UPDATE: Discussion on the Guardian: Should we take the legal or statutory route to get a fair hearing for Israel in the UK?
UPDATE to this entry:
Many thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. I have no intention of going to court with anyone unless it comes to a clear case of personal denigration. I guess my point in raising this subject was to try and get a sense of what readers think to be the best course of action when one’s arguments are misrepresented and the media outlet in question refuses a right to reply. The fact is, of course, that both Antony Lerman and the Guardian have made fools of themselves by their behaviour.
They have shown themselves to be incapable of meeting basic standards of fair dealing with the arguments of someone who does not share their policial views and prejudices. That says a lot about them and very little about me and my arguments. They are frightened and weak and have revealed themselves as such. In the end, that damning indictment is something they have brought upon themselves. Let the matter rest there…
—————————-
Let me say from the outset, that as a former journalist I am instinctively opposed to the use of legal or statutory remedies to sort out disputes in the public domain. Bad arguments, even hateful and defamatory arguments are best met with better arguments not with recourse to the courts. But what happens if your right to reply is refused? What happens if you are cut off in a broadcast and your character or motives are impugned? What happens if you are left with the choice of taking it on the chin and getting no redress or taking action?
I do not know the answer. But since publishing A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel a couple of weeks ago, I have personal reasons for wanting one. Of course, this is not simply a problem for me. Many others have suffered abuse and misrepresentation for calling for a more reasoned approach to Israel.
It is in the interests of the wider issue, therefore, that I offer an account of the way I was treated in today’s Guardian and then by its editorial team which refused my request for a proper response to a wholly distorted rendition of one of my arguments. This was compounded by implied defamation in the comments section.
I would be grateful for thoughts in my own comment section below as to what readers think, both about the case in point and the broader question of what to do about it. (There is another pertinent issue which would add to the discussion involving LBC Radio but it is now in the hands of the UK’s broadcast standards commission, Ofcom. I cannot, therefore, comment at this stage.)
Since it is impossible to be objective about a case involving oneself, I offer the following version of events from Cif Watch, an important new website which monitors anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic articles and remarks on the Guardian’s Comment is Free (Cif) website.
The link to the Cif Watch piece is below. Please click through to read it and familiarise yourself with the site and then comment both there and here as you please. All views are welcome:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Robin Shepard.
Comment is (Free) is not free. Discussion there is distorted so as to fit the GWV. (Guardian World View).
When I write CIF, I write CI(F) as do many others.
The site has become a terrible distortion of what CP Scott probably would have envisioned for his newspaper. A major part of it’s ‘presentation’ is the obsessive demonetization of the Jewish state,Israel and it doesn’t surprise me in the least that a platform for reply was refused.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Robin, Lerman writes such self-serving drivel, frequently pre-accusing all defenders of Israel, as “playing the anti-semitism card” that I am not sure he is worth challenging.
By misrepresenting your book, he is showing that his populist agenda overides any journalistic integrity, and he should be called on it. You attempted this and were not given a chance to respond.
However Robin you are not the first and will not be the last to be totally and utterly misrepresented by CiF. It reminds me of some of the backlash to Howard Jacobson’s beautiful article in the Independent, and this comment in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/26/carylchurchill-antisemitism-jacqueline-rose
Jacobson v clearly articulated why Caryl Churchill’s play was not legitimate criticism of Israel and he was slaughtered by readers for allegedly equating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Of course he did nothing of the sort.
My point? It doesn’t matter how good your argument is (at least Jacobson was permitted to respond) people have made their minds up.
btw did you try to leave a comment after the article?
Robin Shepherd says: Neil, thanks for your comments. The Cif team said I should leave a response in the thread. But this was just a way of avoiding a full response. The original article will be read by 100 times more people than the readership of the comments below it. But don’t worry this will not be allowed to rest….
October 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Lerman writes nonsense. As someone pointed out under his article, he represents not self hating Jews but self loving ones. For him to quote only the subtitle of your book, shows him up for what he is…
As to the Guardian, I have now been effectively banned from posting to its Comment is Free section. They haven’t said so explicitly but just pre moderate all my posts, which then disappear without trace. There seems to be no doubt that the Guardian is sinking into a parody of its former self. Why is it lately so prescriptive and frightened of allowing reasoned free speech on its pages and at the same time, permitting some pretty vile racist comment. (See CiFWatch for details).
Should you go to law? Not sure. You’ll need a fighting fund of course and its possible this will become a cause celebre, but might it backfire? It may of course get lots of publicity for your new book so clearly that is a factor.
