Each advertisement has clearly got to be decided on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind not just specific criteria but the context of the times as well. I entirely support the argument that freedom of expression means the freedom to offend. On that basis I don’t think it was wrong to run an advertisement that expressed a viewpoint, with which the Guardian has no sympathy, about the alleged use of human shields by Hamas, which the organisation has strenuously denied. But there are always limits.
I think the Guardian should have rejected the language of the advertisement and attempted to negotiate change with the authors, something they indicated to the Times that they might consider.
I agree with the readers that whatever the intention, the biblical language, the references to child sacrifice, all evoke images of that most ancient of antisemitic tropes: the blood libel. The authors may believe that they have steered a careful course by aiming these matters at an organisation, Hamas, rather than all Palestinians, but the association is there. If an advertisement was couched in similar terms but the organisation named was the IDF rather than Hamas, I can’t imagine the Guardian would run it – I certainly hope it wouldn’t. I think that’s the issue.
[source : The readers’ editor on... the decision to run This World’s advertisement, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/readers-editor-decision-this-world-advertisement, 18th August 2014]
So in his opinion:
1. a less provocative advert should have been printed;
2. if the IDF were being accused then the advert would not have been printed!!
This is a very damning statement, and indicates that there is a some recognition inside The Guardian that The Guardian is Zionist.
But Owen Jones or Seamus Milne have not written something so critical of The Guardian itself.
WHY?!
Chris Elliott has shown the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment