The Guardian has apologised after a cartoon depicting BBC chairman Richard Sharp was criticised as antisemitic.

My maiden name was Green. (hundreds of thousands, if not millions with that name) I remember a friend from New York telling me that my original family name would probably have been Greenberg, Greenbaum or something similar. My father once remembered going to the East End with my grandfather for loks and bagels so there might have been some truth in her assertion. I suspect that if we dug back far enough many of us would find a Jewish person in our family tree. We are, after all, a very mixed group of people in the UK. And, as far as I'm concerned that's good.

My mum and dad had Jewish friends who had come over after the war but they were non orthodox and to a young child seemed no different from their other friends.
Politics were discussed a lot in my family so we knew the history.

At school non assembly attenders (or latecomers) went into a classroom and chatted, so its didn't seem a big deal. I think probably most of them were Catholics or continual latecomers. My family told me I could withdraw as they were atheists but I liked a good old sing. And I liked Psalm 23 very comforting which we chanted a lot.

Callistemon not sub-liminal anti semitism. A classic example of institutional racism

I was trying to give Rowson the benefit of the doubt, M0nica but no, he's not stupid. So inclusion of those symbols was most probably intentional. Perhaps he thought the emphasis would be on Johnson on the dung heap but it has misfired.

Just because all of a particular cartoonist's output is horrible aand disgusting doesn't preclude one ofhis cartoons being antisemitic as well.

Frankly that a cartoonist can draw such horrible cartoons and a paper thinks that they will entertain its readers, tells me all I need to know about the paper - and possibly its readers.

M0nica

Just because all of a particular cartoonist's output is horrible aand disgusting doesn't preclude one ofhis cartoons being antisemitic as well.

Frankly that a cartoonist can draw such horrible cartoons and a paper thinks that they will entertain its readers, tells me all I need to know about the paper - and possibly its readers.

!!!

M0nica

Just because all of a particular cartoonist's output is horrible aand disgusting doesn't preclude one ofhis cartoons being antisemitic as well.

Frankly that a cartoonist can draw such horrible cartoons and a paper thinks that they will entertain its readers, tells me all I need to know about the paper - and possibly its readers.

Well, not all its readers!

I read the Guardian nearly every day - along with dozens of other newspapers and websites.

It doesn't mean that I like everything I read in it nor any of my other reading material, for that matter. FWIW I also read the online version of the Daily Mail too because I'm interested in a different perspective and it gives insight into how people with different values from mine are thinking.

However, I don't like the style of cartoon which, in my opinion, mocks people's physical characteristics (or exaggerates them) or is unnecessarily cruel. I see them on the online version of papers but I don't usually click on them. If I do click on them, I don't take much notice of the details.

In the case of this cartoon, I saw it, clicked on it, read the words coming out of Johnson's mouth, thought "Oh yeah ... I know that" and moved on. I appreciate they're sometimes very clever, but they're just to my taste. I saw the picture of Sharp with his box, which is how people are often shown when they leave a job, noticed Sunak (whose grossly exaggerated nose nobody seems to have mentioned) but didn't take note of the octopus. It didn't occur to me that Sharp had been given "Jewish" features and I certainly didn't associate anything Jewish with any of his activities.

So, I object somewhat to being labelled anti-semitic for reading the Guardian.

just *not to my taste (typo correction)

grostuff if you are foolish enough to read across the media to get a wide set of views, you have to develop a thick skin. I read the Independent, Observer, Daily Mail and any other newsprint I can get my hands on I have learned to live with the constant opprobrium poured on DM readers and their politics.

It is those who read only papers that they agree with that i was referring to.

You need to realise that in these days those, like you and me, who are willing to read and consider peoples views across the political spectrum, are very much in the miority. Most people simple want to stay in the comfort zone of their own prejudices.

Monica that may have been what you meant, but it wasn’t what you said.

M0nica

Just because all of a particular cartoonist's output is horrible aand disgusting doesn't preclude one ofhis cartoons being antisemitic as well.

Frankly that a cartoonist can draw such horrible cartoons and a paper thinks that they will entertain its readers, tells me all I need to know about the paper - and possibly its readers.

Frankly that a cartoonist can draw such horrible cartoons and a paper thinks that they will entertain its readers, tells me all I need to know about the paper - and possibly its readers.

I think you might find that its readers are quite a mixed bag.

There's always an assumption - by some - that Guardian readers are all left-wing, anti-Capitalist and rather 'bolshie'. Having at one time been very active on the comments section, it's quite clear that there is a range of opinions and political leanings. One of the reasons why I continued to contribute - because it wasn't an echo-chamber.

You can't assume that a Guardian reader is tainted by the fact that he / she reads it - I'd imagine that among its readership there are those who were also appalled by the cartoon.

Rowson's cartoons are frequently graphic and often savage. Visually, they can be considered "disgusting" - but I'm not quite sure in what sense you're using that word. Some of the 'events' that the cartoons are attacking - particularly all the recent government sleaze, could also be thought of as "disgusting".

I'm not defending Rowson - I saw the antisemitic tropes, too, but I think condemning the Guardian's readers on the basis of that cartoon is misguided. In other words, the readers are not a homogenous group.

Most of any newspaper's readers will read nothing else. If you read a paper as one of many you are in a tiny minority and you just develop a thick skin and ignore any comments about readers of specific papers.

As I said I read the DM and just ignore the comments people make about the paper and its readers.

No comments on a something like GN can possible do a deep analysis of all the different social groups etc that read a paper and craft a reply that differentiates between each and produces an appropriate reply. The majority read nothing else. I need go no further.

What you’re saying just isn’t borne out by the evidence Monica. Here’s a summary of the readership/viewers for news. Most people are clearly reading and viewing more than one news outlet, and more than one newspaper.
pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-uk-monthly-2/

M0nica

No comments on a something like GN can possible do a deep analysis of all the different social groups etc that read a paper and craft a reply that differentiates between each and produces an appropriate reply. The majority read nothing else. I need go no further.

I don't think it's necessary to do a deep analysis. But where do you get the information from that tells you that most people only read one newspaper and nothing else? That might have been true when news was only in print but it's now so easy to flit between different news outlets online.

But the point I was making was that the readership of the Guardian cannot all be shunted into one box - and I know that from my years of discussions with various readers when we were commenting on the paper's articles.

Thanks for the link Casdon. My family and friendship group all read a number of newspapers, including the Guardian, Times, Telegraph, the I and of course the D M on line
If I could be bothered, I’d feel offended by being dismissed as a leftie Guardian reader

The discussion was about newspapers.

M0nica

The discussion was about newspapers.

I know, if you add up the readership figures for the newspapers it comes to over 200 million.

Casdon

M0nica

The discussion was about newspapers.

I know, if you add up the readership figures for the newspapers it comes to over 200 million.

Including internet readership, correct?

I read internet, many newspapers/magazine, not paper copy.

I prefer many news sources/ different views, and NYTimes.

Norah

Casdon

M0nica

The discussion was about newspapers.

I know, if you add up the readership figures for the newspapers it comes to over 200 million.

Including internet readership, correct?

I read internet, many newspapers/magazine, not paper copy.

I prefer many news sources/ different views, and NYTimes.

Norah the 200m was just newspapers, so it’s much more than that if you include online news channels as well. I think most people do now get their news from a wide variety of sources. It’s much easier than it’s ever been before to read about a piece of news from lots of perspectives.

I'm a regular Guardian reader and I'm appalled by the disgraceful cartoon. It was clearly anti-Semitic and racist. But I have been worried over the past few years that the Guardian tends to the far Left and I suspect the far Left of being anti-Semitic. The Labour Party has had its troubles in a similar vein but of course racism is not the prerogative of only the far Left.

When I first looked at the cartoon I was unaware of any anti-semitic tropes. I then learn that cephalopods fall into that category because Jewish people don't eat them apparently. I didn't know that either. I was pleased to learn that because of the recent papers/articles/programmes which have been showing how intelligent these creatures are. More of us should be thinking about not eating them. I tried squid once and found it rather rubbery so haven't eaten them since.

Grantanow - you aren’t alone in believing the guardian appears in thrall to the far left

The Guardian is no way far left, much more Liberal. They were very much against the previous Labour leadership who were left wing.
They are lukewarm about Starmer now, having previously supported him, and very against the current Tories, but certainly not far left.

I would never describe The Guardian as far left, but it started life as a great Liberal paper, which having its roots in imdustrial Manchester in the early 19th century. However it has strayed some distance from that basis.

It is currently to the left of the i.

The Guardian may have pretensions to be a Liberal newspaper given its history but I find many of its journalists have far left views. Although I condemned the antisemitic cartoon I did find the portrayal of BoJo surrounded by waste bins labelled Friends, Family, etc., quite to the point. Though there should have been extra bins for Red Wall voters, Benefit Scroungers, Asylum Seekers and Civil Servants. Hopefully he will be in a bin of his own after the Privileges Committee report.

I agree that The Guardian has gone very far left.