The Guardian

Oh you're gonna upset our resident 'Guardian' flag waver ...he'll no doubt have a way of defending them ..

 

No need to defend them. It was clearly wrong and they've admitted that and withdrew it quickly. They also published an article outlining the history of racist cartoons drawing on Jewish stereotypes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/01/richard-sharp-guardian-martin-rowson-cartoon-antisemitism?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Compare and contrast with the constant stream of dog whistle racism in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph which is not even acknowledged, let alone withdrawn and apologised for.

 

It's another prime example of the usual faces only being outraged when it suits. In reality all sides of the spectrum have ugly elements.

Not really a great month for the Guardian. Even the response to Diane Abbotts letter was muted and almost reported in the lightest way possible.

 

Feel free to point out any examples of your accusations ...

 

Id be here all year. It's relentless.

 

One example from The Sun, this headline ended up with IPSO ruling against the Sun. Story was about 1 in 5 uk Muslims supported Jihad

 

Not sure an article from 8 years ago is the best example to be honest. It's not even really a "dog whistle" it's just a bit of a mess of interpreting a poll.

That's not to say its good journalism. It isn't. But I'm not sure it's "racist".

 

Seriously? It's clearly pushing a false agenda that a (massively inflated) number of Muslims in Britain support jihad and are therefore anti-British/undesirable. If that's not racist then nothing is.
It's a classic example of the dog whistle reporting that goes on in the right wing press. They know they can't come out and openly say what they would like to say -ie, 'we actually don't want these people in our country, even if they were born here, because they don't fit our conception of what it is to be British'. But they constantly feed negative/misleading stories about immigrants, asylum seekers and minority ethnic groups to feed the prejudices of their readers who also think those things. The uncritical reporting of Braverman's recent racist comments linking boat people to crime and un-British values, without a shred of supporting evidence, is a very recent classic example

 

How was the number massively inflated?

 

This is what IPSO said about it

The newspaper had failed to take appropriate care in its presentation of the poll results, and as a result the coverage was significantly misleading, in breach of Clause 1.

 

I know. I'd read the judgement. But I wanted to know what Offcomedun meant by inflating it.

 

This thread is the reason I don't purchase or read only one publication of news journalism due to their obvious bias. Having read both the Mail and Guardian of say they are both as bad as each other. Depends which way you lean politically as to which publication you find worse.

 

by inflating it probably by claiming 1 in 5 supported those going to join ISIS when the question just asked about those going to Syria, which would include those fighting on both sides as the question wasn’t specific, and people were going to fight on both sides.

 

I understand the flaws in the poll in that regard.

But I wouldn't say that was "massively inflating" it as most people going there - especially from the demographic they were asking the questions of - were going there to fight with, rather than against, ISIS.

But that's why I wanted to know what he meant rather than what the report said because they could be two different things.

 

Sorry, perhaps massively inflated was excessive. I should have stuck to significantly misleading. It's still an example of deliberately portraying Muslims in the worse possible light - eg the relentless focus on Asian grooming gangs when the vast majority of such crime is by white gangs, which is rarely, if ever, reported

 

So we let in invaders that throw anything that might identify themselves into the channel, I hope you lock your doors every night, is it right that we don't know who we are letting in, honestly .. ?

 

How was it misleading though? If the answer to the question is that they support people going to fight in Syria......or whatever the question was then its definitely clumsy and maybe slightly misleading but it's not wrong as such. It's poor journalism though to get yourself caught up in that sort of hyperbole though.

As for Muslim gangs isn't that because the UK is 80% White and about 7% Asian so the majority will be White. It is disproportionately Asian gangs though which is why it gets the focus.

But overall we're talking about specifics when the general outlook that there are constant dog whistles from the right wing media doesn't seem to stack up. They might portray things in a way that you don't like but that's a different thing.

As the Guardian have shown though, all the media is fallable but the mud seems to stick a bit harder for some rather than others.

 

No, it's far easier to determine what's right or wrong ...

 

Exactly ....