The Hottest Potato 277


Taking on the Zionist lobby head-on is well nigh impossible.

I have written a stunning piece on Werritty, Israel and a neo-con plot to attack Iran. It contains information not published anywhere, even here. I have circulated it to several national newspapers, for each of which I have written many times. I have never had a piece refused before.

Several national papers have checked out my story factually and nobody has found a single hole in it. But nobody will publish it. I reproduce below every email I have received from any of these papers in reply. They show what a hot potato a serious anti-Zionist is – and I strongly suspect that the repeated inability of editors to make decisions which emerges from these emails shows they need on this subject to consult their proprietors.

The emails are given with the source removed and which is from which paper disguised, because I don’t wish to attack anyone in particular for this generic fear of the Israeli lobby, and also because I hope I may one day work for them again. In fact I still have not received an actual “no” from anybody – just a repeated batting off of the hot potato. The story is so good nobody can actually think of an excuse to refuse it, but they dare not accept it.

I think some of the individuals involved are ashamed. Each of the papers have had the article between five and ten days – which when you consider how the newspaper industry works, is an astonishing period in which nobody is able to make a decision.

“Sorry. … is the editor.”

“Just back in after being out most of day. Jury (i.e. editor) is still out on this one. I’ve spoken to …, and emailed him your copy. Will report back in the morning.”

“Dear Craig, sorry to have been slow back, but I’m on holiday. I’ve looked at your earlier email and can’t find the attachment you mention (of the long piece), but think I’ve got the basic idea. I’m no longer comment editor and don’t commission pieces, but would recommend getting in touch with …(who is comment editor, currently editing …) if you’re thinking of a comment piece. If it’s more news, then … worth talking to, or maybe one of the reporters who’s worked on the Werrity case. Let me know how you get on, all best,”

“Hi Craig OK, had some feedback from the editor. We can’t do anything on this this week, for various reasons. In an ideal world, we would like to hold on to it for another week. We would then have our politics team make some inquiries and then run your piece – or a version of it – alongside a news story on this particular issue (providing of course that our team can come up with one). Obviously there are quite a few ifs and buts here – we can’t guarantee that we will run the piece – so I completely understand if you feel that this is unsatisfactory and that you want to cut your losses and take it elsewhere. In that case, we’ll simply pay you the £200 we’ve already agreed and hope you will consider us again the next time you have something.”

“OK, thanks Craig. Will give you a call or drop you a line tomorrow.”

“I’m temporarily out of action- deal w …?”

“Well, we can pay £200 to hang on to it until tomorrow and then I’ll have to talk to the editor about what he wants to pay to run it but if we ran it at the length you sent it, it would be a minimum of, say, £1,500”

“Yes, there was talk of it on the Today programme as well.”

“Yes, sorry for delay in replying. The answer is we are interested in your piece. It’s too early in the week to say that we’re definitely going to run it. Can we sit on it for the time being and talk again late tomorrow? Naturally, we’ll pay you for the piece”

“Good stuff.”

“Hi Craig. Thanks for your email. This other meeting might allow us to take the story on and reprise a lot of the material which was left out of our original story. What do you think?”

“Hello Craig Thanks for this. Let me have a read and a think about it and then I’ll get back to you. Cheers”

“Craig Having now had a look at your piece, let me have a bit more time to think about it, would you? best wishes”

“Craig I’ve been out of town and offline until this morning. But I’m no longer comment editor, so I don’t commission any articles anyhow best wishes”

“Craig. As I mentioned, I am off this week. I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you on Saturday. I have handed your piece over to …, the Foreign editor, and recommended it to him. He is extremely experienced and will have its best wishes at heart as well as the knowhow to secure its place in the paper. I do hope he and you can make it work. With good wishes”

“Craig.. Thank you. I have read it and have now shown it to the editor. He is having a think. I’ll get back to you as soon as I know anything … ”

UPDATE

The banned article can now be read here


277 thoughts on “The Hottest Potato

1 2 3 4 5 10
  • Suhayl Saadi

    “You simultaneously harm these people and damage your own credibility.” Joe Templeton.
    .
    What an astonishingly patronising paragraph that was. There may be some content here with which one would – and (if you had ever bothered really to read) does – take issue. But your attempt to denigrate Craig Murray and all the variegated contributors to his blog, drawing on selected snippets, smacks of nothing more than vanity.
    .
    And what part of your work, may I ask, might be representative of your immense literary, communicative, or political skills? Can you demonstrate that you are ‘unharmed’ and therefore different and better? Or is a sign of being ‘unharmed’ simply that one backs everything the power structures say and do?

