Bruce Wolman responds to the controversy over Jews in the media at this site:
Some background. I did not write my comment as a posting, but as an e-mail to Phil. Usually, when I write something for publication in Mondoweiss I use a different process. The reason I didn’t write a posting was due to my consideration that the subject is complicated, requiring more explication and research than I was prepared to carry out at the moment. Even though I wasn’t ready to present a full view, it does not mean I’m not justified writing in that Blankfort’s facts are wrong. Since my comment now has a wider audience, let me explain further.
My remarks were about "Jewish ownership of the media," which was the subject of Blankfort’s comment. Nowhere did I suggest that "Jews aren’t a dominant player in media life," as Phil responded. If anything, I suggested the opposite. I wrote, "There is certainly a story about Jewish influence in the media, a nuanced one that should be discussed more, but not the anti-Semitic claptrap that Blankfort is passing on" and "the story of influence in the media is complicated and I thought Mondoweiss had been doing a good job of documenting how it actually works."
I do disagree with Phil on the importance of Jewish media ownership. If as an aside I tried to infer a thesis in my comment, it was that the American media would be just as pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist had no Jews owned any of it. My evidence: editorial views and reporting on Israel do not line up according to whether the media is Jewish or non-Jewish owned. In many cases, non-Jewish owned media are more pro-Zionist than the Jewish owned ones. (In this discussion, I am confining myself to pro-Israel and pro-Zionist biases. Before taking up the subject of pro-Jewish biases in the media, I would like to know what we are talking about.) I raised the example of the Los Angeles Times under the Chandler family as an example. The LAT became pro-Israel long before it had Jewish owners.
Rupert Murdoch is the most influential media baron in the world by far. Fox News is the preferred outlet of the Israeli government and public. No Jew can compare with Ruppert in providing global platforms for pro-Israeli and neo-Conservative politics. This phenomena is not explained by making Murdoch into an honorary Jew.
Phil’s not convinced about the Grahams of the Washington Post and a few of the commenters also responded negatively to my reportage, or lack of about, them. The only reason, I wrote "as far as I know" was that in a half-hour of research I couldn’t determine whether any of the Graham great grandchildren converted to Judaism. Fortunately there is no National Jewish Registry to which one can quickly refer. Katharine did not consider herself Jewish, her husband Phil who ran the Post for many years turned into an anti-Semite in his last crazy years before he killed himself. Katharine’s and Phil’s son Donald, who ran the Post for the family the last 30 years and still serves as Chairman has never considered himself Jewish, and the current Graham heir who now serves as Publisher, considers herself Anglican/Episcopalian and doesn’t even qualify as Jewish under the Nuremberg Laws or Israel’s Right of Return.
Until today – naive me – I thought only anti-Semites considered the Washington Post Jewish-owned. I checked with my mother whose been in Washington for 60 years and asked if any Washington Jews considered the Grahams Jewish, and she just laughed at me as if I was crazy.
Some commenters wrote about Jewish managers as opposed to owners, especially in Hollywood, and to an extent I concur about this nexus of influence. I worked briefly in Hollywood, so I understand that business culture fairly well. But like Phil I would argue that non-Jewish managers do not by-and-large enforce biases different from their Jewish colleagues and rivals. Phil attributes this to the influence of Establishment Jews on media culture. I would roughly agree that is certainly part of it, but nothing I wrote earlier contradicts Phil’s response.
Phil also reiterates some of his own experiences, none of which I question. I might take issue over the influence of the New Republic on the overall media landscape, but I was fully aware what restrictions I might be placing on my own future media opportunities once I contributed some articles to Mondoweiss.
My reaction to Blankfort’s remarks is due to the fact that there are real anti-Semitic web sites out there which accuse the Jews of owning the media and the banks, and for them that explains just about everything. If you are going to support the historically charged thesis, Jews = the media or Jews = the banks, then you should minimally have your facts straight.
There can be little doubt that American mainstream media is by and large pro-Zionist and any dissenting view is squashed by the ADL and CAMERA. This country’s populace is desperate for “fair and balanced” American reportage of the Middle East and we have to go to the Internet to get it. I don’t care whether the media is Zionist-owned, Zionist-controlled, Zionist-dominated or Zionist-influenced, but all I seem to get is the stereotype of Palestinians as 1.6 million people seeking to “push Israel to the sea.” I appreciate Bruce’s thoughtful analysis about the Grahams and ownership of the WaPo, but Fred Hiatt runs the op-ed page of the Washington Post, and he is an out-of-control mouthpiece for Zionist dogma and the use of US taxpayer dollars to bomb Iran and maintain apartheid in Palestine.
Influence is reasonable.
There are thousands in Washington, that attempt to influence Congress, from a wide variety of perspectives.
“Jews control the media”.
Is a means to dismiss, rather than motivation to make a better argument.
Its the manner of presentation that is the problem, packaged for anger, rather than for inquiry.
No, your presentation is packaged to hide the truth.
I see. When Blankfort wrote “Jewish ownership of the media,” Bruce thought he meant ALL the media, and that’s an “antisemitic canard”!
“If you are going to support the historically charged thesis, Jews = the media or Jews = the banks, then you should minimally have your facts straight.”
