» RT @davidokeefe: @pickledpolitics By Monty's logic we should cut the police/defence budget because they back the Tories 2 hrs ago

» Well spotted (@afuahirsch) RT @MTPT: Curiously, Fox News Syndrome seems to afflict the @Guardian too: http://bit.ly/52jEtM 2 hrs ago

» Excellent! Daniel Hannan's complaint against Daily Mirror on Obama rejected by PCC http://bit.ly/8WDwjo 2 hrs ago

» Fox News syndrome RT @afuahirsch: Why has Times described desperate Haitians trying to survive as "looters"? http://tr.im/Kusx 2 hrs ago

» Reds under the bed! RT @simonk133 ConHome: voluntary sector workers back Labour, so let's cut their funding http://tinyurl.com/ya4wvy7 2 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • Highlighting HBV
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    There’s always some conspiracy at the Guardian!


    by Sunny on 10th October, 2009 at 10:10 PM    

    It’s amazing how conspiracy-prone right-wingers are getting these days. Simon Rogers at the Guardian did a blogpost following Obama’s Nobel prize win, which featured a constantly updated list of previous Nobel prize winners. By mistake he omitted some names.

    Melanie Phillips at the Spectator and MArk Steyn at the National Review immediately leapt on the blog-post by pointing out that three names had been omitted - all coincidentally Israeli. Ooooh! Conspiracy! When this was pointed out to Rogers in the comments he immediately responded:

    It’s my fault, I’m afraid. I decided where there was more than one winner to put the joint one in the second column. Unfortunately, this caused a few problems, which we’ve now rectified. Please let me know if you spot any other missing names.

    Some other names had also been missed out because of that, he says later, like John Raleigh Mott, The Quakers and the League of Red Cross Societies. Damn the Guardian and their Quaker hating ways.

    It’s amazing and hilarious that every little incident like this at the Guardian is seen as a conspiracy. Phillips adds: “Tsk – standards of censorship on Planet Bigotry are clearly slipping.” - wot an idiot.


         
            Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Media






    122 Comments below   |   Add your own

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. David Jones — on 10th October, 2009 at 10:40 PM  

      For a more detailed and thoughtful discussion of this, check Harry’s Place:

      http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/09/who-is-missing-from-this-list/#comments

    2. Sunny — on 10th October, 2009 at 10:46 PM  

      Not sure how you characterise that as a “thoughtful” discussion. Though I did expect you to turn up and say something in support of Melanie Phillips :)

    3. Sunny — on 10th October, 2009 at 10:50 PM  

      In fact, going by that thread, I’m convinced that Brett should start ghost-blogging for Melanie Phillps when she’s away.

    4. douglas clark — on 10th October, 2009 at 10:59 PM  

      David Jones,

      I thought the discussion on Harrys’ Place really wanted to find a conspiracy. What about the ‘ 13 missing years’ which is an even bigger flaw?

    5. marvin — on 10th October, 2009 at 11:44 PM  

      Good old Gruaniad. Coincidentally ALL the Israelis missing. Heh. Simon must feel like a right tit.

    6. damon — on 11th October, 2009 at 12:07 AM  

      I really should get out more.

    7. MaidMarian — on 11th October, 2009 at 12:13 AM  

      Well, this is just the London Meeja loving the sound of its own voice again.

      That said I did like the Philips quote. Being told off by her on the subject of bigotry is a bit like being told by Jordan to put my chest away.

    8. Andy Gilmour — on 11th October, 2009 at 12:25 AM  

      MaidMarian, absolutely, couldn’t agree more.

      Philips and Steyn clearly don’t have enough ‘real’ work to keep them occupied…assuming anything they do can actually be classed as either “real” or, indeed, “work”.

    9. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 3:43 AM  

      But what about the Muslim demographics!? Look how many kids they’re breeding!!!!

      And look how racist the Guardian is!

    10. George — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:36 AM  

      We await the day when the Grauniad will promote the

      http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/reggaecompassionateact-bujubanton.htm

      and make us ALL much happier!

    11. Kismet Hardy — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:19 AM  

      As an Editor (an average one editing shampoo and bouquets notwithstanding), even at my laziest (and that takes some beating), if I have to omit a few things from a list, it’ll be the few I personally think are shit.

    12. Brett — on 11th October, 2009 at 11:03 AM  

      Perhaps Sunny could explain his theory for how only the Israeli names were omitted. Perhaps The Guardian could demonstrate its data handling method and replicate a scenario in which exclusively Israeli names are deleted from the table.

      It’s one thing to sneer and huff, but the incontrovertible fact is that a table of winners was published in The Guardian with only the Israeli names excluded.

      A generic “computer error” explanation was given, but no one can devise a theory as to how a computer error could produce such a result. Instead Guardian supporters sneer at the only logical and plausible explanation: that someone deliberately deleted them.

    13. Brett — on 11th October, 2009 at 11:21 AM  

      “The Quakers and the League of Red Cross Societies. Damn the Guardian and their Quaker hating ways.”

      The Guardian did NOT “miss out” the Red Cross and The Quakers. It simply abbreviated two branches of “The Red Cross” with long names to a single generic “The Red Cross”. It did not leave one out while including the other.

      It did the same thing with The Quakers. They were NOT left out. The prize went to ‘the Friends Service Council (The Quakers)’ and ‘the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers)’. The entry was abbreviated to simply “The Quakers” since both groups are known by the familiar more name “The Quakers” and are, after all, branches of teh same organisation.

      Ditto The Red Cross.

      Neither “The Red Cross” nor “The Quakers” were “left out”.

      That Sunny snorts “Damn the Guardian and their Quaker hating ways” simply shows that Sunny, in his eagerness to get in a dig at Harry’s Place, simply took The Guardian’s explanation at face value without bothering to examine the facts.

    14. qidniz — on 11th October, 2009 at 1:47 PM  

      …without bothering to examine the facts.

      Par for the course.

      “No facts, please. We’re Leftist.”

    15. Kismet Hardy — on 11th October, 2009 at 1:59 PM  

      What an odd thing to say. Right-wingers are hardly champions of the whole truth and nothing but the truth

    16. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 2:19 PM  

      Perhaps Sunny could explain his theory for how only the Israeli names were omitted.

