Allison Hoffman, left, who states without any basis that Max Blumenthal's views of Israel might hurt his father's career, used to work for the Jerusalem Post before going to the new Jewish online publication, Tablet.
The other night a friend wrote, "Per your efforts to keep track of journos
with connections to Israel, Fox business news anchor Liz
Claman's sister apparently lives there. Here's her twitter from earlier tonight:"
just had the BEST Israeli cab driver. My sister Holly translated. He came here from Russia 35 yrs ago, loves it
(Wikipedia says Claman is Jewish but doesn't confirm that sis lives in Is. Maybe just Hebrew school)
It's true, I keep a list of all the American journalists who have worked for Israel, or Israeli publications, or are connected to Israel. Because many of them are influential. Jeffrey Goldberg was in the Israeli Defense Forces. Wolf Blitzer used to work for the Jerusalem Post, and for AIPAC too. Ron Kampeas, a Washington correspondent for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency who regularly attacks John Mearsheimer, is a settler: he owns property in East Jerusalem. I wonder what his coverage of the settlements is gonna be? Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner of the Times are both married to Israelis. Bronner is said to have a son in the IDF! Holey moley. [Correction: I hear that this is inaccurate; apologies to Bronner!]
A couple years ago I did a post on a prominent liberal Jewish journalist who has relatives who are settlers in the West Bank; the journalist declined to allow me to publish his name. I said that the relatives had power over him. And they do. My mother's best friend made aliyah in 1968. She has power over me. Some day I need to talk to her.
Your set theory is attempting to predict the weather. By that I mean that you are deriving an experiment that can only provide for UNRELIABLE conclusions. All of the writers that you sited, have changing and nuanced positions on Israeli politics. The state of US politics (Obama as president vs Bush as president, and democrats controlling Congress vs conservative republicans) is a FAR larger factor in the writers' tone and content.
Maybe Blumenthal's father should stop funding his son's bogus gonzo journalism?
In what way does your mother's best friend have power over you? What do you feel that you need to talk to her about – the power she has over you, about her living in Israel, Zionism or something else? Considering that there are plenty of left wing Israelis, including American immigrants (Gershon Baskin, Joseph Dana, Eyal Raviv, just to name a few), living in Israel and/or having relatives there doesn't make a journalist automatically unreliable. Even having settlers as relatives doesn't neccesarily make one biased in favor of the occupation. Besides, every journalist has biases one way or another, even ones with absolutely no stake in the matter. The question is whether they can keep their biases out of their reporting or not. As for the Times, they don't only have Bronner and Kershner, they also have Taghreed El-Khodary. I find that usually when I read Times articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I wouldn't know who wrote them without taking a look at the byline. They don't let their biases show.
Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner don't let their bias show?!? That's a new one! It's true that you generally wouldn't know who wrote a Times article on Israel-Palestine without checking the byline but it's madness to deduce from that that the reason for the consistency is the objectivity of the newspaper. The consistency comes from the outrageous one-sidedness of the Times' reporting. And you can't say that this point of view is merely due to my or anyone else's opinion. Many groups (for example, If Americans Knew) have done quantitative analysis of the Times' one-sided reporting: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.h...
"If Americans knew" A truly reliable source of information? Ethan Bronner has written some very informative pieces, that have actually scooped Phil's theses. For example, in February he posted a series of articles from Gaza describing the Gazan society as surprisingly cosmopolitan in orientation, and suprisingly absent of radical propaganda (at least relative to his expectations). I found that informative and MORE reliable in confirmation, than what I read here.
It has not mattered in the least who is POTUS or who has the most votes in the US Congress because there has been only one party when it comes to Israel (or the US banking system). As usual Witty ignores the obvious overriding power, as he has totally ignored the last two years on this blog's comments and in Phil's articles here which spawned each thread. The political "weather" has been obvious. Predictions have been correct all along. That does not mean they should be.
Nothing is root objective in the USA MSM media (or from the mouths of 99% of congressmen) about Israeli actions. If Americans Knew gives plenty of true information completely absent from the USA MSM. Jeez, the MSM does not even touch upon the key concerns rendered and evidenced on If Americans Knew. Witty is like an avid reader of Goebbels' media; they too found it informative and MORE reliable in confirmation, than what they might have picked up from say, any bulletin of the White Rose.
As usual, you report your vague, surrealistic impressions while I report facts. In true hasbara mode, you attempt to kill the messenger. Why not TRY the approach used by If Americans Knew for yourself. Keep a running log of Palestinian vs Israeli fatalities and the daily reportage of same by the New York Times. I read the Times every day too, Witty. I find it indispensable. But to imply their coverage of Israel-Palestine is even-handed and fair is absolutely ludicrous. it's a lie, plain and simple. If you don't have time or inclination to do a detailed analysis, just ask yourself what sort of coverage one could expect in the New York Times if the president of Italy or Canada or France or Germany was found to be a serial rapist as the president of Israel was, (though judging by the Times coverage, it never happened).
citizen exactly so. just listened to V's clip of Pilger's lecture where he repeats the joke about Soviet propagandists coming to the States at the height of the Cold War. "We've been here for weeks, watching TV and reading the papers every day. All the opinions are the same. To achieve such results in the Soviet Union, we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. But you don't do any of that. What's the secret?" I first heard that joke many years ago. It's much funnier (because, much truer) today.
Richard, I'm really trying to be civil with you. Are you really this unassuming or do you purposefully lie over and over? There have been TONS of studies on the MSM. Entire books written (Manufacturing Consent). There was a study conducted by Harvard, comparing the Times to Haaretz and of course, they concluded that the Times was biased. And Phil is right – all those Jewish intellectuals or journalists with ties to Israel ARE biased. There is only 1 Jewish State – and there are not many Jews in the world – and blah blah blah – this is not controversial. Jews CAN be tribal. Many of the mainstream elite Jews are tribal. And the media by definition is corrupt anyways. That Arab chick for the Times is a disgrace. There is overlap between intellectually dishonest Jews in the mainstream Western intelligentsia AND the general corruption of the MSM anyways. So people have to temper their criticism of ethnocentric Jews w/ the fact that the MSM is shitty any way you look at it.
Thats absurd. The difference between Obama saying, "no more settlement construction" and Bush saying "do what you like", is STARK and effective. The only accurate assessment of the weather, is "when there is atmospheric disruption, there is wind". And, if your definition of success is "I told you so", then keep up the atmospheric disruption. If you want to put up the roof, you need a clear day.
The mass media is relatively informative. ANY reliance on any source for authority is by definition inadequate. Follow Chomsky's advice. READ the Walt Street Journal, NY Times, and international press. Don't "believe" either of them. Test assumption on a complete bullshit detection system. Dismissal OR belief is the wrong conclusion.
What facts? I can't remember a fact from you. I'm glad that you find the NY Times indispensible. You don't speak English very subtlely if you concluded that my use of the term informative is equivalent to authoritative.
You think your ranting at me about the mass media is so prescient. I was a journalist for a daily alternative newspaper in DC in 1980 and 1981 (two staggering years for news events). I've covered events in which the Washington Post had staggeringly different coverage than what I ran.
Witty quoting Chomsky! That's like Pol Pot quoting Martin Luther King.
I don't advocate dismissing the MSM, although my comments imply that… I'll read the Times and blah blah.
Obama's statements may be stark, but effective? Only time will tell on that one, and current pronouncements from the Israeli govt indicate that it won't be.
You don't read too good, do you? "We chose to focus on the reporting of deaths, because this allows meaningful statistical analysis that would be impossible in a qualitative study. This unambiguous yardstick allows us to determine whether The New York Times demonstrates even-handed respect for human life, regardless of ethnic or religious background. Fortunately, accurate data for both populations is available from the widely respected Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem2. We only included Israeli deaths directly caused by the actions of Palestinians, and vice-versa. Children’s deaths were studied because each such event represents a universally recognized human tragedy. We separately kept track of reports of cumulative death counts. We used the LexisNexis database to access all Foreign Desk articles published during our study periods. We did not include editorials, columns, news briefs, letters to the editor, etc. in our study." Among the reported results? 119% of Israeli deaths and only 42% of Palestinian deaths were reported in New York Times headlines or first paragraphs. That is, The Times reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.8 times greater than Palestinian deaths. You can't challenge the methodology and you can't challenge the data. So you drop into obfuscation mode. Yes..those are called 'facts' witty. You may require steroidal treatment, given your severe allergies to them.
Did he portray the Israeli aerial massacre as being against Palestinians, or Hamas? Did he by sleight-of-hand justify civilian casualties by repreating excuses directly from the IDF? And does Taghreed el-Khodary openly say her reporting is censored in the Times? Bronner was marketing a war. Since IAF warfare goes against liberal values (an understatement), the marketing segment for this war has to be convinced it's all just against Hamas so they can continue to believe they stand for humanistic values.
Yeah Phil, I'm sure she'd love to talk to a whiny piece of shit like you.
One of those rare occasions where you're right. One can learn a lot from reading the MSM, but it's absolutely crucial not to take their claims of objectivity seriously. They are biased, generally in the pro-Israeli direction. For instance, they subconsciously assume that the US and Israel have the right to use carrots and sticks to bring out the kind of Palestinian leadership they want to see, when they would never take it for granted that Palestinians and their supporters have the right to use violence or coercion or boycotts to manipulate the Israeli political process. Some on the left stack the deck in the opposite direction, of course–this is why I'm usually most comfortable relying on Human Rights Watch, AI, and B'Tselem to tell me about the human rights violations of both sides, because their objective is to do that as best they can. But it is useful to read Bronner to get the pro-Israel viewpoint–there are occasionally facts brought out that maybe one wouldn't hear from many pro-Palestinian sources. Just don't pretend Bronner and the NYT aren't biased.
" Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner of the Times are both married to Israelis." Good grief!!!! Considering that most of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activists here identify as former-Jews who have married non-Jews and some have married Arabs, are you actually criticizing American Jews who have married Israeli Jews???? What a bunch of MondHypocrites you are!!!
There is a question as to WHO IS FUNDING MONDOLIES AND THEIR PHONY JOURNALISM. One answer, of course (to use the stupid phrasing of people who don't understand what they are saying), is "stupid goys". (Not my words). MondoLies seeks your donations… to keep Max and company happily employed. In the end, of course, this is what antisemites rave about all the time. Jews tricking non-Jews into handing over money… and here the antisemites are being suckered by MondoLiars!!! What a riot!
True, only time will tell, and many forces in the Israeli state desire that they not be effective. A radical response ADDS to the likelihood that the needed changes won't occur.
Again, if you derive authority from any single source of news then you are the willing mark. Its your responsibilty to inquire further, especially if you are recommending any course of action that effects others. Read the Jerusalem Post if you want the Israeli viewpoint. Bronner doesn't present it. He presents material that IS identical to the official Israeli press reporting periodically, and is 180 degrees opposite at other times. I DON'T rely on Human Rights Watch, AI. I like Betselem more. I don't expect them to spoon-feed me conclusions though.
Those are "facts", but you derive a conclusion from those facts that don't relate directly to them. You are still comparing a news report to authority.
That's more hasbara bs, isn't it? The fact is, there is remarkable uniformity in the reports of ALL the mainline human rights organizations as to Israel's abominations, war crimes, use of disproportionate force, use of heavy weapons and air strikes in populated areas, violations of geneva convention, use of human shields (including children), illegal arrests, use of force against non-violent demonstrations, use of torture, widespread illegal kidnappings, violation of UN resolutions and on and on. "I don't expect them to spoon-feed me conclusions though." On the contrary. You refuse any nutrients whatsoever, preferring to snack throughout the day on Judeo-Nazi junk food.
