks in 2013 is being treated as a point of truth. In reality, the UN investigation concluded that it was more likely the Western backed rebels launched the attacks. Ultimately, the UN could not or would say who definitely perpetrated the attacks, so it’s amazing to see this likely lie being treated as if it were gospel.

I can’t help thinking of Jay’s monologue here.

we’re gonna make them eat our shit, then shit out our shit, and then eat their shit that’s made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you’re all you motherfucks are next.


Can’t see this posted anywhere but that grade A prick Bill OReily has been sacked from Fox. Good. He was a poisonous cunt who should be exterminated. Sacked for harassing women and not for being a major cunt.


I’ll always remember the cunt by this vid :smile: