Kill Bush - The Guardian does it again!

These guys are class! Apparently the Guardian is a national, professional newspaper!

Paper sorry for 'kill Bush' line
A UK newspaper has apologised for an article seeming to urge the assassination of the US president.
The Guardian apologised for the "flippant" final lines of a Saturday column written by Charlie Brooker but added that the tone had been ironic.

"John Wilkes-Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr, where are you now that we need you?" the piece had asked.

The former two assassinated Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy while Hinckley wounded Ronald Reagan.

Regretting Mr Brooker's "flippant and tasteless comments", the paper said the final line of the article was meant to be an "ironic joke, not... a call to action" against George W Bush.

"He [Charlie Brooker] believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand," the Guardian said in its corrections section on Monday.

The newspaper recently annoyed residents of Clark County in the US swing state of Ohio by encouraging its readers to contact undecided American voters urging them to vote.

The quest sparked a flurry of offended replies telling Guardian readers to mind their own business.

The newspaper called an abrupt halt to the campaign after its website was broken into by angry hackers.
Interesting stuff. I have never read the fellow's column, so perhaps it really is "just his sense of humour", however, he should realize that asking for the US President to be assassinated is going to attract attention. Sims like a rather dim move to me.

As for the paper inciting folks to urge people in Ohio to vote, that doesn't seem so bad. But, were they encouraging to simply get out and vote or were they encouraging them to vote for a particular candidate? I don't think most Yanks would mind being urged to vote, even if it came from a foreigner. However, I would think that they would react very negatively to being urged to vote in a particular way - even if they were being urged to vote for someone they supported anyway. It is the US election and while it may have effects for the rest of the world, it is an internal matter and should be left to the US electorate to decide.

Just my .02, anybody else have thoughts on this one?

Excellent more canucks, that's what we need here.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) the good people of the Guardian decided to lecture yanks as to why GWB is such a world menace and that they would be remise, nay, condemned by the rest of the global community if they did not vote for Kerry.

how do ya think that went down in middle america

see the link!
Well, as far as advocating the vote, they clearly asked folks to vote against the administration, if not for Kerry. Therefore, they shouldn't be at all surprised that they were not only told to get stuffed, but were given clear directions on how to do it.
Plastic Yank,

Thanks for the welcome, I'm another one of the Jargonites, adrift here at ARRSE since the sinking of the good ship Jargon. Hopefully we'll get her floating again, but that remains to be seen.

Just taking my time and testing the waters here and trying to "get a feel" for the boards. But, it is very good of the folks here to welcome us to their board. So far, most things seem awfully familiar.

Regarding the link you provided, I would have to agree with the majority of our British cousins - telling Yanks how to vote will almost definitely have the opposite effect to that desired. Americans are fiercely independent and will not react well to being given "encouragement" from outside sources on how to vote. I'm rather surprised that this hasn't gotten more play over here, but who knows how much it was broadcast in the mid-West?
The Grauniad are the Fukcwits that encouraged people to email voters in the US asking them not to vote for Bush.

That went down well, too.

( Not. )
it appears that Brooker has no interrest in vacationing or travelling to the USofA anytime he just went to the top of the "don't let him in the country list" knocking Cat Stevens down a few notches. :D
well I doubt the average guardian reader has access to a sniper rifle
shame think politicans would be less keen on war if they got to dodge the occasional bullet :lol: .
Considering all the heads of states that members of the us
forums have suggested need killing they should chill out and develop a sense of humour .Its not like he is still going to be president for very long
is it :lol:
Right chaps, a little bit of perspective might be welcome here. Mr Brooker writes the TV columnn in the Saturday Entertaimnent Guide section of the paper, which is an A5 size booklet that is easily lost amidst all the advertising bumpff endemic to all papers. We are not talking about Front Page or editorial stuff here. He has a rather immature and excitable style of writing, and frequently makes daft comments, but taken in the overall context and style of the column it would take a pretty big leap of the imagination to see his comments as a real threat to POTUS.
I would also like to respectfully remind our friends from across the pond that succesive US governments turned a blind eye to Republican fundraising in the US, and has granted effective political asylum to convicted PIRA bombers in the past. Their threat to the Prime Minister and government of the UK? try these for starters..

a. October 1984
Bombing the Grand Hotel in Brighton, in an attempt to kill Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet.

b. February 1991
Mortar attack on 10 Downing street. in an attempt to kill Prime Minister John Major and his cabinet, as they met to discuss the 1st Gulf War.

And that is before you start listing all the others, ie Airey Neave MP, Ian Gow MP, Lord Mountbatten and so on...

True, this Brooker character is a tosser who has probably earned himself a little place in some TCA computer, but it really is not worth getting wound up about his little Column.

A more limp wristed response i have ever seen.

what exactly does supposed US government tacit support of PIRA fund raising has to do with some liberal t*wt (jokingly) bemoaning the lack of nut-cases to kill a president?

Not getting worked up by it, just find terribly amussing that a paper that is supposed to hold the moral high ground on (well everything according to Rusbridger) the current conflict seems to think that "war is bad and not a joking matter" but killing a president is?

oh and another thing, if you want to talk about support and fund-raising for PIRA then the Guardian has alot more to answer for than the US government (unless of course you are talking about the Kennedy's or Bill Clinton of course).
The instance of calling on readers to email US citizens came up in a TV report in Australia and, not surprisingly had the reverse effect to the aim. The spams went ballistic telling the Brits to Fukc-off or similar words. Quite right to.

Our own home grown pollies are well less than perfect and as for IRA support look no further than Ms Short and Co.

Latest Threads