Back to the Grauniad, the bastion of journalistic integrity. Last week Mr S spotted that the newspaper had first uploaded and then quickly deleted a rather controversial 7 October review – about Channel 4 documentary One Day in October. Today the Guardian has issued an apology over the ‘unacceptable’ way in which the article blasted the film. Talk about a volte face!
The eyebrow-raising review sparked outrage after the writer suggested the documentary had depicted Gazans as ‘testosterone-crazed Hamas killers’, adding:
I am reminded of Cy Endfield’s film Zulu, with its nameless hordes of African warriors pitted against British protagonists with whom we were encouraged to identify. TV and cinematic narratives often work as othering machines in this way. At its worst One Day in October, if unwittingly, follows the same pattern.
All our sympathies are with relatable Israelis. A mother texting farewell messages as she dies from gunshot wounds. A girl sending cute pictures of her playing with friends to her mum, who is cowering in a toilet cubicle, hoping the terrorists she can hear breathing outside can’t hear her. By contrast, Hamas terrorists are a generalised menace on CCTV, their motivates beyond One Day in October’s remit.
But despite making the editorial decision to publish the piece in the first place, the Guardian allowed itself to be strong-armed by an online backlash, removing the article altogether. Now – almost a week later – the ‘world’s leading liberal voice’ has apologised for the article, noting:
A review of One Day in October, a documentary shown on Channel 4 about the Hamas massacre at the Be’eri kibbutz, was published on 10 October 2024. The Guardian considers the article did convey the harrowing footage and powerful survivor interviews and condemned the attack’s perpetrators. But the unacceptable terms in which it went on to criticise the documentary were inconsistent with our editorial standards. This was a collective failure of process and we apologise for any offence caused. The article has been removed from our website.
How curious. Given the Grauniad’s rather strange handling of the matter, Mr S certainly questions the ‘editorial standards’ deployed in the whole palaver…
Comments