The Evening Standard has reacted in predictably pious fashion to the annoucement of Ken Livingstone’s suspension, dedicating over five pages of its tube-rag to the story. They even include a tear-stained article by the journalist supposably abused by Ken, dictating how hurt he was by the whole matter.
In my view Ken’s remarks were ill-considered, but let’s not have too much sympathy of the Standard. This after all is the newspaper that last year published an incorrect and inflamatory article about a Islamic bookshop, Dar Al Taqwa, claiming that it sold books and DVDs ‘advocating terrorism’ and ‘urging Muslims to wage a holy war by arming themselves with bombs and guns’. They printed a picture of the shop, the address of the shop and even the shop’s phone number.
Sadly for the Standard, the story was utter bollocks but that did not stop the shop’s Managing Director, Samir El-Attar, recieving personal threats and abusive phone calls, including threats to his daughter. Despite numerous contact with the newspaper, pointing out the inaccuracies in the story, the Standard refused to print an apology or even a correction to the story.
Thanks in no small part to the excellent website
The Friday Project, the Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint against the Standard, finding that the “extremly serious” allegations made by the newspaper were misguided and that “as a result of the article, abuse and threats of violence had been made against staff and it had been necessary to invoke police protection”.
Now what would you rather? A slightly worse for wear Mayor shouting abstact abuse at you about Nazi concentration camp guards or a major newspaper implicating you with terrorism and having your life and livelihood threatened?
simeonmccack@googlemail.com
editor[at]recessmonkey.com
Loading ...
The best argument against democracy is a free-press like ours.
Dr. Freling
Dr. Freling said this on February 25th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Behold the solidarity of the left!
The apology should have been made to the journalist not the paper. The newt’s comment were deeply offensive. I bet he wouldn’t have taken the piss out of a Muslim.
Red Ken is just another nasty little anti-semite communist, with a catalogue of other fundamental human flaws.
mbe said this on February 26th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Printing nasty lies is a dishonest press not a free press. Sadly this is typical of Associated papers, they have a long history of fascism.
Neil Harding said this on February 26th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
“Red Ken is just another nasty little anti-semite communist”
In the British context this is almost a unique combination of attributes. Even nice big anti-semite communists are a rarity nowadays.
Islingtonian said this on February 27th, 2006 at 2:22 am
I have no problem with a newspaper expressing its’ views, whatever they may be, but I have a major problem with one of my elected representatives making yet another blatant anti semitic remark. Our press has a wide variety of views and that is a healthy thing,I certainly don’t hear any of you complaining about the bias of the Independent or the Guardian so you have no right to complain about your perception of bias in the Standard.What you should all care very much about is a Mayor of London who has openly taken sides with one religious community against another religious community, that is clearly unacceptable in a democracy.mbe above is totally corrct about Livingstone and it is to the complete discredit of all you supposed anti racists who so veciferously support him that you continue to allow him to spread his unaccepatble anti semitic message without any comment whatsoever.
Matt said this on February 27th, 2006 at 6:38 am
“Jews must accept that freedom of speech is central to Britishness and should be preserved even if it offends people,” says Sir Trevor Phillips.
The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) said we should “allow people to offend each other”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752804.stm
Actually, if you follow the link you will find that he didn’t say ‘Jews’ … he said ‘Muslims’. It is a curious fact of modern life that a statement that may seem commonplace when applied to one religious group seems inflammatory when applied to another.
Perhaps it would be wiser to reflect on this, rather than ranting and name-calling.
Islingtonian said this on February 27th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Why do people persist in using the term anti-semitic? Hebrew and Arabic are both semetic languages (maybe farsi but i’m not certain), making the term descriptively incorrect. Can’t we just say anti jew?
As for Ken, he is guilty of bad taste and nothing more. In the initial exchange, Ken compared Feingold’s profession and tactics to that of an undesirable and badly looked upon profession, by asking if Feingold was a German War criminal. Then Ken went on, continuing the analogy with Germany, by stating that Feingold was like a concentration camp guard, and was hastling Ken because he was paid to (the Nuremburg defence) which Feingold went onto to confirm later in the conversation.
If Ken had compared the reporter to a traffic warden (not a well liked profession and one with which practioners often use the Nuremburg defence), then obviously this fuss would have not come about. In my opinion Ken went over the top, and should not have used such emotive examples, but all he is really guilty of is comparing the behaviour of Feingold to a that of a Nazi. This is bad taste, and not anti jew.
barry allen said this on February 27th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Christ, when did the comments box here get all earnest?
Matt, put down the thesaurus and back away from the keyboard.
Giles said this on February 27th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Free speech includes the right to abuse it.
I would call some of the comments on this page as anti-democratic.
What pisses me off is people putting their opinion as fact like ALL of the papers do.
Dr. Freling
Dr. Freling said this on February 28th, 2006 at 5:58 am
“What pisses me off is people putting their opinion as fact like ALL of the papers do.”
Errrr…. …. isn’t that the whole point of Blogs?
Matt said this on February 28th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Matt, you might want to look up and read the post. The post is all about a newspaper putting its opinion as fact to grave distress of all staff at the bookshop.
Also as they have not fully aloud Samir El-Attar his right of reply they still seem to think that what they have said is fact.
Dr. Freling
Dr. Freling said this on March 1st, 2006 at 6:38 am