I went to Borders with a friend this weekend, I poked my finger through a map that listed all of Palestine as Israel and which listed Gaza and the West Bank as cities within Israel. Nothing about any occupied territories, anywhere. My friend lectured me about destruction of property and how it wasn’t Border’s fault that the map was messed up.
So I asked her, "do you think the possibility exists that a map could be published that listed Tel Aviv as a Palestinian city and then sold in Borders?" She said she didn’t know…
Borders has an inordinate amount of books written by Zionist lunatics in the Palestine section. So much Dershowitz on display.
And Al Jazeera had the best coverage of today’s land grab in East Jerusalem. [See Horowitz post below, for that video]
Their coverage includes bewildered, angry and frustrated Palestinians who got tossed out of their homes while they were sleeping. Some were still in their pajamas. Meanwhile Isabel Kershner covered the crime in her usual sterile language, on page A4, and writes about Lieberman and the attacks on gays in the same piece.
Witnesses said that settlers moved into the homes, immediately.
So, you object that it wasn’t front page?
Thats it?
I’m always surprised when I go into Barnes and Noble or Borders, how few books of interest there are to me. I hunger for policy dialog.
I guess people don’t buy them.
Having run a media distribution business intending to appeal to left-leaning sensibilities, I can tell you first hand that the left doesn’t spend much money. As a population, they are cheap. More than that, distrustful of honest enterprise, whether it was my Green Island Library, or Alternative Radio.
The left media that does get presented, is pre-funded.
Ahh Richard, I object to a lot of things. I really object to the fact that Kershner couldn’t dedicate an entire piece on it and had to confuse or diminish the gravity of the grotesque actions of Israel by writing about the attacks on gays and Lieberman in the same piece. I am offended because if the victims were Israeli Jews instead of Palestinian Christians or Muslims than I am sure the piece by Kershner would have looked different. But I am also happy, because I think the bias and just really HORRIBLE “journalism” by people like Kershner will just continue to make her and the NYTs obsolete.
Also, Richard, I think it’s incorrect to say that Democrats are cheaper than Republicans. I think they’re just poorer, your comment is either oblivious or classist.
What function do you think the Lieberman passage has in the whole article, Seham, why does she squeeze in the attack on the gay center in Tel Aviv in at the end?
Israel Evicts Palestinians From Homes:
60 words for the eviction followed by 276 words for a Lieberman: Later Sunday, the Israeli police said they had evidence police evidence … for bribes, laundering money and committing fraud” followed by 3131 words. More details about the eviction. 66 words. Tel Aviv Gay community center, Separately, …
Apart from the sentence you cite, this passage I find most interesting in this context:
Isn’t this a really important matter in this context, and shouldn’t it move up a bit?
Lea,
It feels like she was just trying to confuse the issue. Information overload people would be much curious to hear why the criminal Lieberman is going to hopefully go to jail and about the gay issue than homeless Palestinians. I dunno, that’s what it feels like and if her track record or that of the Times is any indicator then I doubt I can chalk it up to my cynicism.
I don’t know her, or I haven’t paid attention to her.
The problem is the headline versus the content. It’s a peculiar hybrid.
Impressions from Israel: Evictions in East Jerusalem, Liebermann charged, gay center attacked.
My reaction was first, she wants to push what I consider important further down, hoping people will only read the first few paragraphs, and won’t notice that the eviction may well be based on fraud. The strange thing is if you delete both passages unrelated to the headline, what I consider important is almost at spot, 88-90% down towards the end of the whole text. So the material basically seems to have an inflating function. Add something unrelated so the reader doesn’t ask herself a series of questions. Distract via the gay center.
I am assuming NYT journalists are well funded, and have phones. How long would it have taken to consult some Israeli experts on the matter.
On what legal authority did the evictions happen. Who ordered them? How can an eviction be ordered if the property dead is still debated in court? I can think of many, many more questions.
Yes, I am assuming, she tries to distract people’s attention from all the questions her sentences trigger, but somehow chooses material to fill that is associatively connected in her head, but she isn’t brave enough to do it straightforwardly.
Sorry, Seham, I am tired and I should check my html tags. Only the alternative headline was meant to be bold.
It’s really weird from the POV of a news article headlined about the evictions; and after
an introduction on that matter, the article switches to talk about Lieberman’s political woes, then the article returns to talk about the evictions, only to be cut off again near the end by talk of gay rights in Israel. A very truncated piece. It’s like an insane person wrote the article, and an another insane person printed it.
Thom can you repost the inane comment you left here earlier, I wanted to pass it along to the friend that you said should have called security on me.
Thanks.