I was always taught never to go to court for a principle – only the lawyers win. However, if it notches up some more healthy book sales and brings to light the sinister new nature of the Guardian, I wish you luck.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Seems to me that Lerman’s and then the Guardian’s treatment of you is the most powerful possible endorsement of one of the theses in your terrific book: that the ‘radical Left’ is so anxious to traduce Israel that truth and normal civility are trampled underfoot.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I agree that Lerman writes nonsense, but the Guardian World View as is interpreted by CiF requires that its readership believes at least sixteen nonsensical and impossible things before breakfast, particularly about Israel/Jews.
They are a thoroughly reprehensible bunch, CiF’s house Jews. They are the sort who would auction their grandmothers on ebay if they could get a good price.
cityca, I was banned from posting on CiF long ago and I am very glad to see the growth in popularity of CiFWatch, the development of which I have noted with great interest.
To have to resort to the law in order to be afforded freedom of expression is an indictment of Comment is Free and its editorial staff as well as outrageously costly in financial terms. I note that this shameful deprivation of your right to reply has been referred to by Jonathan Hoffman on CiFWatch.
Jonathan Hoffman has adopted the right course to “name and shame” the disreputable and morally bankrupt CiF there.
And I have ordered your book, Robin. I hope you will sell many, many copies.
MITNAGED
October 5th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Hi Robin
I’m greatly enjoying your new book which I’m part way through at present.
Lerman’s description of what you write about the self-hating Jew concept is obviously a travesty of what you actually say. But in what way exactly could you take to the courts to get redress? Pardon my ignorance, but what laws are we talking about here and how precisely would you go about trying to enforce them?
Regards,
Jonathan
October 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
cityca wrote: “As someone pointed out under his article, he represents not self hating Jews but self loving ones.”
Don’t be shy cityca, quoting from classics must be making you proud – this someone was me.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I have found from experience that the Press Complaints Commission is useless when it comes to antisemitic discourse.
However if the content of a book is patently misrepresented in a way that defames the author, I would think that author (that is, you) has a case.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
From Walter Scott’s “My Native Land”
“The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.”
You should accept his despicable utterances as a mark of distinction. I would feel sick to the pit of my stomach if an individual like Lerman liked me and said nice things about me. This is the price you will pay for defending the Jewish people and the State of Israel. The mamzerim on the left will give you no quarter. They have a hatred for the Jewish state that is beyond all reason and can only be explained by reference to that certain tricky problem that has bedevilled Jews for centuries. And do not be surprised that a particular type of Jew provides cover for the haters for we are well acquainted with them also. From the Jews who gave evidence against their brothers and sisters during the Spanish Inquisition to men like Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski during the Holocaust they have brought much misery and death to our people.
Be of good cheer, however, for the vile few, those Jewish traitors, are hated beyond measure by the vast majority of us. And, in a hundred years time, our descendants will see these people in the footnotes of history books and will offer up that age-old Jewish curse: “May they be blotted out of the book of life.” On the other hand, for the righteous – the Shepherds, the Boltons, the Fallacis – there will be many prayers and much praise. Given that, a lie or two and a little ignominy in the pages of a hateful newspaper like the Guardian is really not very much at all.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Robin – I’m halfway through your marvellous book and enjoying it very much. In fact I’m dreading reaching the end!
I know nothing of the legal options available, but would tend to agree that they should always be a last resort. Maybe some more reputable newspaper than The Guardian would be interested in giving you a well-deserved platform?
My take on the Lerman affair over at CiF Watch:
The term ‘self-hating Jew’ is perfectly adequate in my view. We are witness to a rise in the numbers and vocal protestations of such people precisely because of the rise in anti-Semitism over the past few years. As anti-Semitism becomes more widespread and mainstream, those interested in saving their own skins by the process of assimilation will always be in a hurry to distance themselves from the subject of hatred. They accomplish this by stating ‘Look! I am not like them; I do not posess the qualities which you revile and hate!’. They are in fact reacting to the stereotypes inflicted upon their race.
Both Lerman and Goldstone are in fact saying to the world that they personally belong with the ‘civilised’ West which disapproves of war and killing. They wish with all their hearts to distance themselves from those ‘uncivilised’ Eastern Jews in Israel who engage in such practices.
Let’s not forget either that the Left has never been able to come up with any sort of solution to anti-Semitism: from Lenin onwards the Left’s prescription has been that the Jews must assimilate in order to avoid persecution – i.e. Jewry must obliterate itself in order not to be oppressed.
Assimilation is of course the satisfaction of bigots by becoming un-Jewish; it is giving up the fight against anti-Semitism.