I think we should have our facts straights on all issues, whether they’re “historically charged” or not. But it’s you who didn’t have them straight, Bruce. You claimed that both Disney and Time/Warner are not Jewish run, when both are. You didn’t realize that GE’s media empire is also Jewish run. You seemed not aware of the role of Peter Chernin in News Corp, or that Murdoch has been honored by the ZOA.
But it was good good to see you beating a hasty retreat and changing the subject to whether or not having the media almost entirely in the hands of Zionists actually affects coverage of the Middle East. If you haven’t spotted the influence (perhaps because you were out of the country during that long summer of the run-up to the Iraq war?), all I can say is, have you ever watched Al Jazeera?
“My evidence: editorial views and reporting on Israel do not line up according to whether the media is Jewish or non-Jewish owned.”
With the exception of USA Today, I can’t think of any national papers whose foreign policy editorial boards are not Jewish run. Can you give us a name Bruce?
Jackson Diehl leads the foreign policy editorials at the Post with David Ignatius and Jim Hoagland having major roles. Hiatt is editor of the page, but is not the driver on foreign policy. Just ask Colby King.
No, I don’t know whether Blankfort meant ALL the media, I believe he meant the ones he listed as Jewish owned.
I didn’t make any claims about who ran which media. And before I did I would take a more comprehensive and well researched look than anything being presented in these comments.
I only beat a hasty retreat from a position that you imagined in your own mind. Nor did I change the subject. I responded to the assertions of others.
Do you really believe the reason the US media was so biased leading up to the Iraq war was because it was “almost entirely in the hands of Zionists”? When you say the Zionists to whom are you referring? Anyone defining themselves as pro-Israeli?
I visit the English version of the Al-Jazeera web site frequently, and watch the cable network when abroad. I also read or watch the media in a number of other countries.
“Do you really believe the reason the US media was so biased leading up to the Iraq war was because it was “almost entirely in the hands of Zionists”? When you say the Zionists to whom are you referring? Anyone defining themselves as pro-Israeli?”
I certainly do. Let me turn the question around. Can you name a single Jewish columnist (of which there are not a small number) who was not pimping for war during the summer of ’02 — a time, you remember, when the majority of the American people were unconvinced and had to be scared into it by talk of “mushroom clouds.” I’m talking about the complete political spectrum from Friedman to Krauthammer, from Peretz to Frum, from the New York Times and the New Yorker to the Weekly Standard and the WSJ. Can you name a single one?(And you do remember Judy Miller, I hope. She’s not Scandinavian, you know.)
“I visit the English version of the Al-Jazeera web site frequently, and watch the cable network when abroad. I also read or watch the media in a number of other countries.”
And you’ve never noticed any difference in their coverage of Israel when compared with the US media? Or are you saying that you can’t imagine that it might have anything to do with the personal philosophies of the people doing the reporting?
Jewish columnists and reporters against the Iraq war (not exhaustive): Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Seymour Hersh, Matthew Rothschild, Norman Soloman, Mark Danner, Amy Goodman, Daniel Ellsberg, Robert Scheer, David Halberstam.
How many non-Jewish columnists were against the war and not pimping it? I was in total despair at the media cheering for the war at the time. When Mary McCGrory praised Colin Powell’s pitiful performance at the UN I knew it was all over.
Bruce,
The thesis is conspiratorial.
It includes two components.
1. Voices on Israel in the media are censored to a qualitatively distorting character.
2. The Jewish control and ownership of the media is the means of that distortion in violation of journalistic professional standards.
In contrast, the reality is that reporting on Israel does include reporting on all critical events and perspectives. And, that journalistic standards are retained at a high standard, and reporters are subject to the scrutiny of reputable editors, publishers, colleagues.
The assertion that the mass media is corrupt, is an indictment of Phil’s journalistic colleagues, his friends. His accusation of self-censorship or distortion in violation of what “they know”.
Rather than acknowledge that there are aspects of the issues that he hasn’t investigated fully, sufficiently to form a judgement, he judges.
His comments extend far beyond the term “influence”. He should note that, and adjust his style and editorial choices.
The field of “media analysis” is a cul-de-sac.
Sorry, Richard, but virtually every byline from an American media source on the Israel/Palestine situation has a Jewish surname. Your tapioca-bland response is mere hasbara.
That itself is a racist formula, that someone with a Jewish surname can’t possibly report on Israel and Palestine with any sufficient level of journalistic standards.
*
Joel Stein
What if a wasp,or a black man wrote this?
A poll finds more Americans disagree with the statement that ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ But here’s one Jew who doesn’t.
By Joel Stein
December 19, 2008
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”
I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”
That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews
meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.” Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.
“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”
But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision.
I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
jstein@latimescolumnists.com
RE: “…making Murdoch into an honorary Jew”
MY COMMENT: For the most part, I agree with Bruce Wolman on this issue. I think the problem has more to do with the nature of corporate/conglomerate ownership of the media and manifests itself in many, many areas in addition to coverage of the I/P dispute and the Middle East more generally.
