Jews are being framed by the media/Hezbollah

[ursusmissoulus]

For the record, it's mostly you bucko. Never did appreciate a snob, much less a bobkitten snob. And your percentages are off. You should know since you are at Egriz 24-7. :laugh: If you keep it real and not be such a snpb I'd be OK with that.

Actually, you just don't like anyone that disagrees with your political views. You have proven to not have any problem at all with someone being a snob or being condescending (as witnessed by the plethora of conservative posters doing the same -- yourself included) as long as they are on your side of the debate.

Wrong, just you mostly snob. :thumb: Don't take it personal, unless you so desire. :rocket:

 

[Bay Area Cat]

[Yawn] So anyway, ursus ... give me a heads up if you ever decide that you want to legitimately be a part of a discussion as opposed to just adding static and personal jabs. It's pretty obvious what your motives are right now ... but should they change, let me know.

 

[grizonbob]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

and it missing several facts that should have been in the report...

:shocked:

but hey, that is a shocker...right?? :beer2:

From reading the actual words he said, it seems to me that he probably hadn't seen the video.

I'm a little confused ... I see that people are still using the worn-out "liberal media" playbook here to make the same old tired arguments about the evils of the "MSM," but are you guys sure that script really works? Aren't most Jews, ummm, Democrats? And don't most Jews kind of side with Israel?

If anything, conventional wisdom would tell you that the evil liberal democrats that run the MSM are probably discriminatory against Hezbollah ... that sure complicates things, doesn't it?

It seems easier to just quit trying to find bias in the legitimate media. If something is there, call it out, but it gets really silly when people try to extrapolate virtually anything into evidence of media bias against their "conservative" position ... especially when they actually hold what is most accruately called a quite liberal position (monetary and military support for Israel or intervention in any military action that doesn't directly involve our own direct safety).

This is an interesting question: why would liberal Jews not side with Israel. It is something that seems to happen quite often. I'm not saying that they are rooting for terrorists, but many in the US and Europe have been highly critical of Israel. The most egregious example would be the prof at DePaul named Finkelstein who is a vehement Holocaust denier. Most Jews don't fit into that category, but that's just to underscore the level of animosity directed at Israel, even by Jews.

As for Jews in the media, one of the best examples would be the publisher of the NY Times, Pinch Sulzberger. He doesn't make any secret of his left-of-center views, which are pretty well reflected in the Times' editorial positions. I think that Sulzberger probably reflects the views of many secular Jews who are simply much stronger advocates of things such as social justice, the underdog, etc., than they are to things like religion, Judaism or Israel.

Sulzberger gave away the game at a commencement speech in May when he told graduating students at SUNY that his generation was to blame for its failure to stop the Iraq War and to sufficiently promote "fundamental human rights" like abortion, immigration, and gay marriage.

As reported at the time by Paul Kirby of Kingston's Daily Freeman, Sulzberger began with a facetious "apology" to the class for being part of the generation that let them down due to insufficient liberal activism.

"'I will start with an apology,' he said. 'When I graduated in 1974, my fellow students and I ended the Vietnam War and ousted President Nixon. OK. OK. That's not quite true. Maybe there were larger forces at play.'"

He lamented that his generation "had seen the horror and futility of war and smelled the stench of government corruption. Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, I am sorry."

"It wasn't supposed to be this way. You weren't supposed to be graduating in an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life, the right of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose."

Kirby reported: "Sulzberger added the graduates weren't supposed to be let into a world 'where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren't. But you are and I am sorry for that.'"

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to suggest that "left-of-center" equates to liking Hezbollah more than Israel.

My whole point is that this silly liberal/conservative talk is meaningless in discussions about Israel and its wars with its neighbors.

Yes, many/most Jews ARE very liberal in terms of social issues ... AND most of them are very solidly in the corner of Israel when it comes to wars in the Middle East.

That was my point ... the "liberal media," which is clearly strongly staffed with Jewish people, would not appear to be a group that would slant the news in favor of Hezbollah, yet that's what people are suggesting.

The problem, as I tried to point out, is that the liberal/conservative stuff doesn't work on this topic, but people are still using the old liberal media talking point to try to describe it anyway.

 

[ursusmissoulus]

[Yawn] So anyway, ursus ... give me a heads up if you ever decide that you want to legitimately be a part of a discussion as opposed to just adding static and personal jabs. It's pretty obvious what your motives are right now ... but should they change, let me know.

You sidestep BAC, Fortunately youir fence is so low, when you fall off you don't get hurt. Weasal, but don't take it personally. :thumb:

 

[Bay Area Cat]

[Yawn] So anyway, ursus ... give me a heads up if you ever decide that you want to legitimately be a part of a discussion as opposed to just adding static and personal jabs. It's pretty obvious what your motives are right now ... but should they change, let me know.

You sidestep BAC, Fortunately youir fence is so low, when you fall off you don't get hurt. Weasal, but don't take it personally. :thumb:

So exactly how long do you plan to make nonsensical personal comments about me, oh so desperately hoping to find a way to piss me off? Sorry to disappoint you, but it ain't takin'.

Like I said, if you ever sincerely want to discuss an issue, I'm all for it ... but that's clearly not what you are interested in right now ... or seemingly ever.

