There are indications that CiF Watch is annoying the editors of The Guardian. It's undeniable that at least some of the editors read CiF Watch some of the time.
Today the Watchers have directly called out Brian Whitaker, a Guardian Biggie:
Here’s an offer. Why don’t you write an article for us explaining why you think this is not case? I’ll publish whatever you write. In particular, our readers would be intrigued to know the following: Why do you feature a disproportionate number of writers deeply hostile to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state many of whom are self-hating Jews and have a track record of antisemitism? Why do you tolerate antisemitism in the comment threads? Why for example have the numerous antisemitic commenters that populate CiF not been permanently banned – its not as if you are oblivious to this? Why do you delete comments putting forward a pro-Israel position? Why did you ban AKUS, Cityca and others? And why do you insinuate that pro-Israel posters are paid agents of the Israeli government?
I doubt Whitaker will respond. I wouldn't, if I were in his shoes. In PR, big doesn't respond to little, and The Guardian (alas) is bigger than CiF Watch. Were they to respond, it would be like the White House allowing itself to get into an argument with, say, Fox News.
Ah... Forget I said it.
Wow. I am truly surprised that Guardian cares about CiF Watch. That's a fantastic achievement, if true. Just goes to show you how thin is the skin of those who daily hurl incitement at the jews of Israel. I remember when you first brought up CiF Watch here, Yaacov. Waste of time, I thought. Maybe not. We'll see...
ReplyDeleteW
Someone said that 'Melanie Philips and the Guardian' is like 'garlic and vampires'
ReplyDeleteLet is hope that the same can be said for CIFWatch and CI(F).
As an American, I'm ashamed that the White House stooped to admonish Fox News. Leaving alone the fact that it spits in the face of free speech, it made Obama and his advisers look tacky and childish.
ReplyDelete