As to Murdoch, it is my understanding that his mother was from a very prominent “Jewish” family in Australia. It is also my understanding that this would qualify Mr Murdoch as “Jewish” under Israel’s ‘Law of Return’. Having said that, it appears that much of Fox News’ pro-Israel bias is a consequence of Roger Ailes’ personal views and the influence of Christian fundamentalists (social conservatives) and wealthy right-wing Christian and Jewish donors on the Republican Party.
After reading your comment I did go online to check it out:
Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch. Born 12 August 1885. Died 4th October 1952. Married 1928 Elisabeth Joy Greene (born 8th February 1909), dau of Rupert Greene. Numerous sites on the web say she was Jewish, but there is no evidence for this.
The links below deny Elisabeth Joy Greene was Jewish:
link to kittybrewster.com
link to answers.yahoo.com
link to wiki.answers.com
I did notice that Jew Watch, David Irving and the usual suspects claim otherwise. Unless you can come up with a reputable source for the claim, I’m going to consider my facts about Rupert still in order. And a $100 to anyone that can provide a copy of the ketubah to Rupert Greene’s marriage.
What is the position of the Graham family on Israel / Middle East? Well, Lally Weymouth, journalist daughter of Katherine Graham is, to put it mildly, a passionate supporter of the right wing in Israel.
Lally’s daughter Katherine Weymouth, is the the publisher of the Washington Post. Here’s a description of a trip to Israel Katherine Weymouth took when a college student, as described by her companion:
Katharine pulls out a five-page typed itinerary that I didn’t even know she had with her. And it says, ‘Dinner with Leah and Yitzhak Rabin,’ who was then the defense minister. ‘Lunch in the Knesset with Bibi Netanyahu,’ ‘Visit to the Jerusalem Post to meet with editor Ari Rath’
We are supposed to believe that these two ladies aren’t influenced by their Jewish background? How stupid do you want us to be?
hartfordian I have no idea how stupid you are.
Instead of speculating on the effect it had on Katherine Weymouth that her great grandfather was Jewish, why don’t you write and ask her? Who knows maybe she still wakes up most nights thinking it could have been me in those ovens. Evidently her Jewish background was not sufficient to get her to convert back.
We’d all be mildly curious to know.
(By the way, Bruce, there were no “ovens.” Sorry.)
The issue is the Graham family attitude towards Israel. College kids visiting Israel don’t have that kind of itinerary (particularly the family dinner with the Rabins) unless they’re known to be warm friends of that country.
My comment about Lally Weymouth certainly still stands. The description of her as a “passionate supporter of Israel” was quite temperate – she’s more of a mad dog supporter of Israel. She’s the mother of both the CEO of Post-Newsweek and the publisher of the Washington Post.
As for emailing Katharine Graham, are you joking? Do you imagine she’d give an honest reply to me, someone she doesn’t know, if she DID consider herself to be Jewish, in light of the conversation we’re having here?
Thank you, I look at the facts. If there’s bias, and I think there absolutely is in the Post’s attitude towards Israel/Palestine, then it makes sense to look at the owners and what their philosophy is.
Finally, regarding this:
Evidently her Jewish background was not sufficient to get her to convert back.
Please drop the pretense that because someone with a Jewish background doesn’t practice the Jewish religion they don’t count themselves as Jewish. I’m a buddhist. There are many people with Jewish heritage at my center who still self-identify as Jewish. In fact I don’t think I know of one who doesn’t.
This thread has become nothing more than an academic discussion. Bruce, Jeff, Phil — there can be no doubt that a pro-Zionist approach to the I/P question in MSM exists. Full stop, end of story. Anything else is an insult to our intelligence.
More to the point, the most pro-Zionist Congresspeople end up on the foreign affairs committees in the Middle East, or, more worrisome, on the panels related to intelligence matters (hey, Jane Harman, this is a shout-out to you, hot mama). C’mon, people, it’s 2009, and we now inhabit a blogsphere that is post Walt-Mearshimer. Do we really need to debate the pro-Zionist influences on America’s media or politics any longer? It’s almost insulting to have to go through this exercise . . . naming names, figuring out whether the Murdochs or Grahams have Jewish DNA . . . coming up with plausible deniability of Zionist influence in the media and power politics, or reasonable doubt . . . WHATEVER . . . the point is that our “independent” media is lying to us everyday about our nation’s involvement in the apartheid situation in Palestine, and among the elite media there is a monolithic tidal wave against the freedom of speech we have here on Mondoweiss.
The Zionist control of American media may be a hot button for Foxy Abe Foxman, and The Dersh (who still get their panties in a twist over the “anti-semitic canard”), but for the high-information intelligensia who participate in the Mondoweiss forum, it’s an accepted reality. Let’s just move on.
It should be questioned.
Its not so, and its racist in how it is framed.
Its up there with right-wing small-minded neo-orthodox zealots regarding Obama as suspect because his middle name is Hussein.
No, it’s really not. I have been very interested in the I/P issue for decades. I’ve followed US media closely for that long. I’ve seen a definite bias in favor of Israel, and IMO there’s a real connection between that and Jewish involvement in the media.
I agree, except I wouldn’t consider this discussion as rising to the level of something academic. Initially I only tried to alert Phil privately to inaccuracies in a posting for him to take up as he considered necessary. I didn’t imagine that I would be the one taken up. Since my position was misrepresented, I felt the need to respond.
