La British Press Complaints Commission ha approvato settimana scorsa la decisione di un editorialista del giornale britannico Observer, il quale ha annunciato in un articolo che non leggerà più lettere pro-israeliane se scritte da persone con nomi ebraici.
Secondo la commissione, la posizione di Richard Ingram è legittima.
La Commissione ha emesso il suo giudizio dopo le proteste presentate da alcuni lettori per un articolo scritto da Ingram in cui egli diceva che: "Ho elaborato un'abitudine per cui se ricevo lettere a favore del governo israeliano controllo da chi sono scritte. Se il nome della persona è ebreo non leggo la lettera". Ingram sostiene che per ragioni di trasparenza una persona che sostiene la politica israeliana deve rivelare se è ebrea oppure no.
Nel medesimo articolo, Ingram ha portato l'esempio di Barbara Amiel, giornalista e commentatrice di affari internazionali, moglie del propritario del Daily Telegraph Conrad Black, la quale ha criticato i servizi della BBC su Israele etichettandoli come pieni di pregiudizi. "Molti lettori del DT possono essere colpiti dai suoi ragionamenti" dice Ingram " ma essi dovrebbero sapere che la Amiel non solo è ebrea ma che suo marito possiede il DT e il Jerusalem Post. Ritengo dunque che la Amiel non si qualifichi correttamente per ciò che è".
L'articolo di Ingram ha sollevato un vespaio di critiche da parte del Board of Deputies, che riunisce alcune organizzazioni ebraiche inglesi. Il direttore generale, Neville Nagler, ha dichiarato. " So che un editorialista è libero di esprimere le proprie opinioni, ma è inaccettabile che egli rifiuti di leggere quelle di una persona solo perché il nome gli suona "ebraico". Se un ebreo decide di sostenere il governo israeliano non deve per questo essere considerato meno legittimato ad esprimere la propria opinione rispetto a chi ebreo non è. È molto preoccupante che un giornalista sia così deciso a vedere solo un aspetto di questo triste conflitto. Mi piacerebbe sapere se Ingram evita di leggere anche le lettere che appoggiano la causa araba solo perché il nome di chi scrive gli suona arabo".
L'Observer ha ricevuto una cinquantina di lettere di critica e protesta per l'articolo di Ingram, ma la Commissione ritiene che il giornalista non abbia infranto il codice etico, poiché gli articoli di Ingram sono chiaramente identificati come commenti, e dunque esprimono la posizione di chi scrive.
La Commissione è giunta alla conclusione che l'Observer abbia pubblicato l'articolo ritenendolo contro il Primo Ministro Sharon e non antisemita.
La Commissione aveva già respinto la protesta presentata dall' Ambasciata d'Israele per una vignetta contro Sharon apparsa sull' Indipendent. L'Ambasciata sosteneva che la vignetta contenesse elementi antisemiti, mentre la Commissione ha affermato che essa è legittima.
Altri editorialisti, soprattutto dell' Indipendent, hanno affermato che vi è nei media britannici troppa influenza di ebrei pro-Israele nella copertura dei fatti del Medio Oriente.
Il giornale israeliano Ha'aretz, da cui traiamo la notizia, ha chiesto a Ingram e all' Observer un commento alla vicenda, senza ottenere risposta.
fonte: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/325818.html
Last Update: 05/08/2003 09:56
UK press watchdog backs writer who won't read Jewish mail
By Sharon Sadeh
The British Press Complaints Commission last week justified an Observer newspaper columnist who announced in his column that he does not intend to read pro-Israel letters if they are signed by people with Jewish names.
According to the complaints commission, the position taken by the columnist, Richard Ingrams, is legitimate.
The commission's ruling came after a number of Observer readers complained about an article Ingrams published last month in which he said: "I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it." He argued that those who side with Israeli policy should say whether they are Jewish, for transparency's sake.
In the same item, which appeared in his "Diary" column, Ingrams also took Barbara Amiel, wife of Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black, to task for her criticism of what she termed the BBC's anti-Israel bias. "Many readers of the Daily Telegraph may have been impressed by her arguments, assuming her to be just another journalist or even, as she was recently described in another newspaper, an `international affairs commentator.' They might have been less impressed if the paper had told them that Barbara Amiel is not only Jewish but that her husband's company, in which she has an interest, owns not only the Daily Telegraph but The Jerusalem Post. In other words, when it comes to accusing people of bias on the Middle East, she is not ideally qualified for the role."
The article drew vehement responses from the Board of Deputies, the umbrella organization of British Jewry. Its director general, Neville Nagler, wrote into the paper: "I understand that columnists are entitled to express their views. But it is quite unacceptable to discriminate between people just because their name `sounds' Jewish. If a Jewish person chooses to support the Israeli government, this does not make his argument any less legitimate than a non-Jewish person's. It is deeply worrying that a journalist is so willing to blind himself to one side of this sad conflict. I would be interested to know whether Richard Ingrams discriminates against an Arab-sounding name supporting the Arab cause."
The paper also received at least 50 other letters regarding the article, most critical. But the Press Complaints Commission said it reached the conclusion the article was not a breach of journalistic ethics. Newspapers, the commission said, are allowed to publish one-sided views as long as they make a clear distinction between commentary, speculation and fact. The Ingrams article was clearly commentary, and no reader could have mistakenly thought that his view was the only one on the issue.
The Observer editors allowed the article to run because they believed that it was anti Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, not anti-Semitic, the commission concluded.
Stephen Pritchard, the readers' editor at the Observer, wrote on the issue that "the editor of The Observer is a member of the Commission, though, naturally, he takes no part in deliberations concerning the paper. He saw Ingrams's piece as an attack on the supporters of the current Israeli government's hardline policy on Palestine. `This was anti-Sharon, not anti-Semitic,' was how he put it to me.
"Ingrams' piece was inflammatory, but I cannot see how it can be viewed as anti-Semitic to oppose the policies of Ariel Sharon, any more than it is racist to oppose the policies of Robert Mugabe. That is not excusing the bigotry implicit in that opening paragraph. I agree with a reader who pointed out that Ingrams's piece displayed such a degree of prejudice against Jews that it will be impossible ever again to take seriously anything he writes about Israel.
"I put this to Ingrams, and this was his response: `From a logical viewpoint, I don't see how an article by me can simultaneously be guilty of prejudice against Jews but not anti-Semitic. Nor is it clear how a statement calling for Jewish correspondents supporting Sharon to declare an interest is indicative of bigotry. The fact that you yourself do not indicate whether your correspondents are Jewish merely confirms my view. I shall continue to write about Israel while bearing in mind that though you may not take me seriously there are plenty of others, including many Jews, who will.'"
The Press Complaints Commission rejected a complaint from the Israeli embassy three months ago about an anti-Sharon cartoon that appeared in the Independent. The embassy charged that the cartoonist used anti-Semitic motifs, but the commission said the cartoon was legitimate.
Other columnists, particularly in the Independent, have also been critical of the influence of pro-Israel Jews on British media coverage and policy toward the Middle East.
Haaretz asked Ingrams and the Observer to comment on this report, but they did not respond.
|