"Those are "facts", but you derive a conclusion from those facts that don't relate directly to them. " The conclusion is that the New York Times violently distorts the reality of the I-P conflict, reporting 119% of Israeli deaths as against 42% of Palestinian deaths. Sorry Witty, the conclusion IS a FACT. By the way, the study uses figures provided by Bt'selem, the very organization you say you trust. Bt'selem also reported on the IDF running over a wheelchair-bound man waving a white flag during the Jenin massacre. They condemned the act, but perhaps Bt'Selem drew the wrong conclusion about this atrocity. Maybe it was a a courageous and exemplary deed–yet further proof that the IDF is the "most moral army in the world." ?
"The difference between Obama saying, "no more settlement construction" and Bush saying "do what you like", is STARK and effective. " Are you aware that words are carriers of meaning? What are you talking about? Whatever we may think of Obama's vague pronouncements concerning the settlements, how can anyone possibly claim they have been "effective" while the settlement building continues apace and no date for any freeze has even been mentioned? As Chomsky recently pointed out, Bush Sr's directions to israel concerning settlement building were far more serious in intent than Obama's. "On settlements, Obama avoided any mention of existing settlements, and repeated the words of the "road map" on expanding settlements. He also made it clear he would not follow the precedent of George Bush senior, and impose a slight penalty on Israeli expansion of settlements. Rather, he said, his steps would be only "symbolic." http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090624.htm
where'd my post go? anyway, I made the usual point that Witty is a dishonest lout and that is was patently absurd to claim that Obama's vague pronouncements on the settlements were "effective" when in fact they have not halted or even slowed settlement expansion…nor has any date for such a halt been put forward. As Chomsky points out, even the psychopath Bush Sr was tougher on the Israelis regarding settlements than Obama: "On settlements, Obama avoided any mention of existing settlements, and repeated the words of the "road map" on expanding settlements. He also made it clear he would not follow the precedent of George Bush senior, and impose a slight penalty on Israeli expansion of settlements. Rather, he said, his steps would be only "symbolic." http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090624.htm
Good catch Jake
And to be clear Andrew believe suicide bombings are justified as he has previously stated on this forum
There's also the recent volume from Verso: Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East http://bit.ly/YuKSw . (It's a sequel to The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy http://bit.ly/YuKSw .)
If you read Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (UK: http://bit.ly/VersoIP ; US: http://bit.ly/VersoIP ) you'll find the one instance of disagreement about a single event between Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem he was able to find in perusing all their reports. In terms of their reporting and conclusions, there's (mostly) little rational reason to prefer one above the others. (In fact, Finkelstein has directed most of his recent ire towards HRW, for being too pro-Israeli owing to their sources of funding.) In the NYT, I refer you to the two volumes I mentioned in my above comment:
I often find reading the NYT a slightly amusing exercise, particularly in areas I'm knowledgeable about (I can give you the citation for an article by some pissed-off musicologists, if you wish…). Addendum: I think I'd recommend most books on Verso's understanding Israel-Palestine list: http://bit.ly/VersoIP (pdf).
I guess somewhere in your post is a fact. A "fact" is a VERY different thing than a political conclusion. You do get that it is a fact that Hamas shelled Sderot for six years, and using materials that were largely from Iranian sources. Is that a fact? YES. The next question though, is what political conclusion you derive from those facts. And, underlying that is a question of what your goals are. And, underlying that question of goals, are questions of what a responsibility of a state is in fact? So, which facts do you want to consider as appropriate content to discuss, towards what conclusion as to political goal, and then effective and moral political means and tactics? My observation of the conflict is that it is NOT fundamentally an oppression, though there is much evidence to support that conclusion. My observation is that it is structured on a response->response->response played out by fanatics that NEGLECT to abide by law in their own behavior, as much as they complain about it in the other. So, rather than choose which fanatic I will support, I CHOOSE to support moderation and sober deliberation emphasizing consideration of the other's experience, needs, and legal rights (without exageration of them).