Katharine Graham’s biography, Personal Story, has many mentions of her Jewish identity (or non-identity, if you wish) and how it affected different aspects of her life. My favorite part of the book is her description of the printer’s strike in the 1970s, which I realize is totally unrelated to this thread.
link to amazon.com
I know I have always had the distinct impression that Graham self-identified as “Jewish.” But I can’t find any sources, and for now I will defer to Bruce’s research. But I urge everyone to keep their ears open.
If Bruce Foreman had not referred to my post as “anti-semitic claptrap,” I might have chosen not to respond, but to argue, as well, that the genuflecting phallo-zionism of Murdoch is irrelevant and to scrape for every nit to pick to prove that Jews do not dominate the media requires some kind of response. So here it is:
Do you all remember when it was revealed that Billy Graham had told Richard Nixon that when he was re-elected he had “to break the Jewish stranglehold on the media” and that Nixon agreed with him, but pointed out that “you really can’t say that” in public, that when the transcript was published, Graham was obliged to tearfully ask for forgiveness imitating the sobs of Marlon Brando who had the temerity once to speak about Jewish control of Hollywood and criticize it, and legitimately so, for promoting racist stereotypes? (As much as they tried, Nixon could not be roused from the dead to do the same)
Of course, at the time of the revelations, both Graham and Nixon were castigated as “anti-semites,” but it apparently occurred to no one, at least not publicly, to wonder whether or not they were right, given that both men were well acquainted with the barons of the media. At that point I decided to keep a list of Jews in the media (even that combination of words must make Foreman’s nose twitch if not his hair stand on end), basing my information on the NY Times, the Forward and what I already knew, and at the point that I had enough pages to convince me or anyone else open to the truth that Jews did indeed control the media at every critical level I put is aside. It was not THE Jews mind you, but individual Jews who were and are in key positions to shape the public perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either by omission or commission and they have by and large done so for lo these many years which explains why, as Eric Alterman pointed out in the Nation a number of years ago, that the coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the US media is so vastly one-sided in Israel’s favor as compared to that of Britain and Europe. In 2002, Alterman wrote another piece in which he provided a list of the Israeli propagandists in the mainstream media which was overwhelming compared to those who tried o be impartial but generally leaned toward Israel, in which he included himself, and the miniscule number who leaned toward the Palestinian position. The URL is link to alternet.org
Back to Murdoch. The fact that his name can frequently be found in the social column of the Forward, attending this or that Jewish event and who has twice been honored as “Humanitarian of the Year” by major Jewish organizations should be seen as his way and that of the Jewish establishment of acknowledging their mutual power. After all, how successful would Murdoch, an Australian, be if his papers and Fox decided to tell the truth about Israel and take a more “even-handed” position. Does anyone seriously think even Murdoch could weather the charges of “anti-semitism” and eminating from Dershowitz, Foxman and their ilk and the subsequent loss of advertising?
Normalizing the Unthinkable
Ooops, I mistakenly referred to Bruce Wolman as Bruce Foreman. I must have confused him with Ira Foreman the chair of the National Jewish Democratic Coalition who I suspect would hold the same opinion on this issue..
Thanks for finally getting my name right. It restored my faith in your fact gathering. And you have finally convinced me that Jews do “control the media at every critical level.” Reminding us that Billy Graham said it to Richard Nixon helped. But the true epiphany came after I looked you up on Wikipedia and learned that even you are Jewish. Yes, even the harshest critic in the media of Jews in the media turns out to be a Jew. Now that’s total domination.
Its true, and not true.
The assertion is that the publishers, editors, writers themselves self-censor to intentionall present a distorted view of the conflict, that they know to be false in fact, false in ommission, and false in emphasis.
That is a VERY LARGE group of people that you are then accusing of violation of their professional ethics and personal integrity.
I don’t buy it.
I think that “influence” is the proper word, and that that is indirect and various. The distinction is that you are proposing that the conventional mass media adopt your radical conclusions and emphases. That is an unrealistic goal, and then an opportunistic criticism.
And, to my mind, it relieves you of the obligation to propose a better thesis, and create a better mousetrap.
You don’t like what is reported to the public, how it is framed, start your own publication. Make your argument.
It can be done on a relative shoestring now, with the web, and even in print.
Again, I find it upsetting that there is now a radical academic discipline in media criticism. It deserves some, but the theses presented are so repetitive as to render it useless.
Do you write letters to the editor? 100′s of thoughtful, respectful letters?
I sympathize with your objections to antisemitic conspiracy theories regarding the media, but this particular comment, which deals with the leftist critique of the MSM, is just silly from beginning to end. It’s obvious that the MSM doesn’t function the way it claims to and that it is biased in all sorts of ways. Occasionally, on some subjects, it is even biased against the right, but on national security issues it is anti-left. Even the NYT, after much criticism from Michael Massing and others, admitted it did a very poor job in the runup to the Iraq War, presenting mainly pro-government propaganda on its front pages with the serious questions about its claims relegated to the back pages if covered at all.
And the coverage of many other issues is often abysmal, in ideologically predictable ways. As Chomsky says, it’s not a “conspiracy”, unless one considers normal human behavior to be conspiratorial. People in the mainstream press know that if they sound too radical, they won’t rise very far in the profession. It’s a process of self-selection.