      Obviously Brett, as I pointed out, it’s a conspiracy!

      Simon Rogers must be secretly part of that global sect always trying to find ways to undermine Israelis.

      Perhaps he’s a secret Muslim! And practice taqqiyah! Or something.

    17. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 2:20 PM  

      Like I said - your ghost-writing gig for Melanie Phillips awaits you!

    18. Rumbold — on 11th October, 2009 at 2:41 PM  

      What we really need is a full screen shot of the entire list before it was completed. Then we would know for sure. The original screenshot shows the word Israel, but without the name of the Israeli, which suggests a simple error.

      The problem for the Guardian doing something like this is that given its history of anti-semitism, one is not really sure whether it was an accident.

    19. Rumbold — on 11th October, 2009 at 2:50 PM  

      I’m rather charmed by Mr Eugenides’ take on this:

      “Brett.

      You’re trying to rebut the man’s explanation by saying that only an idiot would have made such a “mistake”, as if that fatally undermines his story.

      You seem to forget that we’re dealing with the Guardian here.”

      Hehehe.

    20. Rumbold — on 11th October, 2009 at 2:54 PM  

      Having found the screenshot, it does show a few errors in other places as well (in 1995 and 2007, there are country errors):

      http://dayvidsaffer.com/2009/10/09/guardian-no-israeli-nobel-peace-prize-winners-ever/

    21. John Bloxham — on 11th October, 2009 at 2:55 PM  

      “Perhaps The Guardian could demonstrate its data handling method and replicate a scenario in which exclusively Israeli names are deleted from the table.”

      Or perhaps you could stop being such a twat?

    22. chairwoman — on 11th October, 2009 at 3:26 PM  

      If the Guardian hadn’t shown what I shall describe as a lack of support for Israel, perhaps we Jews wouldn’t contemplate a conspiracy.

      You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, Sunny.

    23. Brett — on 11th October, 2009 at 3:28 PM  

      “Or perhaps you could stop being such a twat?”

      Amazing. More sneers and insults, yet not a single credible explanation for the FACT that The Guardian published a list with *exclusively* Israeli’s missing.

      I guess we’ll see an escalation of these. Since they can’t explain it so they may as well try to brazen their way out of it.

      There is no “conspiracy”. It is perfectly obvious to most reasonable people that most likely some intern (thinking they were striking a blow for anti-Zionism or something) made the deletions. Protests resulted and the management don’t want to admit culpability, so they came up with this “computer error” nonsense.

    24. MaidMarian — on 11th October, 2009 at 3:32 PM  

      Brett - Presumably you have contacted the Guardian yourself and asked them?

      That would seem to be a more obvious course of action that waving your penis around on here. Or would that be too brazen?

    25. Brett — on 11th October, 2009 at 3:41 PM  

      “waving your penis around on here”

      God, it gets even more pathetic.

      I’m only commenting here because Sunny dragged me into his post for some reason. He then demonstrated how careless a journalist he is by claiming the Quakers and the Red Cross had been delted too - which they weren’t, and he would have seen this if he’d bothered to check before adding his tuppence worth.

    26. chairwoman — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:06 PM  

      I see you got yours out some time before Brett, ‘Maid’ Marion’.

    27. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:09 PM  

      I didn’t drag you into this post - someone else did. You were a conspiracy nut over on the HP thread and you’re a conspiracy nut here too. Get over it.

      Rumbold: The problem for the Guardian doing something like this is that given its history of anti-semitism, one is not really sure whether it was an accident.

      No - there’s a history of people such as Brett and neo-cons accusing the Guardian of anti-semitism. That’s not the same as there being anti-semitism at the Guardian.

      Look at CIFwatch - which also claims to find instances of anti-semitism at the Guardian. They spend most of their time attacking other Jews at the Guardian who dare to criticise Israel.

      Or, for example, check out the report that bananabrain mentioned earlier about anit-semitism at CIF. Turns out it was a compendium of anti-semitic comments posted at CIF that were deleted anyway.

      Shall I spend all my time compiling the number of racist comments posted at HP or CIF?

      This is worse than pathetic - it is a smear campaign.

      And this coming from the same guy (Brett) who was hysterical about a second ‘Kristallnacht’ last year when a few Starbucks got attacked. It is so incredibly lame it’s not even worth taking seriously except to point and laugh.

    28. JuliaM — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:18 PM  

      “Shall I spend all my time compiling the number of racist comments posted at HP or CIF?”

      It might be a more productive use of your time. But it wouldn’t get your picture in the media, would it?

    29. MaidMarian — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:29 PM  

      Brett (25) - Sorry, so have you contacted the Guardian or not?

    30. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:35 PM  

      It might be a more productive use of your time. But it wouldn’t get your picture in the media, would it?

      BNP apologist trolls like you are dime a dozen JuliaM. I’ve got bigger fish to fry.

    31. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:36 PM  

      MM - The guy who wrote the blog turned up on HP to explain what happened.

      Brett still thinks there’s a conspiracy against Israelis.

    32. Ravi Naik — on 11th October, 2009 at 4:49 PM  

      If the Guardian hadn’t shown what I shall describe as a lack of support for Israel, perhaps we Jews wouldn’t contemplate a conspiracy.

      Can you tell me exactly what lack of support for Israel mean?

    33. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:30 PM  

      Brett, there seems to be a sense of glee on your HP post that this slip might just be the one that will bring down the Guardian for their ‘cockiness’ (my take on their reporting on Israel) in keeping the debate honest.

      I’ve seen the ‘discussion’ on HP and its quite clear a technical omission is at play here. But the Guardian should not worry too much about that.

      If I was them I would take it as cue to widen the debate on the value of the Nobel Peace prize, given that we have a certain Henry Kissinger on the list, and Shimon Peres whose award Nobel Cttee members came to regret and wished they had had a mechanism for its withdrawal.

      I am sure there are others who may not have been as deserving as they look. Hell, Tony Blair wanted one and we have Menachem Begin who invaded and ravaged Lebanon in 1982. Rabin is probably the only worthy from the Israeli camp. For future reference I would ask the Nobel Cttee to seriously consider members of Israeli Peace Movement http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/israelpeacegroups.html

      Much safer!

