tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15072098.post2463182329785378583..comments2024-03-26T14:09:24.332+00:00Comments on Confronting antisemitism and Israel hatred: Responses from Press Complaints Commission: as expected a complete whitewash of anti-Israel reportingConfronting antisemitism and Israel hatredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15194461954508969242noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15072098.post-10854998683524144912014-08-30T15:43:01.182+01:002014-08-30T15:43:01.182+01:00Whereas I received an extremely logical and well-r...<i>Whereas I received an extremely logical and well-reasoned explanation as to why my complaint could not be upheld.</i><br /><br /><b>Commission’s decision in the case of<br />Witriol v The Daily Telegraph</b><br /> <br />The complainant was concerned that the newspaper’s online live blog of the Israel-Gaza conflict breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant objected to the use of the term “genocide” in the statement “a group of Israeli activists in Tel Aviv has been filmed cheering the genocide of Gaza children, chanting ‘There are no more kids left.’” He considered the use of the term to be extremely inaccurate, and said it was obscene, ludicrous and anti-Semitic.<br /> <br />Clause 1 of the Code states “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.” Clause 1 (iii) states “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”<br /> <br />The Commission acknowledged that the complainant strongly objected to the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in the conflict. However, it took the view that, in the context of the coverage as a whole, readers would be aware that the term represented a comment by the writer, based on the chants of the activists, rather than a statement of fact. The blog had provided a detailed chronicle of events in Israel and Gaza that day, of which the accuracy had not been disputed by the complainant. Readers would therefore be in a position to understand the basis of the writer’s comment and come to their own views on its validity. While the Commission could fully understand that many readers would find the comment highly provocative, there was no breach of the Code.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15072098.post-2215888971932862192014-08-28T19:50:29.657+01:002014-08-28T19:50:29.657+01:00So it's O.K. to blatantly lie in the headline ...So it's O.K. to blatantly lie in the headline as long as you are more truthful in the body of the article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com