Media bias has gotten so blatant even centrist liberals have been complaining about it over the last ten years or so. Read Bob Somerby’s “The Daily Howler”–he sticks to domestic issues and he’s not a radical at all (and never has anything to say about the issues that people talk about here), but he presents a pretty damning case against the mainstream press.
And yes, lefties should start their own media. They already have–perhaps you’ve heard of the “Progressive”, “Z Magazine”, “Mother Jones”, the “Nation”, “Tikkun”, etc…. But they are a long way from matching the resources of the NYT.
And yes, some of us write lots of respectful letters to the media. I’ve done it for years–there’s a group called FAIR which urges its supporters to do the same. I don’t think it did a damn bit of good in the pre-blog era—things are changing ever so slightly now because of pressure from blogs. Critics aren’t isolated from each other and we don’t have to hope that our criticisms of stories in the NYT will be published by that publication–we can critique them with or without their help and others can read what we say. This doesn’t seem to make you happy. Too bad.
You misunderstand the mass media, even to say that “it functions”, as if there is a willed “it”.
The mass media is comprised of individual organizations that definitely have their own voice, and that as reasonable voices, publish within a range of opinions that it considers credible. And, as businesses, publish within a range of opinions and expressed in a manner that will not alienate their thinning advertisers.
Advertisers are pretty forgiving, unless the prospect of boycott is raised. A boycott by a small proportion of their market would be insignificant, but a large portion is.
The selection out of “radical”, is by responsible professional choice. Radical approaches, and radical identity even moreso, is a gamble, a speculation. There is NOT high standards of verification, fact checking, and editorial review, to the level that a newspaper say must convey.
I read the Progressive, The Nation, Tikkun regularly. I’m not a big fan of Z’s topics, or Mother Jones.
If you think that they’re presentation is more reliable and complete than the NY Times, why not work hard to increase their circulation? Rather than complain.
“You misunderstand the mass media, even to say that “it functions”, as if there is a willed “it”.
The mass media is comprised of individual organizations that definitely have their own voice, and that as reasonable voices, publish within a range of opinions that it considers credible. ”
Assumption piled on assumption, along with non sequiturs and self-contradictions. How come you get to use the word “it” when you defend the MSM?And who defines “reasonable voices”? It’s like you don’t even know what the issues are.
I used to write letters to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle that were published until they hired a new person to edit that section and they appeared no more while those of several hawks on Israel made regular appearances. I will give you only one guess as to her religious affiliation. In the 80s, I used to handle press interviews for visiting Israeli critics of Israeli policies and had no trouble getting them interviewed by both the print media as well as radio and TV. Those days are long over as my unsuccessful efforts to get both Ilan Pappe and the late Tanya Reinhart some press attention proved. Pappe was granted a breakfast with a Chron reporter through a friend of the latter who immediately informed Pappe,upon sitting down,that he would not be doing a story on him. A progressive Jewish reporter at the paper told me when I tried to get an interview for Reinhart that it was useless to try.
In 1984, the top morning talk show host wasKGO’s Owen Spann who had no particular agenda. I managed through his producer to get an Israeli reservist,Sinai Peter, who had refused to serve in Lebanon, on the program and he exposed the lies that the US/Zionist media had been spreading about the reasons for Israel’s invasion, i.e., that northern Israel, where he was stationed, was being shelled by the PLO. He was there he said and the story wasn’t true. The second hour of his program, where the reservist, now a well known director in Israel, was on, went across the country and when Spann opened the line to listeners’ calls, a man with a very heavy Jewish accent asked Spann “Who is responsible for putting this communist on the air?” Spann, covering for his producer said that he was. That was all she wrote for Spann. He was then replaced by arch Zionist Ronn Owens who has held down the chair ever since. Once a year, the local Jewish federation calls on Owens to emcee the Israel Celebration Ceremonies wherever they happen to be. Did I mention that the station general manager was Micky Luckoff? Yep, same religion as the editor of the Chronicle ‘s letters to the editor.
My late friend Collin Edwards, a Welsh journalist who had covered the 1947 US vote had a program on KALW, one of the city’s two public radio programs. One of them, which turned out to be his last, he spoke about the well documented Zionist collaboration with the Nazis beginning in the 30s and lasting past the beginning of the war. Under pressure from the Israeli Consulate and local judge Quentin Kopp, who like Rahm Emanuel had been a Volunteer for Israel and has served on an Israeli arm base, Edwards was booted off the air by the general manager, a well known progressive who was scared of losing his job if he didn’t bow to the wishes of the local Zionist power structure. I could write a page of such stories and so Mr.Witty, while you remain in complete denial,you afford me the opportunity to educate others. And for that you have my appreciation
I don’t see a reason to debate the issue of Jewish influence in the media, either. But I am curious to know what separates elite and average Jews. My guess is that average and elite non-Jewish whites have much different interests and work together far less than is the case with average and elite Jews. I’d also like to know if you believe that the Jewish influence in the media affects issues other than the Middle East.
Blankfort,
From your response, it sounds like you chose to introduce people that would taunt your single local newspaper’s audience, and that you presented them in a taunting manner.
