We have all been profoundly shaken by recent events in Israel and Gaza. This latest conflict marks the start of a chapter that is likely to affect millions of lives, both in the Middle East and further afield, for years to come. With reporters on the ground, and others producing live blogs, videos, podcasts and photo essays as the story unfolds, the Guardian is dedicated to bringing you independent, fact-checked journalism 24/7. We appreciate that not everyone can afford to pay for news right now. That’s why we choose to keep our journalism open for everyone. If this is you, please continue to read for free. But if you can, can we count on your support at this perilous time? Here are three good reasons to make the choice to fund us today.
The above was appended to an article by the GB chief of UN aid, pointing out the obvious that they can't deliver aid while bombs and missiles are raining down from the skies. At first I thought I was reading a continuation to it -- sort of editorial statement of solidarity with his plea -- and then the penny dropped: they were slyly using the genocide of the Palestinian people and wholesale humanitarian crisis as a clever link into touting for contributions, hoping to pluck both the heart-strings and the wallet-strings of their readers in one fell swoop. What a clever thing to do! Well done, Guardian! For a split nano-second I thought you had developed a heart and a conscience and found what used to be called "ethics" and "integrity".Nearly had me there.
The Grauniad: home of Emma Brockes, Rory Carroll, Jonathan Freedland,
Posted by Morrissey on January 17, 2024, 5:04 pm, in reply to "Nice pitch, Guardian!"
Luke "The Spook" Harding, Nick Cohen, Marina Hyde, James Ball, Nick Davies.....
They were told about the religious subtext, they were petitioned, they discussed it among themselves weighing the pros and cons, then decided to publish it anyway. Even the Times refused. How can anyone even begin to take them seriously after that, on this subject or any other?
The nerve to put his name to this pathetic attempt to carry water for zionist maniacs, attack those bringing the graun's ethics into question (for shame!) and try to present it as a free speech issue! What a creep...
Why did the Guardian publish? I have reviewed the complaints and spoken either personally or by email to members of the commercial and editorial staff who made the decision.
The advertisement was booked through the Guardian US office on 1 August. The Guardian has no policy, published or otherwise, about the basis on which ads are accepted or rejected other than that contained in the terms and conditions of the contract.
While it was clear that the advertisement might attract a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, it was judged to be within their rules by the Guardian’s legal department, therefore the final approval rested with editorial.
After discussing the advertisement with some senior editors, Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, said that while it was very difficult, on balance he decided that it should run for the following reasons:
• Advertisers ought to be able to pay to place material in newspapers which the newspapers themselves disagree with or even deplore.
• He believed there was a strong argument in terms of freedom of speech “which is doubtless why the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New York Observer and Washington Post all printed it”.
• It’s in the name of Elie Wiesel, a Nobel laureate and considerable public figure.
• The claim that Hamas has been using women and children as human shields - thereby “sacrificing” them - has been made repeatedly on the Israeli side of the conflict.
• The advertisement was judged to be within the ASA guidelines.
He also said that the Guardian had traditionally always believed in giving people a voice in circumstances where other newspapers “would run a mile”.
“I think most Guardian readers expect that from us and appreciate it. We don’t agree with it [the advertisement], and don’t endorse it - like much of the advertising in the paper,” he said. Ad
“JS Mill said the best response to bad argument was good argument. It was useful to see how a hugely respected figure, Elie Wiesel, allows his name to be used in such advertising. But I am saddened that, for some readers, it appears that the amazing, brave reporting by Guardian journalists, staffers and stringers in Gaza, to get the suffering and news out of there, at risk to their own lives, counts for less than one advertisement - of the sort that allows us to do such reporting. So it’s a shame that the controversy over the advertisement eclipsed the unflinching work that the Guardian has done in being the world’s eyes and ears, including going to the hospitals where the injured and dead children were being taken.”Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/