This morning Scott’s Daily Ablution examines the Guardian’s deafening silence:
Here are the points that the editors should be considering:
- In 2003, the BBC reported that the radical Islamist group Hizb Ut Tahrir “promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people.”
- The same report quoted an (understandably) “anonymous Muslim leader” as saying that, if HT was allowed to continue “polluting the youngsters’ minds,” there would be suicide attacks in London.
- In an attempt to mitigate the overly “pale and male” character of the newsroom, the Guardian hired a young Muslim reporter, unaware of his affiliation with HT – one which went beyond mere membership, including as it did his writing several articles for their mouthpiece magazine.
- The Muslim leader’s prediction was brutally realised on 7/7. A Guardian employee was among the dead.
- The young Muslim reporter is then given the opportunity to write a highly visible piece for the opinion page, in which he expresses anger at moderate Muslims who don’t “rock the boat,” and explains the bombings as a “sassy” expression of opinion.
- The Guardian editors are made aware of the reporter’s (continuing) affiliation with HT, which their own publication has called “Britain’s most radical Islamic group.”
- When pressed by another newspaper, they keep their statement on the subject to the barest minimum, not mentioning the situation at all in their own publication. The reporter continues working on terrorism articles.
Daily Ablution commenter Jonathan Boyd Hunt points out,
It seems that you might well have exposed another guardian subversive. Currently the guardian publishes copy from a former paid KGB “agent of influence” (South America specialist Richard Gott); a former Soviet Spy (political profiler Andrew Roth); a former money-launderer for the Libyans (Victoria Brittan); a forger of a ministerial fax (Peter Preston); and several other political staff guilty of criminal activities, including conspiracy to pervert the course of a parliamentary inquiry (see my website Guardianlies.com)
What media bias?