      Chairwoman

      ‘If the Guardian hadn’t shown what I shall describe as a lack of support for Israel, perhaps we Jews wouldn’t contemplate a conspiracy.’

      You are scaring me. Are you sure you mean what you wrote?

    34. chairwoman — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:33 PM  

      Sorry Ravi, that was tongue in cheek.

      I didn’t realise that you were irony-proof.

      “Brett still thinks there’s a conspiracy against Israelis.”

      And you still think there isn’t.

    35. shake — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:34 PM  

      might be worth noting that this is the same Brett Lock who claims that the phrase ‘nigger balls’ is not racist in the slightest.

      I dunno why HP Sauce print his nonsense, he’s just a conspiracy theory-obsessed, right-wingnut. mind you, they’re the site that brought us antisemitic pizza…

      what i find funniest about this smear campaign is how many ’serious’ journos have leapt on it.

      it was a simple error of data input. The country name appears in the original ffs.

    36. chairwoman — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:35 PM  

      Refresh, may I direct you to my reply to Ravi @ 34.

    37. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:39 PM  

      Chairwoman

      Phew! Had me worried there for.

    38. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:41 PM  

      what i find funniest about this smear campaign is how many ’serious’ journos have leapt on it.

      Who’s the serious journalist involved?

    39. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:41 PM  

      Sunny - could we please bring back the edit function - in the meantime pls delete ‘for’ in #37.

    40. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:42 PM  

      oops - edit function back (cookies was the problem).

    41. Rumbold — on 11th October, 2009 at 5:56 PM  

      Sunny:

      Few people would deny that the Guardian has a history of unjustly attacking Israel. And I am not talking about in the comments either.

    42. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 6:00 PM  

      Who’s the serious journalist involved?

      Daniel Finkelstein, Steven Pollard, the Jewish Chronicle and Melanie Phillips, from what I’ve seen. I’m not surprised at all that Mel P. would leap on this hilarious propaganda horseshit. I am flabbergasted that others would wager their credibility and their reputations on what is obviously an insane bag of comedy bollocks at a well-known wingnut zoo.

      And Brett - you’ve had an adequate explanation. Continuing to pretend there’s something sinister going on is lunatic, tinfoil-hatted behaviour and you frankly don’t have a leg to stand on with your blubbering boo-hoo about how nobody will take you seriously. If you act like a paranoid nutter, don’t be surprised if people treat you like one.

    43. Brett — on 11th October, 2009 at 6:09 PM  

      “And Brett – you’ve had an adequate explanation.”

      What, that a “computer error” deleted just Israeli Prime Ministers and no one else? Yeah right!

    44. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 6:15 PM  

      Rumbold

      ‘Few people would deny that the Guardian has a history of unjustly attacking Israel. And I am not talking about in the comments either.’

      First I’ve heard!

    45. Sunny — on 11th October, 2009 at 6:39 PM  

      Few people would deny that the Guardian has a history of unjustly attacking Israel. And I am not talking about in the comments either.

      Oh rubbish. What that means is the Guardian doesn’t buy the right-wing position on Israel like other papers do.

      By that same measure most of the BBC, is actually anti-Muslim for not supporting Palestinian independence more.

      Out of those names, I’d only say Daniel Finkelstein was a serious journalist. Too bad he bought into the same rubbish. But Stephen Pollard? Hah! Has he taken a break from desperately defending Kaminski?

    46. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 6:45 PM  

      Yeah right!

      Brett, you’re contending that someone at the Guardian deliberately and maliciously deleted the names of Israelis from this list, for no other reason than that’s just the kind of anti-semitic thing that the anti-sssemitisssess at the Guardian would do.

      Why would the Guardian do this? Because it’s just the type of thing the Guardian would do. What exactly will be dreadful result of allowing an Israeli-free Nobel list to appear on the internet for a couple of hours? Not a lot, but it’s all part of the Guardian’s secret Jew-hating plans. Why didn’t the Guardian just admit this was all part of their Jew-hating plans, rather than producing a plausible excuse? Because they want to keep their Jew-hatiness secret, and so on and on ad infinitum.

      It’s an epic of circular argument and question-begging, no different at all in content or tone from all those internet fannies who keep bleating about how thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel couldn’t possibly have brought down the twin towers.

      You’re a Truther, mate. You’re being ridiculed because what you are saying is ridiculous, and no amount of tearful woe-is-me is going to make it less laughable.

      That said, it’s been yet another useful demonstration of How Bullshit Works and I for one will be taking anything that Danny Finkelstein says at a considerable discount from now on.

    47. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 7:27 PM  

      If there is a technical issue here that has miraculously removed from the list ALL the Israeli winners, then a decent explentation by the Guardian should be given.

      Instead, Simon Rogers gave a lame excuse citing other he claimed to have also left off, which, was in fact a lie, as my screen shot showed.

      Removing people from the list and getting a country wrong are not one and the same.

    48. halima — on 11th October, 2009 at 7:32 PM  

      Rumbold

      ‘Few people would deny that the Guardian has a history of unjustly attacking Israel. And I am not talking about in the comments either.’

      Wrong. I think this statements says more about the company you keep than the newspaper’s stance on x and y.

      I. for example, have quite a lot of problems with the leaders article in The Economist, that’s because they’re mostly right wing. This week’s edition and the article on Obama is a case in point. It writes an appalling attack on Obama and his lack of international weight and standing. And we know what happened in the next few days. I’d like to see how they write their lead piece on America in the next fortnight.

      Anyway my point is that you probably don’t like the Guardian because of its left of centre stance - rather than what it writes about the Taliban or Iran or what have you.

    49. shake — on 11th October, 2009 at 7:47 PM  

      pollard’s done a few things recently that make him look like a bit of a loon but he is still taken seriously be a lot of people. ditto danny finkelstein though i can’ really work that one out, he comes across as very shallow.

      i love these ‘anti-troofer’ people like brett lock and david toube buying this conspiracy theory bollocks. funny how when a clearly bullshit conspiracy theory fits into HP Sauce’s prejudices, they buy it wholesale. see ‘Mehdi Hassan is teh islamist’ and also see the post (deleted after an hour, but still) saying that an AMNESTY anti-Guantanamo event was ‘extremist’ and castigating Sunny Hundal for agreeing to speak at it. Funnily enough that post was also by this ‘lucy lips’, HP Sauce’s most wingnutty anonymous writer.

      hilarious. how can anyone take HP Sauce seriously after this, after antisemitic pizza, etc etc.

