Bruce Wolman responds to a recent post about Jewish ownership of the media. Following his response, I respond to him. Take it away, Bruce:
Jeff Blankfort is misinformed about ownership of the media.
The Washington Post and Newsweek are owned by the Graham family, which is not Jewish. The great Grandfather, Eugene Meyer, who bought the paper in 1933 was Jewish, but his wife was a WASP socialite. The only daughter, Katherine, married Phil Graham. As far as I know, none of her children or grandchildren were or are Jewish. (This is a different story than the mixed tribe of the Sulzbergers of NYT.) When I was growing up, the Jews of Washington looked skeptically at the Grahams, as was the custom towards famous families that had left the faith and were active Protestants. It wasn’t until after the 1967 War, that the Post, like much of cosmopolitan America, became so staunchly philo-Semitic and pro-Zionist.
Moreover, it is only recently that the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune (the Tribune having bought the Times awhile back) came into the hands of Jewish ownership. Since that deal is unravelling with the Tribune in bankruptcy, it’s a stretch to call these papers part of the long-standing Jewish ownership of the media. The Chandler family, which owned the LAT for decades, was considered anti-Semitic for most of its history. It was only the last Chandler who led the company, Otto, who turned that view around.
ABC is owned by Disney, which is hardly Jewish owned, although Eisner grabbed a nice chunk of the company when he ran it.
Sony owns Columbia, News Corp. owns Fox, Time-Warner owns Warner, and Universal is owned by GE. Neither Sony, News Corp, Time-Warner or GE is Jewish owned. That leaves only Viacom in Jewish hands along with Dreamworks.
It fits in with the conspiracy theory to make Ruppert Murdoch an honorary Jew, but Ruppert is anything but Jewish. He would cut the Jews and Israel loose in a minute if it served his business interests (and he does when it does).
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. Examining how the LAT with its history flipped and became almost indistinguishable in outlook to the NYT and WP, it suggests that the demographics of readership and advertisers have more to do with Jewish influence than ownership.
The Hollywood studios were mostly founded by Jews, but while in their ownership they went out of their way not to appear Jewish. As studio ownership broadened, a pro-Israeli bias became even more evident. There is no doubt that many Jews work in Hollywood and have important roles there. But the story of influence in the media is complicated and I though Mondoweiss had been doing a good job of documenting how it actually works. Blankfort’s meme is a step backwards in my judgement.
Weiss responds:
Most of Wolman’s sociology seems good to me. I think there’s some issue about Jewish identity in the Washington Post heirs, but who knows…
What I don’t find persuasive about Wolman’s response is his suggestion that Jews aren’t a dominant player in media life. We are. It is not just ownership, though ownership is important: As I’ve said, most of my checks as a journalist have been signed by Jewish publishers or Jewish owners. That’s in magazine work in New York. I got my start partly thru the New Republic, which is hugely important in career-making, and which imposes a pro-Israel litmus test; I lost my perch at the NY Observer because owner and editor were frankly Zionist; and lately I have been told that I can’t be hired by a prestige organization whose top editor is thanked in Joan Peters’s Zionist tract From Time Immemorial.
I can’t get assigned to write about Jewish identity and Middle East policy in a lot of places in the mainstream media; and though I am Jewish, Jewishness can’t be separated from that editorial climate. Jews predominate among the most influential print editors in the country. And just as anti-Zionism was a creed of Establishment Jews 80 and 100 years ago–to the point that Theodor Herzl was suffocated by his Jewish editors, who refused to cover Zionism in the leading newspaper of Europe, and had to start his own Zionist newspaper– to the point that anti-Zionism was espoused by both Eugene Meyer and Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the Jews who played such a role in the rise of the Post and the Times….. well, today soft Zionism is the creed of Establishment Jews, and support for the Jewish state is prevalent throughout media culture.
These Establishment Jews don’t tend to be feverish about Zionism, but they’re Zionist. (Silky soft, like the medium-grade of tofu.) One of my publishers had worked for AIPAC, and that’s not unusual. Wolf Blitzer worked for AIPAC. Across the spectrum, the really soft Zionist media types I know are two-staters, but a lot of them haven’t been to Israel. Some have relatives in Israel. Most of them are opposed to the settlements. But Jewish culture has a certain cohesiveness to it; and the dominant feeling even in the liberal media is the 70s Holocaust-fed belief that there is an absolute need for the Jewish state, and the Arabs are trying to push Jews into the sea. This culture explains why Jeffrey Goldberg has had such a fine career in journalism; leaving aside his considerable gifts, he is a Jewish militant, and the soft Zionism of media culture defers to that militancy. And defers to his knowledge of the situation. Just as Jews generally defer to their neoconservative cousins, because they know the situation. Tom Friedman and Charles Krauthammer are the court. Anecdotally, I have noticed that even gentile editors absorb these views (two states, Palestinian terrorists) as part of media culture; but I would say they are being influenced not by Jimmy Carter, say, but by Jews.
This culture can be changed– just as Jewish identity can be changed, remember the Shabbatai Zevi– but I would argue that it is the largest factor in media support for Israel. The Jewish presence in the media was the angry firewall, for instance, against Walt and Mearsheimer, and Jimmy Carter too.
Bruce, you and I are trying to change that culture. But that change is taking place very slowly. We are outliers. When Marty Peretz says that he pities Jews like us because of our "hatred of our inheritance," he is not a marginal character: no, his extreme view of this situation is still the fuel rod that energizes the nuclear core of mainstream Jewish life, and in turn defines the media culture with respect to these questions.