 

[ursusmissoulus]

I guess you aren't up for it GAS. I do engage you, but not on your terms. If you miss it, it's not on me. You choose to. As a debater, you should know that's how you, and I mean you, lose. :thumb: Oh, and there's this :wink:

 

[GeorgeAllen]

The poor Jews are being framed by Hezbollah and the media. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I remember some wise words from a guy who was nailed to a cross by a group of people (what was the name of that group again?).

The long-haired hippie dude on the cross said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Let's show Israel more mercy than the the Jews showed Jesus Christ.

 

[grizonbob]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

So you would argue that journalists should only report what they see and hear, and not provide any context or background? If reporters go to a news conference by President Bush, and they hear him announce that the economy has never been better, that things are going swimmingly in Iraq, and that Dick Cheney is the best VP ever, they should simply wrote what was said, and how Bush looked great in saying them, and not note that there are some people who think he's full of it?

Okay ... from what you wrote, it appeared that this TV reporter was reporting from a war zone, and was passing the information that came to him there, correct?

So in that context, the information he should pass back is probably limited to what is going on in that particular place ... and that sounds like exactly the information that he passed along.

Then they would probably switch over to another correspondent in some other place ... let's say Israel ... for another perspective. That correspondent would probably not say much about the local chatter in Lebanon, but would probably speak to what they were hearing from people in Israel.

So I assume you copied your blurb from a blog someplace ... did that blog happen to note whether another correspondent was spoken to during the newscast, thus giving a full accounting of the story?

Or, rather, is this just something taken out of context and spun weakly in hopes that somebody would find bias in the fact that the guy on the ground in Lebanon happened to only report on the first-hand information available to him in Lebanon?

Couldn't honestly answer your question. I did get the item from newsbusters, and it doesn't note what was on the rest of the newscast. So perhaps it it an unfair criticism. I just posted it in response to the request for an example of a journalist portraying Hez on a positive light. That said, my impression from watching the news is that many media outlets focus a lot more on the carnage of civilians in Lebanon than on the terror civilians in Israel live under.

I haven't done any sort of study to confirm this, so I'm just speaking anecdotally. Here's an item by a lawyer who critiques the LA Times regularly that suggests there's something to this notion.

http://patterico.com/2006/07/31/4932/the-incredible-anti-israel-bias-of-the-la-times/#more-4932

That said, it sounds as if the foreign media are more irresponsible, if the following is on the mark (It comes from someone with a particular viewpoint, but the things he notes are troubling nonetheless)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVlMmRjNDllNzhkZmE1OWM3NmE1OGQ4OGQxMDA1YjQ=

As for the question of why liberal elites in the media, particularly Jews, would hold Israel to a different, and higher standard, that is something that has baffled me a bit. They are pretty forgiving of cultures that show considerable hostility to the things they hold dear, such as women's and gay rights. I suspect part of it is that most journalists, as surveys have shown, are really more secularists than they are devotees of any religion, such as Judaism. If you read a book like Coloring the News, the author also gives many examples of how the highest values in newsrooms are for things such as diversity and multiculturalism.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Just anecdotally, it seems to me that many/most Jewish people aren't particularly religious (at least not in the way we think of when we think of people who believe in religions in a literal sense) and that they do have a secular (rational) view on most things.

However, when speaking of Israel, it is not a "religious" thing as much as it is an ethnic thing. You could be an atheist Jewish person (which many that I know, in fact, are) but still likely hold a strong emotional and cultural tie to Israel or matters of Jewish persecution. The culture isn't merely based on the religion ... it is also an ethnic group.

So even if the Jews that work in the media do hold secular beliefs above those of any religious faith, this would certainly not preclude them from having a very strong loyalty and sympathy for Israel.

 

[grizonbob]

Just anecdotally, it seems to me that many/most Jewish people aren't particularly religious (at least not in the way we think of when we think of people who believe in religions in a literal sense) and that they do have a secular (rational) view on most things.

However, when speaking of Israel, it is not a "religious" thing as much as it is an ethnic thing. You could be an atheist Jewish person (which many that I know, in fact, are) but still likely hold a strong emotional and cultural tie to Israel or matters of Jewish persecution. The culture isn't merely based on the religion ... it is also an ethnic group.

So even if the Jews that work in the media do hold secular beliefs above those of any religious faith, this would certainly not preclude them from having a very strong loyalty and sympathy for Israel.

Yes, it doesn't preclude them, but it also doesn't mean they will automatically have loyalty to Israel. Certainly, there are many American Jews who are strong advocates of Israel. But I'm surprised at the number that aren't. (sorry, but can't cite any studies on this; just anecdotal experience, like seeing a rabbi on a TV talk show the other night who was highly critical of Israel--think he was the editor of Tikkun) Some are extreme in their hatred of Israel, including the Depaul prof I mentioned earlier named Finkelstein, a Holocaust denier. (an extreme example, but one that shows being Jewish doesn't stop one from being an Israel hater.

I think a good part of the lack of fervor among some American Jews for Israel is that there is a new generation of them who have never been to Israel and weren't alive during WWII and the creation of Israel. For those folks, the cultural/emotional ties may not be very strong.

 

[grizonbob]

Here's a whole different take on what shapes media coverage in the Mideast--and I suspect it is probably closer to the truth than my earlier intimations that a political bias may be at work....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODg3MGZkODllMThmM2ZhMmE4NWEzZmJhZTc3MTFiNGI=

 

[grizonbob]

On the other hand, this site, which discusses "Pallywood," raises some troubling issues about media duplicity....

http://www.seconddraft.org/cur_invest.php