 |
|
|
Sunday, July 31 2005Sassygate unravelledHere's an overview of the ongoing 'Sassygate' scandal at The Guardian, which has now caused the departure of two Guardian staffers. But nobody seems to have articulated the larger issue here -- this whole affair cuts to the heart of the western media's stance vis-a-vis terrorist organizations. In the name of journalistic 'objectivity', The Guardian and many of its local and transatlantic colleagues have not only avoided denouncing terrorist groups (lest they be accused of partisanship), but in many cases have drawn those groups and their supporters into the fold of legitimate discourse. Witness the op-ed space that's been granted to the likes of Michael Neumann (who actively supports - in his own words - "vicious racist anti-Semitism" to bring on the destruction of the Jewish state), Palestinian hijacker and hostage-taker Leila Khaled (an 'expert' on BBC radio), John Pilger, and a certain contributor by the name of Osama Bin Laden (in The Guardian itself). So, far from outrageous, it's perfectly natural that The Guardian would hire a 'trainee journalist' who belongs to a pro-terrorist group. What we're seeing with Albert Scardino's resignation is a long-overdue reckoning with this untenable editorial (and ethical) stance.
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sassygate unravelled: CommentsThe Guardian is also bending over backwards to argue that the likes of Hamas and Hizballah are not obstacles to peace; indeed, that they should not be pressed to disarm. The Guardian's own headlines: "As Hamas and Hizbullah find success at the ballot box, strident calls are heard for them to disarm. This is unreasonable." "Ostracising Hamas will not help in the search for peace." There really are no words. Of course, judging from the Guardian's tone, ostracising Israel will help in the search for peace... http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1537481,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1529115,00.html I wonder whether those Guardian journalists know what the Road Map to Peace is all about. They seem to be endorsing the total repudiation by Palestinians of this initiative which was put together by the international community and accepted by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Do they have any ideas how the two sides are going to achieve peace if they advocate that signed agreements can be so easily torn up and shredded by the likes of Hamas? "Do they have any ideas how the two sides are going to achieve peace if they advocate that signed agreements can be so easily torn up and shredded by the likes of Hamas?" Of course they do! With the destruction of Israel. The easiest way to peace in the Middle East is to just let the muslim arabs go ahead and push Israel into the sea. If those Jews would just stop fighting back, there'd be peace in no time! Post a comment[Comments are held for approval before appearing.]
|