Much of the Left seems to adopt this stance not only at a personal level, but prescribes the same ‘solution’ for the Jewish state too; a one-state solution would be the equivalent of assimilation at a personal level – a rejection of Jewishness.
Fortunately, there are enough of us who are proud of our identity to negate the pernicious effects of those Jews who reject theirs.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I am afraid I’ve no suggestions on what to do about it, beyond what you and CiFWatch are doing already.
Your story reconfirms not just the insitutional bias against Israel among the CiF team, but the contempt they have for their own readers.
I wish you well, Robin. Your work is brilliant and I’ve heard nothing but good about your book, which I will buy and read.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Robin, you are doing an excellent job in exposing the bigotry, ignorance and arrogance that forms the distorted prism through which the liberal-left view the Middle East conflict, and the propagandised agenda of the Guardian. I’ve stopped reading the paper – I used to buy it! – so I’m not aware of the critic who ‘reviewed’ your book.
I’m reading A State beyond the Pale at the moment and am enjoying your well-articulated and discerning arguments that pack an intellectual punch against the moral myopia and institutionalised bigotry inherent in the narratives peddled against Israel. For this reason I’m sure you’re not surprised by the way the Guardian has reacted to your book.
By siding with, and defending the Jewish State of Israel, you have become the antithesis of the values that the modern, progressive, humanitarian, peace-loving anti-Semite holds dear – just as the Jew has always been the antithesis of the moral and political principles constituting the anti-Semitic mindset throughout the ages. This is why the Guardian refuses your right to reply and denies you the basic courtesies of civilised behaviour that it would grant to others. They believe you don’t deserve it. You yourself are beyond the pale, and that is why I admire the courage of your convictions and the principled stance you have taken in the defence of truth and justice.
Whether the law could be used as an instrument to promote your cause is another matter, but as a matter of principle I believe you should fight your case to be heard and force the self-righteous Guardian editors and their readers to recognise the moral legitimacy and intellectual validity of your arguments, so long as the battle doesn’t cause you personal financial hardship.
However much the Guardian will denounce your views and censor your counter-arguments, you are a modern incarnation of what Jews would call a righteous person amongst the nations. I sincerely wish you all the best and look forward to finishing your book.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Lerman says the book is “thoroughly wrong-headed” without saying more!
The adjective ‘anti-intellectual’ would flatter such ‘argument by assertion’. Jonathan H (Comment #4) is spot-on.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Robin, what else would you expect from the Guardian and Lerman? And you are surprised they don’t play fair, just lie, and don’t give you an adequate right of reply? Of course the anti-Semitic Guardian is going to hate your book, and lie about it. What else is the Guardian, being the Guardian, going to do? Other than ignore your book, if they were going to mention it, as they did, it would obviously be in the dishonest way that Lerman did it. You should take it as a compliment, the Jew-hating Guardian doesn’t like Robin Shepard and what he has to say, well good for you!
A legal battle will only benefit the lawyers, and you will get bogged down in endless to-and-fro legalese nonsense. The Guardian readership will continue to believe what the Guardian tells them to think, no matter what, and those who ‘get it’ on the Middle-East will see the lying insults you receive from a source like the Guardian as counting in your favour. In fact I would consider selling the fact that you are persona non grata with the Guardianistas as part of your book promotion if I were you.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
peterthehungarian
Ani mitstaer. No insult intended – I always enjoy (and recommend) your posts on CiF.
I too wish you well Robin and from the recommendations here, I’ll be buying your book this week.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:38 am
Remember – Robin will be discussing the book in London on 21 October (see ZF website) and in Manchester on 9 December.
Signed copies will be on sale at well below the cover price.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:19 am
cityca
nothing to mitstaer, my post mirrored only my underdevelopped and childish ideas about humour.
In Israel Robin’s book can be ordered at any outlet of the Steimatzky chain.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:08 am
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/06/enforcing-the-gwv-through-misrepresentation-addendum/
I have added an addendum to yesterday’s CiFWatch article – it sets out in more detail Lerman’s misrepresentation of Robin Shepherd’s book.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/06/the-guardian-lerman-and-shepherd/#comments
Harrys Place has picked up this saga
October 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Mr. Shepherd, I have nothing much to add to all the good advice and complimentary comments from the other posters here. Just my own kudos and blessings on your brave stance and staunch defense of Israel in the face of such hatred and lies.
I agree with Israelinurse in comment #10 who said “Maybe some more reputable newspaper than The Guardian would be interested in giving you a well-deserved platform?”. Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle, the Jerusalem Post or even the Daily Telegraph would agree to host an article of yours in response?