  • Joe

    Craig, give them a few more days and if they persist in their pusillanimity, publish it on your blog and I’ll do my best to spread it around a few sites with decent readership and included a note (with a link back to your post) that the mainstream media wouldn’t touch it. In that way, we might shame the msm into saying something about it. Not holding my breath on that last one though.

  • Komodo

    Sorry to stuff up your blog, Craig, but one of the sponsors of the Herzliya Conference 2011 was Tamares. Another familiar name in the context of Foxwerrity…Zabludowicz is its CEO…hope this isn’t getting into your article’s territory.

  • Ken

    Getting back to the Guardian deleting comments that tell the truth about Israeli pressure groups in the media and on politicians. I had a reply to my query asking why they were deleted. Basically it is accusing me of being an anti semite and posting hate speech. Here it is.

    Dear Harry,

    Your comments used anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish control of the media
    along with other over-generalisations about “the Jews”. Unless your
    comments cease to include what appears to be hate speech, your posting
    privileges will remain restricted or will be withdrawn, in line with points
    4 and 5 of our community standards.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/community-standards

    Best wishes,
    Sarah

    Moderator

  • Komodo

    At risk of using an antisemitic trope, I am wondering if “Sarah” is herself of the, er, well, you know, that faith? If so, I believe the word is “chutzpah”. There was a piece in the Guardian a few days ago stating its new policy on antisemitic tropes, and I got the impression that even mentioning antisemitic tropes is now considered an antisemitic trope.
    .
    Ronald Cohen, founder of Apax, which co-owns Trader Media with the Guardian Media Group, (in case you’d missed it), and whose property company Portland Capital, sharing palatial London offices with the extremely opaque “charity” Portland Trust, went bang a year or two ago, has been having discussions with the Big Society Government about the Big Society Bank…it’s the society which is big, not the bank,,,,
    .
    http://whoslobbying.com/uk/ronald_cohen
    .
    It’s all out there, hacks. All you have to do is look.

  • Bear

    Craig, this:

    “Stephen,

    I used to think you were a friendly and interesting commentator putting forward a different view, but now I realise you are just a troll. Of course the article is properly sourced, and it follows proper journalistic ethics, ie those criticised have been asked for their viewpoint. As I plainly stated, several national newspapers have fact-checked it and the facts are fine.

    Do you see a single querying of fact in the above exchanges? If there is a fear of libel – and nobody has ever sued me for libel, unlike for example convicted libellers Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes – the newspaper calls you in to go through it with the lawyer. I have been there many times before.

    This is nothing to do with libel or with doubted facts. Now stop being an obvious arse.”

    shows that you have seriously lost the plot. I expect that editors no longer wish to be associated with someone so evidently unbalanced. It would not be good for their credibility.

  • Bear

    “You really cannot see why papers think twice about publishing allegations of a covert Jewish plot to subvert UK foreign policy?

    The answer must lie in a ‘Zionist lobby’? (Part of the proof for which lies in the quality of your work: it is ‘stunning’, you say.)

    The journalist Matthew Paris once asked Enoch Powell if he felt embarrassed by those who became his supporters. Powell affected not to be: ‘I take the support I can get.’ On any serious analysis, this was an inadequate response – it may not have reflected Powell’s true view.

    As I observed in a previous comment, you encourage the readers of your posts – through a combination,
    inter alia, of your erstwhile access to information, and their obvious vulnerability – in various most unfortunate beliefs. (For example, posts above refer to Zionist censorship, sinister control of the Israeli lobby, Zionist overlords, and one even implies that an Oxford academic was murdered by, or with the complicity of, the UK government.) It is unclear what, if any, responsibility you take for this.

    It is very sad. You simultaneously harm these people and damage your own credibility. Bluntly, if any part of the establishment has sought to marginalise you, then you play into its hands.

    I will not trouble you again with my views. But I would invite you to consider them, in the spirit of good faifh in which they are offered.

    they are intended.”

    Spot on.

  • Komodo

    It would be good to see the article and judge for ourselves. The law of the land permitting. It doesn’t look as if the emails above are concerned that this might be an issue. Personally, I don’t think zionism has much to do with the matter. It is merely a convenient network for a lot of rich people with access to it and a wish to become even richer. I’m following the money.

