Scottish daily the National is known for its inimitable approach to journalism. The mainstream media bombards SNP ministers with impertinent questions about missed NHS targets, widening attainment gaps, and delayed ferries. The National, on the other hand, does proper reporting, like its front page denouncing the inclusion of Reform on a Question Time panel, the hard-hitting coverage of a Tory politician’s quip about Nicola Sturgeon’s hairdo, and an uncompromising expose on a Labour candidate’s ‘deeply disrespectful’ attitude towards the Gaelic language. While other newspapers fixate on the actions of government, the National is out there bravely holding the opposition to account. This is the lifeblood of democracy: journalists willing to stand up to those in power and tell them, in no uncertain terms, that they’re doing a marvellous job.
The National must have some kind of early-warning system for incoming criticism of the Scottish Government – the Treason Tracker, perhaps?
Lately, however, the paper has taken a keen interest in the Middle East, where the world’s only armed conflict is currently taking place. It’s fair to say the National isn’t entirely enamoured of Israel, and it was happy to see Scottish first minister John Swinney accuse Israel of ‘genocide’ and announce that Scottish firms which manufacture defence parts used by the IDF would no longer receive government grants. As I have written about elsewhere, representatives of Scotland’s tiny Jewish community expressed disappointment that Swinney had done so two days after meeting them to offer ‘warm and reassuring words’. Since then a group billed as Scotland Against Antisemitism has circulated a petition warning the Scottish government that its inflammatory language on Israel could put the local Jewish community at risk.
The National must have some kind of early-warning system for incoming criticism of the Scottish Government – the Treason Tracker, perhaps? – for its intrepid reporters swung into action and contacted Scotland Against Antisemitism demanding that it account for itself. According to the paper’s write-up of its investigation, it discovered that this ‘obscure group’, about which ‘little information is available publicly’, was headed by Leah Benoz, who described herself as ‘simply a Jewish mother living in Scotland’. A Jewish mother? Rather you than me, guys. I’m not phoning anyone guaranteed to guilt me with: ‘You can find time to call me but not your own mother?’
Benoz sounds like an ordinary mum who started an online petition, and, sure, branding her efforts ‘Scotland Against Antisemitism’ is maybe a bit grandiose, but no harm done. The National, however, lists in its story the questions it posed to Benoz, which is a useful insight into how its journalists think about a Jewish group raising the alarm about anti-Jewish racism. Here are their questions:
‘Who is involved with the group? Is it a solo outfit for director Leah Benoz? Is her position paid? Is Scotland Against Antisemitism a membership organisation? If so, how many member does it have? Is it affiliated with other Jewish groups such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism? Does it have a corporate identity, for instance, is it registered with the Scottish charity regulator or listed on Companies House? Does the organisation make any money? If so, what are its revenue sources?’
It doesn’t take the wit of Solomon to figure out what they’re getting at. (And thank goodness for that, since his reign over 10th century BCE Judea makes him the original illegal settler.) The National having stumbled into the practice of journalism, I’m loath to discourage their investigative rigour, but I would like to pose a few questions of my own.
When has the National responded in this manner to a group raising awareness of bigotry against a religious or ethnic minority other than Jews? Does it routinely ask Muslim-led groups campaigning on Islamophobia to disclose their financial arrangements or affiliations with other Islamic organisations?
When did it last challenge activists against anti-black or anti-Asian racism about their salaries, Companies House information, or revenue generation? If its answers to these questions are what I suspect they are, has it stopped to ask itself why? Why are other minorities’ allegations of structural racism or unconscious bias met with sympathetic coverage but the allegations of Jews confronted by interrogations of motive and financial gain?
Why is that?
Comments