Peter the Hungarian, thank you for advising re Steimatsky. I didn’t know one can order directly from them. I will be heading their way forthwith.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Robin, you have my full support – don’t let them get away with it! I’m going to buy your book tomorrow – I think that’s the best answer to the hate-mongers at the Grauniad.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:18 am
And Robin, Kol hakavod to you, but I would hate to see you going down the defamation route, not only for practical reasons speaking as a lawyer, but for reasons of principle which I and others like DavidT have expounded on many times on Harry’s Place.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Aside from the whole Jewish issue, there was Lerman’s inability to understand issues in response to your point on Night Waves on Radio 3 about how only a minority of people in Europe declared there readiness to go to war to uphold justice. All he could do was babble that we don’t do that anymore, we are all multilateralists now, as if those were mutually exclusive.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I am amazed that there appears to be either no statute against hate speech, or support and encouragement of hate speech that could be used in the UK to bring the Guardian to heel. Somewhere out there there must be a British Dershowitz, smart enough and aggressive enough to use the enormous amount of documented evidence collected by Hoffman, available on CiFwatch and other blogs, and some wealthy people to fund the effort to clean up the Augean Stable that the Guardian has become.
While you could probably not make a case that the paper itself writes articles that could be defined as hate-speech, there is no doubt that it provides a welcoming home for those who do on the main pages and in CiF. On CiF itself the anti-Semitism of some commentators is almost unbelievable – their names are known to regular readers, and listed at CiFWatch.
I am noticing more frequently that the moderators are now not only deleting certain comments, and leaving their trademark “this comment was deleted”, but there is more frequent use of the ability to make comments simply disappear, as if they were never there. This is, I think, a pre-emptive effort by the Guardian to try to avoid prosecution for allowing hate-speech to appear on its site, so they must be aware of how thin the ice on which they are skating is becoming. As everyone should know, in fact anything that has once been stored on electronic media can be recovered, and the mere cost of forcing the Guardian to recover that “lost” information under whatever the UK equivalent of a subpoena is would be enough to cramp their style quite considerably.
The “disappearance” of comments is also apparently an attempt to promote the GWV (Guardian World View) by hiding the number of objections to the incessant anti-Israeli articles and the increasingly sieve-like appearance of the I/P threads, where up to 25% – 30% of the comments are deleted (mainly those of Israel’s supporters). In addition, the increasing number of “banned” (shades of Apartheid!) pro-Israeli posters is an attempt to present a false picture of support for the GWV by simply sending those who disagree to the Gulag.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Robin,
I bought and read your splendid book. I particularly admire it for its scrupulously fair tone and its insightful conclusions. It should come as no surprise that it was misrepresented in a review embodying the addled mindset which you had identified.
Sloppy thinking, careless writing and the use of loaded terms are the stock in trade of modern journalism, both in newsprint and in the broadcast media. Might I suggest that the decline to this present sad state of affairs be the subject of your next book?
You will need a case study, and what could be better than a history of that once-great newspaper The Manchester Guardian? Please put my name down for the first copy.
October 10th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/08/enforcing-the-gwv-through-misrepresentation-addendum-2/
My second ‘Addendum’ pulls apart Lerman’s second misrepresentation of the book………. and if he tries it again, there will be a third ..
October 11th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Robin, before going to law (where you will hit a few problems), you might want to consider making a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. See website: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
Their remit:
“The PCC deals with all editorially-controlled material in UK newspapers and magazines (and their websites). This can include:
Readers’ letters
Edited or moderated reader comments on newspaper and magazine websites.”
How effective they are I don’t know, since I have not had any cause to complain(yet). But quite clearly your book has opened up a huge debate on terms that opponents are not prepared to engage in. As you clearly have shown, anti-Zionism is not a polar opposite of Zionism. It is something else and those who claim differently will find it increasingly uncomfortable. That is why they have shied away. Your book is a brilliant deconstruction of the anti-zionist cause and since what you are arguing is anti-mainstream, is refreshingly subversive and an exciting and long awaited response to this dandruff-ridden discourse. I wish you well and am recommending your book.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:19 am
How true your words are Another Joshua. Of course this is ‘why they have shied away’. The subject of Robin’s book is surely one of the ethical issue of our time and their ‘political philosophy’ is embarrassingly weak. A strong case would welcome the challenging points made in this brave and honest contribution to the debate. The author accepts there may be disagreements with his personal assessment of things but the response has been a barrage of low blows, ad hominem remarks and less than evidence-based attacks. So what else is new in the world.
@the other Joshua: Good to see more poetry in the Comments section. Here’s a poem by a pacifist that has the words ‘Israeli’ and ‘Palestinian’ in it.
http://www.poetrysoc.com/content/publications/website/poems/adrianmitchell/