    50. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 7:52 PM  

      Dov, you have screenshot of a pair of hands deleting Israeli names?

      Show me!

    51. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 8:03 PM  

      So,

      Brett,

      Your end of this debate is getting itself into a hell of a fix.

      How come Lucy Lips screenshot (?) edits out the years between 1980 and 1992? Whereas David Saffer (Dov @ 47) has a screen grab - from somewhere - that correctly includes these years?

      If you are going to criticise the Guardian for leaving stuff out, it is completely unreasonable to edit your evidence against them, or if Lucy Lips did not edit it then it is completely wrong for David Saffer to give us a list that includes these years.

      You can’t have it both ways.

    52. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 8:07 PM  

      Refresh

      Funny man.

      What I do have is a screen shot which contradicts Simon Rogers assertion that it wasn’t just the Israelis left off the list.

      Have a look yourself - http://dayvidsaffer.com/2009/10/09/guardian-no-israeli-nobel-peace-prize-winners-ever/

      I understand that mistakes happens, but when they do own up to them and move on, instead of offering lies as a way to cover your back.

      Douglas

      Cant talk for Lucy, but when I posted my piece on this, i also cut down the image for the relevant sections, mainly due to the size of the file.

    53. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 8:29 PM  

      Honestly, this bullshit makes HP’s Curious Case of The Genocidal Pizza Slice look like Pulitzer material, doesn’t it? No self-awareness or sense of proportion at all, some folk.

      Dov dude, why would the Guardian deliberately delete the names of these Israeli statesmen? What, exactly, do you think they were hoping to achieve, and why would they go to the bother of denying it?

      I mean, HP is commonly known as a playground for all manner of chuckleheaded, paranoid, right wing lunatics and the thread in question is filled with the type of grunting nutter that papers’ ombudsmen love to ignore. Why wouldn’t the paper just tell these gibbering idiots to Foxtrot Oscar?

      Right, let’s just throw down the gauntlet to all you HP Troofers - make a case for us here. Motive, opportunity, mens rea, at least two pieces of irrefutable evidence and a plausible narrative. You’ve got fuck all at the moment beyond It’s obviously a case of racist deletion because Blaaaaaahahh data entry and anyway, everyone knows the Guardian are teh racist.

      Of course, we all know that you can no more build a solid case than you can shoot polar bears out of your arses, but I think we’ll all enjoy watching your hilarious attempts.

    54. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 8:30 PM  

      Dov,

      With all due respect, in the end, no, you didn’t. You showed the complete list from the year dot:

      http://dayvidsaffer.com/2009/10/09/guardian-no-israeli-nobel-peace-prize-winners-ever/

      It’s the second update to your post timed at 16:20. The problem is that you can’t be the prosecution and be selective with the evidence, I’d have thought that that was obvious. And what you appear to have corrected.

      Having just transferred my sons CV from one computer to another and having had it completely mangled, I am beginning to believe in gremlins, you know?

    55. David Jones — on 11th October, 2009 at 8:48 PM  

      Sunny - I know you and David at Harry’s Place had had some disagreements about your identity politics. Do you fight your corner by claiming other people you don’t know are Melanie Philips followers? And you’re trying to build a coalition, are you?

      Good luck.

    56. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 8:51 PM  

      Douglas

      I posted the complete shot in the end because Simon Rogers claimed there were others left off of the list, which clearly there weren’t. He claimed that JR Mott, Quakers and Red Cross were also omitted, but I take your point about being selective with evidence.

      Flying Rodent

      Lets give the Guardian the benefit of the doubt, lets assume it was a monumental unintentional cock-up, why then come up with a false story of others being left off of the list? If it was a mistake, say so, apologise and move on, don’t muddy the waters further by concocting a cock and bull story which is refuted by evidence.

      I get it that mistakes happen. But why lie if it was a genuine mistake?

    57. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:00 PM  

      But why lie if it was a genuine mistake?

      Dude, you’re making a mistake here. You’re the prosecution, and non-Truthers are the defence. That means you have to put together a coherent case based on a number of key points of evidence, and we get to raise this kind of piffling “What if?”.

      You are the one making the accusation here, so it’s up to you to prove you’re correct. Questions like “Why lie?” are the domain of the defence, since all we have to do is cast doubt on the case you’re making.

      If you can’t make a convincing case, you’re just bumping your gums and making yourself look silly.

    58. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:09 PM  

      Flying Rodent.

      The defence from Simon Rogers was that it was a mistake and others were also left off of the list. The original list they posted proved that to be false.

      That has been proved. Or do you not agree?

    59. Refresh — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:28 PM  

      Dov,

      I’ve decided to dub them ‘Screamshots’.

    60. shake — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:32 PM  

      please - answer rodent’s questions, stop skirting the issue.

      if this was not a mistake - if the guardian had intended to leave the israeli names off the list (but leave the country’s name on it, beside where they should be) - then what was the intention behind it?

      Why would they leave the name ‘Israel’ up but leave the individuals’ names off, if this wasn’t just a mistake? What exactly woudl be the point?

      as rodent says, you’re the one who thinks this wasn’t just a mistake.

      so please at least try to provide a plausible case for its being otherwise.

      nobody at HP Sauce or anywhere else has managed to do so as yet, but the meme keeps going, making all who touch it look like daft conspiracists. A conspiracy theory needs to have a plausible narrative, and a plausible motive behind it and those are totally lacking here.

    61. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:36 PM  

      That has been proved.

      Let’s say it has been proven, for the sake of argument. What does this single piece of evidence prove?

      I’ll save you time and hassle by saying “not a damn thing”. The troofers are charging the paper with racism and misrepresentation - very serious allegations - and this simply isn’t good enough. You’re going to have to do lots better, because the Guardian’s ombudsman would laugh at that and chuck it in the bin, and he’d be right to do so.