Your version of determination, is loudness.
There are other versions.
Were you aware of my library project, Green Island Spoken Audio Cooperative Library, in the 90′s. Even as I found the radical analyses on Israel repugnant, I still included many works by Noam Chomsky, and a couple by Norman Finkelstein.
I think you kill your own effort by your volume and tone, Jeff.
it sounds like you chose to introduce people that would taunt your single local newspaper’s audience,
You’re saying that the entire readership of the San Francisco Chronicle is comprised of Jewish supporters of Israel.
I assure you that that is absolutely not true. Your statement appears to be a good example of the parochial tunnel vision pointed out by Philip Weiss.
“Your version of determination, is loudness.”
Ridiculous. Jeff just gave more concrete examples of his position in two paragraphs than you or Jeff Wolman have given in all your writing to this point. Jeff is clear and to the point, as opposed to the obfuscating style of writing that you use. Jeff gave specific examples of wrongs – ones that would infuriate any person interested in the free exchange of ideas. Yet, rather than address the examples given, you attack the messenger. This, Mr. Witty, is not in keeping with the high personal standards you seem to set for yourself and the world around you.
Incidentally, Noam Chomksy doesn’t offer a “radical analysis” of Israel. He is a self-proclaimed Zionist. He touts Israel as a “U.S. client state.” (A client state that doesn’t act in its masters’ interests can hardly be called a client state – the settlement issue being the most recent example)
Basically, Noam admits that there is a pro-Israel lobby, but says that it can’t operate outside the entrenched “military-industrial” powers. Their (the Lobby’s and the complex’) interests are the same, so it appears that there is a powerful lobby, but really it’s just along for the ride.
So, Noam Chomsky would have us believe that Israel supporters spend untold billions of dollars and the better part of their lives to accomplish something that is going to happen anyway, because it’s in line with the “military-industrial” complex.
Brilliant, Noam.
Finkelstein’s position is a bit more nuanced, but he (as of a couple years ago – I haven’t read him of late) still stops way short of a true investigation into the Lobby and its adherents. Of course, this isn’t his area of expertise, so one wouldn’t expect much.
Mr. Witty,
As to the nature of my Israeli guest speakers they included Retired General Matti Peled who was in charge of logistics in the 67 war and in charge of Gaza, I believe, before that but who unlike the other 99.9% of the Israeli general corps, forsake become a millionaire arms dealer or a corrupt politician to become one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli policy. When he came to town I had him speaking before the World Affairs Council, as well as getting four radio, tv, and newspaper interviews. When I tried to do the same for Professors Ilan Pappe and Tanya Reinhart, all the doors formerly open were closed.
To give everyone another example. At the time the first contingent of the International Solidarity Movement returned to the US, the SF Chronicle sent a reporter and photographer to interview those from the Bay Area who happened to be anti-zionist Jews. Simultaneously, the Chron was preparing to do a feature on Jewish Voice for Peace, a liberal Jewish group in Berkeley that was pro-Israel but opposed the occupation.
Before either story could run, the editor and publisher of the paper, both of whom, whaddayaknow, happened to be Jewish, were visited by a delegation from the local Jewish thought police, who went under the name of the Jewish Community Relations Council. They were accompanied by Walter Shorenstein, a former board member of AIPAC, the most powerful Democrat in California. the owner of more than a third of the city’s financial district real estate, and who once donated a cool million to Joe Biden when he ran for president until being undone when found to have copied a speech word for word from a UK union leader. This hefty group accused the Chron publisher and editor of being pro-Palestinian which was like accusing the Yankees Derek Jeter of being a Red Sox fan. But the goal of the visitors was to intimidate the paper since they knew it wasn’t pro-Palestinian and it mattered not a whit whether the editor and publisher were Jewish. They did get the message, as was anticipated, and both stories were killed.
In find it interesting that Witty included Chomsky and Finkelstein in his audio library. Is it a coincidence that both are zionists, both oppose the Palestinian right of return, both oppose boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel, and both downplay the influence of the pro-Israel lobby? If one did not know their names but merely referred to them as Mr.X and Mr. Y, there would be no argument that both of them would not be considered as doing “damage control” for Israel.
“n find it interesting that Witty included Chomsky and Finkelstein in his audio library. Is it a coincidence that both are zionists, both oppose the Palestinian right of return, both oppose boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel, and both downplay the influence of the pro-Israel lobby? If one did not know their names but merely referred to them as Mr.X and Mr. Y, there would be no argument that both of them would not be considered as doing “damage control” for Israel.”
This is unfair. Chomsky and Finkelstein might not agree with you on those issues, but they are hardly in Richard Witty’s category. They’ve both written numerous hardhitting articles and books documenting Israeli war crimes and oppression–exactly the sort of thing that upsets Richard. It’s to Richard’s credit that he carried their work, but if you think Richard is a fan you haven’t been paying attention.
“This is unfair. Chomsky and Finkelstein might not agree with you on those issues, but they are hardly in Richard Witty’s category. They’ve both written numerous hardhitting articles and books documenting Israeli war crimes and oppression–exactly the sort of thing that upsets Richard. It’s to Richard’s credit that he carried their work, but if you think Richard is a fan you haven’t been paying attention. ”
Donald, that Chomsky documents Israeli war crimes and oppression is absolutely true. But he then cuts off all inquiry into the sources of the madness, such as where the funding comes from, the ideology behind it, etc. To him, Israel is just along for America’s ride.