I'm always suspicious when people attack the writer, rather than what he has written. The media is heavily influenced by jewish lobbys and many have prominent shareholders one of ABC News's largest share holder's Shamrock Holdings is based in Tel Aviv. Pulitzer Prize Writers such as Chris Hedges who was formerly the Middle East Correspondent for the New York Times, Robert Fisk of the Independent (UK) has written similar articles about how stories are skewed or not reported at all. It would do the worldwide Jewish community a big service if these reporters were not mere propoganda tools, because in the Internet Age you cannot control information, and when people find out the truth they begin to ask, what else have they lied or not told me. That leaves the stage open to those who will demonize, unfairly.
alice hoffman has issued a threat..the sort of threat useful when you want journalists and media to post what you want them to! No one has power over you.,.unless you give it to them…so thats no excuse
Your version of insane is actually insane, not to mention inane, and very misleading. My statement covers decades; while it is true Obama's Cairo statement marks a single rhetorical change, whether it will ever amount to anything substantive in change in any material matter remains to be seen. Obama has even proposed a few minor changes respecting the banking system-Wall Street, but he has kept the roosters in charge of the hen houses. At least he's tinkered around the edges; at this juncture he has not even done that respecting the I-P situation. Haven't you read any of the many comments over the last six months trying to read what Obama will do, including those posted since he made his admittedly heroic Cairo speech? Will he walk the walk, not just talk? The preponderance of evidence to date suggests NOT– I hope I'm wrong, just one of quite a few who voted for Ron Paul, then for Obama when the practical choice came down to Obama versus McCain.
How about a modest response, e.g., using our distorted foreign aid to Israel as leverage? Or do you think such a notion implemented is "radical?" Time to treat Israel as we do other foreign nations, yes, that would be radical by our current one-sided standard.
No question who is funding you: US tax dollars used by Israeli Hasbara programs.
LOL. So true, that's joke. Of course you know the secret is two-fold: (1) Who owns, controls the USA MSM and who they allow into it in anchor TV and print/online pundit slots. (2) Our plutocratic campaign finance system. Goebbels would be jealous, ditto Stalin.
"relatively informative–just not on the issue of I-P. A minor defect, right?
Not Jim Haygood; usual hasbarite ID theft.
It's also possible that being married to someone who grew up inthe country you are covering, speaks the language and embodies its contradictions may make one a BETTER reporter of the conflict than someone who parachutes in from the outside. The assumption here is that itsomehow makes them suspect or disqualifies them from reporting onthe conflit is just bizarre. Should we check aAmerian military reporters and emand that they have never served inthe military, or check to see if their sons or daughters do? Should American reporters be allowed to cover Washington, since their pro-American biases would distort their work? Should we ask environmental reporters if they know anyone who lives on Planet Earth and might benefit from the impact of their reporting?
"I keep a list of all the American journalists who have worked for Israel, or Israeli publications, or are connected to Israel" is a bizarrely broad and useless occupation. "Worked for Israel" means what? The government? A pro-Israel group? A business in Israel? "Israeli publications"? Does that mean a stint at Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post or The Jerusalem Report or As Sennara (Arabic) disqualifies someone from being able to report reliably and accurately on Israel? "Connected to Israel?" What does that mean — although, if you play the numbers, it probably disqualifies or makes suspect any American Jew from reporting on the conflict, since you can probably connect any American Jew with afriend or relative in Israel with far fewer than six degrees. No, this site can't be anti-Semitic — it's written by a Jew after all. But please find me a better name for applying a grossly double standard for individuals who express a professional interest in a country or subject and for raising questions (and keeping careful lists) about a person's professionalism based only on his or her ethnciity,
Joe, please send me a reference. I would like to apply. Hey, I can use the money…. Really!!!
"You do get that it is a fact that Hamas shelled Sderot for six years, and using materials that were largely from Iranian sources. Is that a fact? " No it's not a fact for reasons others have explained to you. hamas has fired very crude, inaccurate and close to entirely harmless missiles in the direction of Sderot. They have never SHELLED Sderot or anyplace else because that requires artillery pieces they don't have. I invite you to review my posts, which have actual, not phony "facts" in them