  • Ken

    Yes it would be nice to see the article but I think Craig wants it in the main stream media and wants to get paid for it. I do not blame him for that he did the work.

  • njegos

    That Swedish journalist who attacked Assange was eager to link him to the son of the “anti-semite” Israel Shamir (so it’s not really about rape after all, is it darling?). I think the Guardian should be renamed The Witchhunter. It seems to have whole-heartedly devoted itself to the hysterical cause of anti-anti-semitism.

    Screw the MSM. Go for Counterpunch Craig.

  • Brendan

    It’s possible, I suppose, that The Guardian has been working on this story as well? And they can’t print Craig’s article because it interferes with – or is better than – their own investigations?
    .
    No, I don’t believe that either. Likely some senior editor has nixed it for political or ideological reasons. We should be wary of assuming The Guardian is our friend, just because the hacking story is good. It is good, but The Guardian is a liberal-establishment newspaper, and some of its sources – not to mention it’s journalists – have links to securitat, of that I am in no doubt. There is a curious mainstream belief that propaganda is something They do, whilst We of course are above such things. Or maybe there is no such wide-spread belief, and the existence of such a belief is propaganda in itself.
    .
    I’m depressing myself now. Whatever, all I know is that banker is now PM of Greece, without even a Soviet-style fake election, never mind an actual election. Thus we are left with little other choice but to consider conspiracies.

  • leonard

    Having been an avid reader of your blog since its beginnings I am much surprised that you would waste your time submitting stories to the main stream media (I don’t so waste my time on such readings and this is why I read your blog and others).
    I would respectfully request that you make contact with Russia Today (rt.com) and I do look forward to seeing you as a regular interviewee thereon. Also you could consider presstv.com and
    http://globalresearch.ca/

  • Kiwichris

    Re BarryR38 an al jazera not being as good anymore. He is correct. A Qatari prince has been put in charge just as the first of the “we must protect the poor citizens of Libya” protestations were made. The utter crap and pro nato had eminated from them after that make now no more reliable than the British Bullshit and Crap news service.

    As to there being no zionist lobby pressuring media, academia and Govts through out the western world to not criticise israel or zionists in general. whoever thinks that has obviosly just awoken from a decades long coma and has some serious catching up to do !!

  • CanSpeccy

    The Guardian is, incidentally correct in admitting to having published anti-Semitic statements, i.e., statements critical of Israel. Such statements come within the definition of the so-called “new anti-semitism”, which has actually been around since the 50’s when Abba Eban and others asserted that it was imperative to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.
    .
    I see nothing actually wrong with this, although as I have argued elsewhere on this blog, it is a decision that may come back to bite Israel, and Jews in general, since if legitimate, fair and factual criticism of Israel can be correctly labelled anti-Semitism, then there is no shame in being an anti-Semite, any more than there is shame in condemning US imperialism or British toadyism to Israel and the United States, etc.
    .
    Criticism of nations is an essential part of just about any political discussion. No one called the vilification of Saddam or of Gadhafi, anti-Iraqism or anti-Libyaism, it would have been simply silly to do so. Condemning anti-Semitism may eventually come to be seen as equally silly.
    .
    But in any case, as anti-Semitism is now generally defined, it seems a near certainty that your article on Werrity et al. comes within the definition of anti-Semitism.
    .
    What is bizarre is that the Guardian, and perhaps the rest of the British media, should give a damn about being anti-Semitic, which as that term is now defined, by no means necessarily implies dislike of jews as jews or holocaust denial or any of the reprehensible things that have been called anti-Semitic.

  • Felix

    Al Jazeera was to the fore in putting out fake,doctored and inconsequential videos at the start of the Libyan uprising all for the purpose of getting a no fly zone engineered,(and a relentless campaign of bombing), with the help in the UK of the the Henry Jackson Society. Shady outfit. Iraq, Libya – what’s the difference? Regime change is regime change. Why is everybody giving Cameron, Hague and his cronies an easy ride over this, not least the Guardian crowd?