    62. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:40 PM  

      I’ve never maintained that it was deliberate. Dodgy definitely considering some of the Guardian’s positions on Israel, but deliberate, I don’t know.

      What I take offence to is the lie then told to try and make out that it was a genuine mistake. Like I said, mistakes happen. But covering a mistake with a lie, that’s deliberate, and that’s what I take offence to and why I posted the complete shot.

    63. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:40 PM  

      Dov,

      His defence seems quite sound:

      Hi Martyn

      We started off with an html list of all the winners and one spreadsheet which just had:

      Name
      Year
      Reason
      Nationality
      M/F
      Etc

      Then, because there were so many joint winners we expanded the columns to the right so that all the entries were on one row. I thought this would be easier for people to do year by year analysis.

      Your suggestion would have been simpler, I guess - more like the wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates

      Technically, I was working in Word using find and replaces to put things in the right column and then in excel using the text to columns function, before transferring the whole thing to Google docs. It was here that I think the initial errors slipped in.

      Interestingly, no-one noticed that we also had Kofi Annan down as US, rather than Ghana…

      I’ve made frequent mistakes using that sort of combination of tools. Seems overcomplicated right enough. More ‘cock up’ than deliberate, I’d have thought.

      Which is why I think the conspiracy lunacy is silly. The likeliest explanation of anything, anything at all, is a cock up.

    64. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:46 PM  

      What I take offence to is the lie

      You’re just not getting this. Even if we take what you’re saying as true, you haven’t even proved that there was a lie in the first place. For it to be a lie, you’d have to prove that Simon Rodgers knew what he was saying was false, and you can’t do that because you’ve got no evidence at all.

      You really are standing here with your dick in your hand and bugger all else, son. It’s all very silly indeed.

    65. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 9:49 PM  

      Douglas

      And yet of all the double entries, and there are many, only the Israelis got left off?

      There were 26 example of double entry winners, all entered correctly. 2 years were not, which happened to be the years where Israelis co-won the prize.

      This is what I find problematic the series of lies being told to cover up what could very easily have been a mistake. Go through the original shot, find me other double entries on the list that are incomplete - and I don’t mean mis-spelt or in a different font size, i mean left off entirely.

      Flying rodent

      The evidence is the original chart posted on the guardian web site - a chart that Simon Rogers claimed to have missed off JR Mott, The Quakers and Red Cross - who are actually in the right place.

    66. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:04 PM  

      Dov,

      I don’t think you’ve proven a lie either, just for the record.

      What about Simon Rogers own admission that he’d wrongly said that Kofi Annan was allocated to the USA rather than Ghana?

      Can we expect irate Ghanaians to be getting blogs on the Spectator to protest at this outright racism?

      Storm. Teacup.

      Frankly I am quite disappointed in the paranoia that this episode represents. We are seeing a circling of ethnic waggons around perceived insults, no matter how unlikely, and no matter how trivial just for the sake of it.

    67. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:08 PM  

      The evidence is the original chart posted on the guardian web site – a chart that Simon Rogers claimed to have missed off JR Mott, The Quakers and Red Cross – who are actually in the right place.

      Screw the rest of it - do you understand that this is not proof that Simon Rogers has lied? Even if you’re 100% right, all Simon Rogers has to do is say Whoops, that was an error on my part and there is no case to answer.

      You have no decent evidence, can’t supply a motive and refuse to offer a coherent narrative. As my dear old Granny used to say, you can only piss with the cock you’ve got, and I’m afraid yours just isn’t up to the task.

    68. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:21 PM  

      Flying Rodent @ 67,

      Is that not, more or less, what Simon Rogers has said? For it is he I am quoting @ 63.

      Given the fact that the guy corrected the error, has explained how it may have happened as best he could, and that the right list is now on the CiF web site, what the hell is this all about?

      It is a pile of dreck.

      So, where is Brett or Lucy Lips anyway? Dov has been rather hung out to dry….

      And it wasn’t his post anyway.

    69. Dov — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:31 PM  

      Gentlemen, it has been interesting.

      Obviously you see nothing wrong with how Simon Rogers has handled this situation, and fair dues to you for that. We end as we start, both believing our positions to be correct.

      As for being hung out to dry, sorry mate, whilst you might think this a joint effort by HP and me you are in fact wrong - but I guess that you won’t believe right.

      Night night

    70. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:34 PM  

      Dov @ 1:59pm on Harrys Place:

      Simon Rogers initial comments re-double entry and other names missed of the original chart is bulls*it - as the screen shot taken proves. Instead of coming up with other nonsensical comments (as in, “no-one noticed that we also had Kofi Annan down as US, rather than Ghana”) he should of owned up, apologised and drawn a line under this incident.

      Instead he continues to claim it as a genuine mistake, whilst the evidence he supplied that it was not only Israelis left off is shown to be, simply put, a lie.

      Changed your mind yet Dov?

    71. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:35 PM  

      Dov @ 69.

      Obviously not. See 70.

      Sleep tight.

    72. FlyingRodent — on 11th October, 2009 at 10:42 PM  

      We end as we start, both believing our positions to be correct.

      I’d expect nothing else if you were a typical conspiracy theorist - they end everything as they start, because they are impervious to reason and persuasion.

      And let’s be clear - we’re deep in tinfoil territory with this story.

    73. douglas clark — on 11th October, 2009 at 11:17 PM  

      Dov @ 69

      Part ii

      As for being hung out to dry, sorry mate, whilst you might think this a joint effort by HP and me….

      Only in the sense that Brett has run away and that Lucy Lips hasn’t even dared to appear, and that you are left on your own, bereft of allies, or friends or stuff like that. Maybe the rather avuncular David T will turn up, next week, or something.

      It is kind of sad that, outwith their own sandpit, where the stupid play, they couldn’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag, nor help you out here.

      They could have, at the very least, have shared the tinfoil with you, don’t you think?

      These genuinely serious, genuinely determined conspiraloons see you as a disposable tissue, which is kind of sad. For Brett buggered off and Lucy Lips never appeared.

      And you are a lot better than them.

    74. qidniz — on 12th October, 2009 at 2:22 AM  

      How come Lucy Lips screenshot (?) edits out the years between 1980 and 1992?