Documenting Israeli war crimes and oppression isn’t so hard. Chomsky, either through ignorance (hard to imagine) or intent (much more plausible), doesn’t go far enough in investigating and revealing the sources.
Look Richard I have said this on a few other sites, this site is unique and there are very few around – why come here and bring to us what is blasted over the MSM daily? If we wanted to hear the same nonsense we would turn our TV sets on and listen, and as for me probably have to take a shower afterward. Yet, you take it on yourself to bring to us what is now these monolithic ideas and skewed information which have been repeatedly exposed – what is the point? Are you hoping that some poor naive unsuspecting soul is going to chance on this site? lol
You don’t get from me what is blasted over the mass media, at least not by any repetition, as I don’t watch TV. I do read the press, including the liberal – > left press.
V, please bear in mind that Phil Weiss has declared that Mr. Witty is an intrinsic resource of this site, and “viciousness” towards him would not be tolerated. Look it up, in Phil’s [post on comment rules.
Mr Witty was sure to repay Phil for this as soon as he could, by accusing Phil of being brainwashed by the Palestinians during his visit, and accusing Phil of being the Palestinians pawn.
Just so you can see the high personal standards espoused by Witty. He takes anything which might possibly cast aspersions on Israel very personally.
Once again we see the prioritization of “antisemitism” above all other issues. Bruce Wolman was faced with two choices. Confronted with an “un-nuanced” statement about the dominant presence of Jews in our media (a position he admits he agrees with), he could either worry that this is a situation probably insufficiently grasped by the American public, and thus something that might be good to talk about if they are to be on guard for potential bias. Or he could worry about pogroms and the triggering of “antisemitism.”
For some people “antisemitism” always wins out, because it’s what gives meaning to their lives.
D.
In the words of Van Jones, you sound like an asshole. Geez, I guess I disqualified myself from the Obama administration.
How could you possibly know what gives meaning to my life? Those who know me can assure you that “antisemitism” is not it. Nor do I prioritize “antisemitism” above all other issues. It doesn’t even make my Top 10, although solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does.
Also, I did not agree with the “un-nuanced” statement about the dominant presence of Jews in your media. My position is more nuanced than that. And my concern was that such an “un-nuanced” statement could be so easily dismissed by the American public and the MSM, and hence the actual bias displayed by the MSM would remain insufficiently grasped.
Speaking of prioritization, what are yours that you urge everyone to keep their ears open about whether the Grahams self-identify as Jews?
“Nowhere did I suggest that “Jews aren’t a dominant player in media life,” as Phil responded. If anything, I suggested the opposite.” Sounds like an agreement to me.
“And my concern was that such an “un-nuanced” statement could be so easily dismissed by the American public.” Yeah, sure.
I give up. We’ve got another Richard Witty on our hands.
Now, that is the reply that will send a good progressive humanist to the bench.
To what extent is Phil responsible for the tone and content of respondents? Is he at all, or is the original posting the extent of his message, and the comments are just fingernails?
Bruce, Blankfort took it seriously enough to join us in the mud.
Presence in media and influence do work together, and once again I must apologize in advance that I used on an earlier post, answering some points for Hasbara Buster –
“To give an extreme example, Arabs are the only nationality consistently ridiculed and vilified in Hollywood pictures. Does this have anything to do with the large numbers of Jewish screenwriters? We can’t tell for sure, we’re not in their heads. But it would be utterly dishonest to claim that the inference is so far-fetched as to constitute antisemitism.”
The answer to much of this is that there is a confluence of interest Buster, it is a subterfuge that is all to commonly practiced after years of use with various power centers – it is what a diaspora uses. The answer is always that there are many served by the practice, which serves as plausible denial. It is like someone who does well at work, they not only make their immediate boss look good but make themselves more attractive. It is this and both, one and many.
Just like putting Arabs in a bad light is used to serve as a mask for the occupation by coupling it with the so-called “war on terror,” and yet it serves other interests in this said war on terror. Media and news in particular is also reciprocal, it covers a multitude atrocities with deceptive clothing (as I have said before) and gets a green light to do the same for the occupation. Yes and both, one and many.
Serves both interests –
PLANET OF THE ARABS
Nobody is against Jewish people having a monopoly of Kosher delicatessens, for example.
The question is really not if Jewish people have a great influence in the infotainment industry, that is obvious. The question is whether we are satisfied with that industry, whether they are giving us true information or agitprop. Are we being manipulated against our own interests? Is this having a harmful effect on the broader interests of America and its people… on the world at large?
no we are not satisfied
Zionist control of the media, Jews and otherwise, simply acts as a mouthpiece of a much larger power structure with much broader interests than the Zionist movement. We have a coalition of robber barons who funnel our tax dollars into their pockets though providing everything from the bombs to the boots in their conquest of the Middle East, and plundering it for for oil profits and such.