  • Just George

    In my opinion, the reaction to your piece is a feather in your cap, and proves quite nicely that you’re a journalist, rather than a propagandist. Just to be sure I get to read it, please have the piece tattooed on your body so that, worst case scenario, it can be read off your corpse in the woods should those psychopaths get hold of you 😉

  • anno

    Joe Templeton

    ‘It is very sad. You simultaneously harm these people and damage your own credibility. Bluntly, if any part of the establishment has sought to marginalise you, then you play into its hands.’

    I have just come out of a battle with members of my family and their solicitor about a document relating to a will. It hadn’t been signed by one of the parties, so the solicitor suggested that I had tried to force someone to an agreement against their will. The adversarial system of UK law unearths the untrue and irrelevant, and impedes justice, rationality and peace.
    Keep lying until you convince them you are telling the truth, was the sad policy of the British in Northern Ireland, and they rightly replied, no truth, no justice.
    The UK has never considered justice to be relevant to itself, except what it can squeeze from weasel lawyers. I sacked one divorce lawyer on the grounds that it was already bad enough without him making things worse.
    So Craig, they don’t like you knowing, speaking, or revealing the truth. The conclusion of this week’s battle was that the said solicitor wrote privately to his client, ‘Of course he doesn’t know that we have found a copy of the document with your signature on it.’
    So, Mr Templeman, may I repeat the conversation I had with him?
    He said, ‘You’ve been to Oxford and Westminster School, WHY DO YOU PLAY INTO THEIR HANDS by raising these matters while they are under stress?’
    ‘Because if I don’t it may be too late’ I replied.
    ‘I realised that the boys I was at school with were deeply unethical at the time, and my opinion of them has worsened over the last 30 years. These same professional minds have bombed Muslim countries for a decade, destroyed civil liberties, and are about to destroy the NHS. They have gone from unethical to corrupt.’

    The fact is, that the internet has put a spanner in the works of English establishment lying technique. They are being carried off the pitch by the US and Israel, and if we keep up the pressure, they will admit defeat. That’s what the Zionists want, an excuse for the New Masonic World Order. There is a worse confusion to come after the existing system falls, but our success in destroying this one will give us hope for destroying the next.

  • craig Post author

    Thanks for the many suggestions on publication. I should explain that the article is written for a UK newspaper audience and presupposes a basic understanding of the Fox-Werritty affair and who these people are. If I start explaining the entire thing to a US audience – who have an entirely different civil service and lobbying culture – it will get very long and tedious. So the various US sites are not the best place for primary publication. I hope that international media will pick up on it and present and explain it to their particular audiences.

    Presuming nobody in the mainstream media grows any balls this weekend, I shall post the article on this blog on Monday (we do actually have a larger readership than some of the suggestions) with an appeal to copy and disseminate it was widely as possible.

  • Daisy

    I hate to appear to be quibbling when there are deeper issues of censorship, which I abhor.
    But I do wish we could get away from the words ‘anti-semite’ and ‘anti-semitism’ in the general context of use as here.
    Every time it is used you play right into the zionists hands and their victimhood.
    You recognise their right, as a specific racial group, to a claim to part of the middle east.
    The biggest anti-semites on the planet are the Israelis, few of whom are semites. They are caucasian from the caucasus regions around Georgia and Southern Russia. They are ‘jews’ only by the adoption of judaism some thousand years ago.
    By using the word anti-semite – the Israeli occupiers of Palestine’s favourite phrase – you confer a semite legitimacy on them they don’t have and which, the more known it becomes, damages their occupation among those who genuinely believe they do have some genetic or other claim to the Western part of Palestine.
    God, of course, never promised a savage tribe of central Europeans any part of that portion of the planet.
    We should be stressing that. Virtually every Israeli leader has been born an eastern European because that is what they are.

  • Wiz

    It is astonishing how a reference to a piece Craig has written about Werrity and Iran is hijacked by obsessives hereabouts who want to write about the Zionist conspiracy or similar bollocks. I haven’t got a handle on the whole Werrity thing yet. There have been suggestions he is gay and so is Fox, who just liked having him around. But then there are ideological suggestions, with Werrity being supposed to be a kind of right-wing Iago, which I don’t understand at all, because if Fox wants to be right wing he doesn’t need a Being There kind of character to make it happen. I don’t know, but Craig’s piece might seem to fall into this kind of paranoid conspiracy area, and I am not saying that is what the piece actually does, because I haven’t seen it, but newspaper executives might just consign it to that category, because they are thinking of the front page news piece they would have to write to back it up.

1 2 3 4 5 10

Comments are closed.