      Because there is no edit. The “screenshot (?)” is actually two images, this and this.

    75. Where's Sid? — on 12th October, 2009 at 5:48 AM  

      If you see Sid tell him

    76. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 5:51 AM  

      Nice to see the Israel-bashers out in full force rather proving the point that Simon Rogers’ omission was with anti-semitic intent.

    77. damon — on 12th October, 2009 at 6:19 AM  

      I think that the constant ”anti-semitic ” call has been well and truly overplayed.

    78. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:00 AM  

      Yes, of course, but it’s still necessary isn’t it Damon, because anti-semites who pretend not to be don’t like this uncomfortable truth pointed out to them. Witness Sunny’s fake umbrage at Harry’s Place.

    79. FlyingRodent — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:08 AM  

      Nice to see the Israel-bashers out in full force rather proving the point that Simon Rogers’ omission was with anti-semitic intent.

      Guys, if you really want a long and very tedious lecture on the difference between proof, evidence, conjecture and cretinous assertion, that can be arranged.

      This is a comments thread and not a courtroom, so standards can be lowered a little. Nonetheless, you still have to provide something to justify these accusations. What you’ve got at the moment is The Guardian are the racistest because data entry cough, cough, mumble and also everyone knows the Guardian are the racistest.

      And let’s be clear - that’s the charitable interpretation. The logical, neutral explanation is that the lot of you are tilting at the Guardian’s windmill on your little political hobby horses because you are ideological idiots.

      Take a look at The Accounting’s comment @76, for a clear example of this kind of brain-dead thinking - basically, The Guardian is racist because I have asserted that commenters on this thread are racists, which is conclusive proof that the Guardian is racist. It amazes me that anyone that stupid can turn a computer on, let alone access the internet. I’m willing to bet the Accounting was wearing his or her trousers the wrong way round when he/she hit “Submit Comment”.

    80. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:09 AM  

      For example here is a nice line from the Jazzmonster in today’s Independent, that other temple of benign Jew Love:

      “Other lowlights to report – all three parties were lavishly entertained by the over-influential Friends of Israel,”

      Perhaps Sunny could guestright her column when she’s away - as they are, to put it bluntly, both racist bigots.

    81. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:12 AM  

      Thank you Flying Twat - you prove my point.

    82. FlyingRodent — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:22 AM  

      Thank you Flying Twat – you prove my point.

      Uh, I rather think your response supports my points rather than yours, although the evidence that you’re too dense to put your trousers on the right way round is only circumstantial at the moment.

      You’ll embarrass yourself less if you give this a quick look before running your yap on this issue again…

      http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/proof?view=uk

    83. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:37 AM  

      Your logic is quaint Mr Rat, your bigotry less so.

    84. FlyingRodent — on 12th October, 2009 at 7:58 AM  

      Your logic is quaint Mr Rat, your bigotry less so.

      And your pisspoor, see-through smear attempt is every bit as rational, intelligent and convincing as this whole idiots’ jihad has been from the start, i.e. deranged, moronic and obviously malicious.

    85. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 8:19 AM  

      Tut, tut, Mr Moonbat, keep your shirt on! I doubt you are wearing trousers as you appear to have a problem with this item of clothing.

    86. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 9:47 AM  

      The Accounting @ 85 and passim,

      Utter tosh. It is up to your side to prove it was not a simple error. It is your side that stands accused of a smear.

      Accusations of Israeli bashing and anti-semitism are irrelevant. As is the whataboutery ré the Independent.

    87. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 10:09 AM  

      Tosh and piffle, eh? What ho, chaps, anyone for a game of cricket? Quaint.

      What is there to prove when the facts speak for themselves.

    88. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 10:41 AM  

      Prove it was deliberate.

      No-one is denying that an error was made. See my quote from Simon Rogers at 63 above. No-one is denying it wasn’t corrected at the earliest opportunity. Only people inclined towards a conspiratorial view of the world see it as anything more than an error.

      The facts are agreed. The interpretation you wish to place on them most certainly is not.

    89. Rumbold — on 12th October, 2009 at 10:49 AM  

      Refresh, Halima and Sunny:

      The Guardian is biased against Israel. I don’t think that is a massive problem in itself, as most people know about it, and so know to expect significant bias. However, you wouldn’t turn to the Guardian for balanced reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

    90. Dan — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:03 AM  

      I think you’ve missed the point Sunny. Again. Go and read the HP discussion - it’s not *that* hard to see that something very dodgy happened at the Guardian.

    91. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:26 AM  

      Dan @ 90,

      something very dodgy happened at the Guardian

      Yes Dan.

      Someone made a mistake and then they corrected it.

      Wow!

    92. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:32 AM  

      It is the fact that a mistake was made that is interesting not the fact that it was corrected.

    93. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:56 AM  

      The Accounting,

      @ 76

      Nice to see the Israel-bashers out in full force rather proving the point that Simon Rogers’ omission was with anti-semitic intent.

      & @ 92

      It is the fact that a mistake was made that is interesting not the fact that it was corrected.

      Are we using the word ‘mistake’ in the same way?

      It seems not.

      I mean it in the common sense of a thing which is not correct, 2 + 2 = 5, or somesuch. You are, I take it, using it in the sense of an error of judgement. Your earlier post claims intent, which is what your side of the debate have consistently failed to prove. You are now reduced to arguing over relative font sizes ffs!

      ———————————————-

      There should be a Nobel Prize for the Worlds’ Worst Smear Campaign.

    94. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:04 PM  

      In addition, of course, there should be a prize for the best circular argument, Mr Clark - just because a mistake was made does not mean that there was no antisemitic intent, and your attempts to suggest otherwise suggest a dismal circularity in the way you think.

    95. Reza — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:11 PM  

      I’m no fan of the Guardian. I look forward to its inevitable demise as cuts in our bloated public sector will cause it to lose it’s number 1 source of revenue: advertising public sector non-jobs.

      But I do believe that this ‘conspiracy’ was really a cock-up. Even Guardian staff would have known they couldn’t get away with something like this. Not given the scrutiny they’re under from the likes of Harry’s Place.

      Move along. Nothing to see here.