While Jews do maintain a dominant presence in the media portion of this, the powers that be are still predominately WASPs, just as it has been in the US since this nation was founded. It’s much like when the Church ran their lending industry during the Middle Ages, with Jews as the visible front, but the Church collecting the bulk of the profits. Unfortunately, both then and now, many distracted by arguing about Jews rather than considering the big picture. Of course this is the way the powers that be prefer it.
Certainly Jewish people have often been used as cat’s paw to pull the chestnuts of the powerful out of the fire. The kings of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabel, for example, tried to avoid the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 as they were so useful to them, collecting taxes and so forth, but finally they were forced to — much against their will — by popular demand.
Modern DNA testing has proven that most of the Spanish Jews converted to Christianity rather than leave. The Spanish inquisition that followed was so savage because their was a much doubt that these conversions were sincere… Spain is still suffering the consequences of all of this.
“Zionist control of the media”.
Who knows if the posters here represent a trend in American thinking, or are just the enthused extremes?
A few of the posters here have always seemed a little unbalanced, or at least careless in their wording. And there are always going to be antisemites hanging around an issue like this, trying to use it for their own sick purposes.
What one should say is that on the subject of Israel-Palestine, the press is constantly pressured to bend over backwards to present Israel in the best possible light and the result is very bad journalism. People are afraid to criticize Israel because they don’t want to be accused of antisemitism. This is bad, and dishonest and so forth, but it’s not exactly unknown in American politics for a faction to take control of the debate by framing its opponents as inherently evil. One doesn’t have to treat Zionist propaganda as though it’s some unique and unprecedented form of bullsh**–on the contrary, it’s a rather obvious and fairly common form of bulls*** Much of our political debate on almost any subject is dominated or at least heavily influenced by bulls***. It’s the American way. Look at all the nonsense about “death panels” in the health care debate, which even some sensible Republican analysts say is ridiculous, yet somehow this idiocy is taken seriously.
I wish people would avoid explosive phrases like “Zionist control of the media” and just say “so-called supporters of Israel try to suppress criticism of Israel’s crimes with accusations of antisemitism. We are going to start confronting people who make dishonest use of that accusation.”
Sorry, Donald, that such explosive phrases such as “Zionist control of the media” upset you. Would Zionist domination of the media when it deals with the Israel-Palestine question” be less offensive? That it exists is simply a matter of observation, as the Eric Alterman article that I mentioned earlier points out. What else is there to explain the difference between the coverage of the conflict in the US as opposed to every other country in the world, including Israel, which carries articles that would never see the light of day in the US press?
Arthur Hertzberg, former president of the American Jewish Congress, in his lengthy tome, “A Jew in America,” recalls how he tried to get an article in the Hadassah Courier when he came back from a stint in Israel that described the birth of Peace Now. Here are two citations from his book which speak for themselves and should silence some of the doubters:
On returning from living in Israel as a Jew who could read Hebrew, “and not as an American who could only read the Jerusalem Post…..which fed visitors, and even long time residents who knew no Hebrew, the official line…I wanted to describe, in a leading American Jewish journal, Israel as it really was.”
The most widely read Jewish publication at the time was the Hadassah Courier on whose editorial board Hertzberg served. He assumed, “in all innocence, that an essay that I would submit would be published without question. I chose to write about the beginnings of the protest movement Peace Now… The essay was rejected out of hand When he protested, Hertzberg was “bluntly told that Haddassah Magazine existed to give a favorable image of Israel and that my essay about inner strife did not help the cause. It was nearly ten years before such discussions could turn up in a ‘respectable’ Jewish journal in America.” A Jew in America, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 2002, .” Pp.352-53
Hertzberg persisted in reading the Hebrew press and attempt to speak to Jewish audiences and “read the contrasting accounts of the same events put out by the propaganda machines and what one could read in the free and unfettered Israeli press. It was constant battle to convince some people in the United States that they were being fed fairy tales rather than the truth, both by the weeklies that were published by the Jewish charitable federations and by the publications and press releases of the various national agencies. Accounts of inner strife in Israel were bad for the campaign to raise money for Israel and were dangerous for the pro-Israel lobbies.” P. 353, ibid.
Today, only the Forward among all the Jewish publications, carries articles critical of Israel and there are two organizations, CAMERA and HonestReporting that keep the mainstream press in line, assisted, of course, by the insufferable Abe Foxman of the ADL. Check out their sites to see the scalps they have collected.
As if the left doesn’t collect scalps.
And, have you forgotten Haaretz?
Jewish subscribers to newspapers often threaten to cancel their subscriptions in retaliation to articles that might be offensive to Abe Foxman. I read letters like that occasionally that make it to print. If MSM attempts to shine a light on any malfeasance on Isreal’s part it is attacked. Is this co-ordinated or just reflexive?
Actually, I see a positive side to the enormous power of Jews in America infotainment industry and the Lobby’s power to neutralize congress.
Normally, historically, over centuries, a depression like recession in the midst of two losing wars would simply be blamed on the Jews and a pogrom would ensue and then it would be business as usual.
Since Jewish people are not really responsible for all of this but have just been using the system, like skillful sailors use the wind, this would mean that the root cause (the system itself) would never stand revealed.
However, today’s Jewish power means that the simple expedient of blaming everything on the Jews is not available, so we actually get to the bottom of all of this finally.