    96. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:19 PM  

      Yes, you can be sure of that - there never is anything to see with the Guardian’s deliberate policy of omission, and its Nobelgate is the perfectly trivial pars pro toto.

    97. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:27 PM  

      The Accounting @ 94,

      Well, help me out here, point me to the smoking gun.

      It is you that is making a fairly serious allegation @ 76, not me.

      Your side of the debate has come up with nada, nowt, nothing. You cannot prove your contention, it is as simple as that.

    98. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:33 PM  

      A pattern of deliberate omission. Work it out for yourself. Take your time.

    99. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:37 PM  

      The Accounting,

      Prove it was deliberate. Feel free to take a week before you get back to us with something definitive. Take all the time you need.

    100. The Accounting — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:40 PM  

      Come, come, Mr Clark - what is this - a Norwegian Parrot sketch? There is no need to provide proof. The burden is on you to account for the facts in a rational and uncontentious way yet this is clearly beyond your capacity.

    101. Refresh — on 12th October, 2009 at 12:56 PM  

      The Accounting

      Look lets agree on what we are going to call this piece of manufactured outrage - I’ve already dubbed it Screamshot!

      Put Nobelgate away, it doesn’t quite capture it.

    102. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 1:04 PM  

      The Accounting,

      If it is the Monty Python sketch, then it is you sir, or at least your ‘arguement’, that is the dead parrot!

      The burden of proof rests with the accuser not the defendant, but you probably knew that anyway. Yet another diversion from your lack of any evidence to support your thesis.

    103. FlyingRodent — on 12th October, 2009 at 1:07 PM  

      I’ve already dubbed it Screamshot! Put Nobelgate away, it doesn’t quite capture it.

      I think “the 1179th Furious Bullshit Internet Circle-Jerk of 2009″ sounds better, and more accurate. There must be some way to wedge the words “malicious,”dumbass” and “ignoranuses” into there too.

      Or if you’re into the whole brevity thing, I suppose Wankgate, Cretinpallooza or Fuckhead Bingo! will serve equally well.

    104. Refresh — on 12th October, 2009 at 1:55 PM  

      Look FlyingRodent, its Screamshot and I am not budging!

    105. steve — on 12th October, 2009 at 2:54 PM  

      you wouldn’t turn to the Guardian for balanced reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

      can i ask where you *would* turn?

    106. chairwoman — on 12th October, 2009 at 3:37 PM  

      ” you wouldn’t turn to the Guardian for balanced reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

      can i ask where you *would* turn?”

      *Hollow laughter, off*

    107. steve — on 12th October, 2009 at 3:44 PM  

      I’d like to know - genuinely. Which sources are trustworthy? it’s easy to scoff at various news outlets for perceived bias - or even, in the more frothing-at-the-mouth interpretaion, perceived antisemitism.

      But I’d like to be pointed, by those who don’t think this was a genuine mistake, towards some genuinely non-partisan sources of information of the middle east.

      Should we look to Harry’s Place? they seem to follow things closely, but then again they have had a banner up during the Lebanon conflict saying ’standing with Israel’ iirc and thy certainly campaigned for people to go on the pro-IDF march in January duaring the Gaza conflict - so, whatever way you look at it, hardly unbiased. Should we go to the times, whose chief leader-writers is outspokenly biased towards Israel and has bought into this anti-guardian nutcasery? Haaretz? The Jpost?

    108. Rumbold — on 12th October, 2009 at 8:27 PM  

      Steve:

      Well, I try and take my news from the a wide range of sources. I usually find The Economist to be pretty reserved and even-handed on the matter.

    109. Sunny — on 12th October, 2009 at 9:42 PM  

      However, you wouldn’t turn to the Guardian for balanced reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

      What’s the alternative? The Telegraph? HEh.

      The Economist is closer to the Guardian’s position than the Telegraph’s.

    110. chairwoman — on 12th October, 2009 at 10:33 PM  

      How about reading supporters of both sides and then making your own decision.

      It’s what grownups should do.

    111. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:01 PM  

      chairwoman @ 110,

      Seems like a good point. Radical, even ;-)

    112. Shamit — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:34 PM  

      I like the Economist and I like the Guardian.

      And as far as quality of commentary and editorial goes Economist is far better than the Guardian — because it publishes in its own name. And anyone with half a brain and without the parochial “we are the left” blinkers on would see that

      Its got nothing to do with left or right — and in terms of the economist article about Obama — it was a fair article and he really did not deserve the Nobel Peace prize which he even acknowledges.

      And let us be honest on foreign policy we haven’t seen much but superb eloquent rhetoric from the President of the US.

      By the way, in 1993, on September 10th, Bill Clinton already had Rabina nd Arafat signing the basic deal in the White House Rose Garden.

      *************************

      On this issue about leaving out those names - it was premeditated and its quite obvious. In 1994 there were 3 winners — Yaseer Arafat goes on the list but Rabin and Peres does not. Yeah no there is no bias. Whatever — it is similar to Ed Balls and etc saying oh no we did not push out Blair.

      Guardian is a newspaper — well if Telegraph is a news paper then it is one too.

      **********************

    113. douglas clark — on 12th October, 2009 at 11:57 PM  

      Shamit,

      On this issue about leaving out those names – it was premeditated and its quite obvious.

      Prove it was no more than an error and had malicious intent, why don’t you?

      Saying it is quite obvious is a tad easier than showing or proving it is quite obvious.

    114. FlyingRodent — on 13th October, 2009 at 11:12 AM  

      On this issue about leaving out those names – it was premeditated and its quite obvious…

      Gentlemen, since none of you can be arsed to provide motive, opportunity, evidence or a decent narrative to lay out exactly how and why this foul crime was committed - indeed, few if any of you seem to have the vaguest fucking clue what any of these terms mean, or to care at all - I’ll give it a bash on your behalf.

      To summarise this watertight, 100% irrefutable case, the Guardian are obviously guilty of the heinous, racist crimes they are accused of, because Everybody Knows that this is exactly the kind of heinous thing that a bunch of racists like the Guardian would do.

      We have motive - Everybody Knows the Guardian is racist and wants to demean Israel, ergo they are obviously, irrefutably guilty. Everybody Knows that publishing a list of prize winners that failed to include three names would be a massive, crushing victory for the forces of evil over all that is right and true, because it just would be, because Everybody Knows it would be.

      We have opportunity, mens rea and even a culprit - the racist Guardianista whose racism and moral depravity caused him to commit these genocidal omissions, which is conclusively proven beyond doubt by the fact that Everybody Knows about the racism and moral depravity of Guardianistas. And we have evidence, to whit

      a) They obviously did it and
      b) They denied they’d done it, thus proving that they’re not only racists, but lying racists into the bargain.

      It’s an open-and-shut case - they’re racist because Everyone Knows they are, hence their genocidal omissions were a deliberate assault on Israel, because Everybody Knows that’s the kind of thing the racist Guardian would do.

      They’re 100% guilty, M’Lud - only a racist would dispute it.

    115. BenSix — on 13th October, 2009 at 11:25 AM  

      “Nice to see the Israel-bashers out in full force rather proving the point that Simon Rogers’ omission was with anti-semitic intent.”

      After seeing this post, I snuck into the Guardian offices - Mission Impossible theme burbling from my headphones - and snatched away their CCTV tapes. Their contents are too hideous to describe, suffice to say that they involve Mr Rogers, a picture of Yasser Arafat and a king-size bottle of lubricant.

    116. Shamit — on 14th October, 2009 at 12:00 AM  

      I meant the blogger knew exactly what he was doing. And I stand by that. Well if he omitted other really well known names given for well known causes - I might have bought that argument.

      The Guardian made an editorial mistake - - and with their staff numbers they ought to do better.

      Well even though this is not a court of law - as I have been called stupid I will give it a shot. There were 3 Israelis and none of their names appeared on the list - that’s too much coincidence in my opinion.

      Further, it is reasonable to expect that a blogger discussing Nobel Peace Prize has a decent grasp of contemporary global issues. And Israel - Palestine conflict is not some obscure issue that rarely people think about. And the narratives on both sides are emotive and this blog’s archives could be used as testimony to that fact.

      A blogger who writes on Guardian - I believe it would be reasonable to expect that person to comprehend naming Arafat while not naming Rabin or Peres would be widely controversial. And, it would be reasonable as well to expect that the blogger would be aware of the type of discourse that would be generated following the publication of such a list.

      Maybe it was not with malice but a ploy to get more eyes on his blog - maybe it was a momentary lapse of reason - or a crude way to seek fame. I don’t know.

      But an innocent error - I would be happy to give The Guardian the benefit of the doubt but in case of the blogger - I think a case can be made that it was not such an innocent mistake.

      Like many others I believe the blogger fails the reasonable expectation challenge and therefore I conclude, which is an opinion, that it was a premeditated omission and I do know the meaning of the words I use.

    117. FlyingRodent — on 14th October, 2009 at 10:41 AM  

      Shamit, I don’t mean to be rude to you here, since you’ve made an effort to respond to the points I’ve made, but here’s what you’ve just said…

      The Guardian deliberately omitted these 3 names because a) I think it is unlikely that a data error would delete them all, because it just seems unlikely to me; b) because the author should have understood that Israel/Palestine is a serious issue, and thus should’ve spotted the error and c) because “a case can be made” that it was deliberate.

      Additionally, it’s possible it was done because the author wished to court controversy.

      Surely you can see that this amounts to a) it’s true because it must be true and b) they did it because they are bastards. It must be obvious to you that you’re just begging the question rather than constructing a coherent argument here?

      In all of this, I haven’t seen one argument that this was an intentional gambit by the Graun that rang true - not one single argument, in thousands of words, that amounted to a coherent explanation. Yet, loads of people seem to have formed the firm impression that this is conclusive proof of the Guardian’s racism. This is insane stuff.

      As a response to everyone bitching about this story - I’ve got plenty of time for the argument The Guardian’s coverage is unfair to the Israelis and biased towards the Palestinians, and I’ll consider each case on its own merits. What I’ve got no time for is the one being proposed by HP, Finkelstein, Phillips et al - The Guardian is a racist paper motivated to denigrate Israel by its anti-semitic resentment of the Jews. That argument is wildly different to the first, and requires near-conclusive evidence to be taken seriously. Anyone making that argument better pony up some proof, because extreme claims about clandestine plots against individuals and countries, asserted without supporting evidence, is called “conspiracy theory” and its adherence are almost always regarded as nutters.

    118. KB Player — on 14th October, 2009 at 11:44 AM  

      Yeah, I’m too lazy to read anything about databases etc but I’m more willing to believe in idle slackness at the Guardian than racist conspiracies that would be detected in three seconds. In fact even when there aren’t racist conspiracies they’re detected in three seconds.

    119. Refresh — on 14th October, 2009 at 1:16 PM  

      FlyingRodent

      I agree with all you say in #117. However, I have a much bigger concern, is this false outrage going to cow the Guardian into soft-soaping their coverage of Israel?

      That is where I fear this is intended to take us.

    120. Shamit — on 14th October, 2009 at 2:01 PM  

      Wow - again people not reading my comments - I did say it was an innocent error on the part of the Guardian.

      And please read my comments before you put words in my mouth.

      The outrage is quite real Refresh - imagine what you would have written if the Telegraph left out Yasir Arafat’s name.

      So please don’t be offended if I am not moved by these self righteous and very biased comments. And as far as my argument goes if you could logically argue then do it but spare me this bullshit about how everyone is opposed to Guardian.

    121. Refresh — on 14th October, 2009 at 2:26 PM  

      Shamit, all it would have taken was a note to said blog that there was a mistake. Nothing more.

      You run a reasonably sopisticated website, do you not recognise problems with processing data from table and databases is a real one?

      One of the problems with blogging is its a bit like rolling news, its done reasonably quickly and generally its not the blogger’s day job. Or hasn’t really been so far.

      I wish though you would read what is written. I am not interested in whether people are opposed to the Guardian - I am interested in people being honest about it. If errors are made, seek a correction. Don’t try to turn it into a www whirlwind.

    122. Refresh — on 14th October, 2009 at 5:51 PM  

      ‘The outrage is quite real Refresh – imagine what you would have written if the Telegraph left out Yasir Arafat’s name.’

      I would have written very little, but thought that it was typical of Conrad Black.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.