Lefties might say a class analysis of media ownership and influence is more relevant than a Jewish analysis. The problem there, though, is that the post-Holocaust diaspora Jewish ethos (IMO) is victimist and vengeful, which means upper class Jews in media are likely to push the limits of ethics, morality and taste further than upper class gentiles due to the “revenge” factor against society as a whole.
It seems to me Judaism has always pit Jews against gentiles as a motivational tool and a means of cohesiveness. It may be a natural survivalist method or instinct among all minorities the world over. But when those minorities with a victim mentality and a predisposition of hostility towards the majority take a hugely disproportionate leadership role in shaping a culture and society, it’s a recipe for dysfunction.
Oh scholar of Judaism, please tell us more.
One example from just the last week: “Israeli anti-assimilation campaign asks Jews to inform on their family members”
If that’s not a process of pitting Jews against gentiles (and other Jews who “betray” the clan) I don’t know what is.
Chris is right, Michael W. Anti-Gentilism was written into the Judaic canon over 2,000 years ago.
2,000 years ago? You mean like the words of Hillel?
Oh, that must be why there are so many Jewish doctors.
I think Bruce is playing a game here with the word “ownership”. While it is true, for example, that Disney is “owned” by its millions of shareholders, it is RUN by Robert Iger, who supports Aish HaTorah. And while it is true that GE is ultimately run by Jeffrey Immelt, the media portion of that conglomerate is under Jeff Zucker. And while it is true that Rupert Murdoch is the CEO of News Corp., the COO (in charge of actual operations) has always been Peter Chernin. Other examples could be given.
(“The only daughter, Katherine, married Phil Graham. As far as I know, none of her children or grandchildren were or are Jewish. ” I would have thought it was important to know the answer to this before posting a claim to the contrary.)
I’m not going to accuse Bruce Wolman of intentionally misleading us. I suspect he has internalized the notion of an “antisemitic canard” of Jewish media dominance to the point that he won’t even bother looking up the facts. But I warn him that if he ever actually does take the trouble to look up who is running our electronic media, he will be shocked by what he finds. If anything those “antisemitic conspiracy theories” understate the actual extent of control.
The only option left to someone like Bruce is to start arguing that while the media may indeed be largely in Jewish hands, it doesn’t really make any difference since there is “a diversity of Jewish opinion” and coverage of Israel is not likely to be biased. Alas if he tries this, anyone who has actually watched TV in the past thirty years will laugh at him.
“The Washington Post and Newsweek are owned by the Graham family, which is not Jewish. The great Grandfather, Eugene Meyer, who bought the paper in 1933 was Jewish, but his wife was a WASP socialite. The only daughter, Katherine, married Phil Graham. As far as I know, none of her children or grandchildren were or are Jewish.”
Actually, Meyer’s wife was a Lutheran German. Like Graham, she came from a poor background. The four grandchildren were raised in their formative years by
hired help. If you go by the traditional litmus test of the Jewish mother’s blood line,
those kids are not Jewish. If you go by Hitler’s Nuremberg race laws or Israel’s Law of Return, they are Jewish. By DNA, the kids are one quarter Jewish. Who knows
what religious training any of them ever had, or if they give same to their own kids?
Oops, to be clear, I mean Katherine and her sibs were raised in their formative years by hired help. And its the grandchildren of Eugene Meyer & his German wife who are one quarter Jewish by DNA.
Citizen, take your “Jewish DNA” somewhere else. Jewishness is a choice.
“take it someplace else”
Like Israel, perhaps, which considers someone Jewish even if he or she is an atheist, as long as a mother or grandmother was Jewish? The problem with arguing that “Jewish” is not really an ethnicity (which I agree with, BTW) is that the state of Israel, and a large number of “Jews” will disagree with you. Its an uphill battle against canards when the state of Israel and its apologists endorse so many of them.
D, why so rude to me? I was not articulating my own ideas, merely stating the traditional Jewish
mohter blood line answer to who is a Jew (other than by voluntary conversion by a Gentile). These traditions, as well as Nazi and Israeli Law Of Return law I also stated.
“D, why so rude to me? “
Perhaps it sounded ruder than I meant it, and I apologize. But I still can’t understand why anyone would have brought up the notion of DNA in this context. The subject was not the genetic makeup of the Graham children, but whether or not they have chosen an identity for themselves — a self-definition, an ideology — as people apart from and in opposition to the society around them. This is the only aspect of Jewishness that concerns us here on this blog. Not whether they happen to have had Jewish parents, or happen to have grown up in a Jewish cultural setting, or happen to practice the religion of Judaism, but whether they have chosen to put their Jewishness over and above their identity as human beings.
Have you read Atzmon’s essay on “The Third-Category Jew”?
This is a very thoughtful analysis between the three — but however you slice and ddice ownership/influence/control, the manistream media refuses to report on what’s really happening in Palestine, or give a fulsome account of what happened during the Gaza massacre. There are a few cracks in the dam — the WashPo op-ed by Jimmy Carter, the call for BDS sanctions by the Israel professor in the L.A. Times — but how come there is no ongoing coverage of the greatest crime against humanity in our time in American media? I think Phil and Blankfort gave an elegant answer to the question, and blows away Abe Foxman’s histrionics that it’s a “canard” to claim Jewish domination of the media.
Yep, Oscar, that is the bottom line. Our “special relationship” with Israel is on total life support courtesy of the MSM, and it has been for many decades.
I apologize in advance, I am just going to repeat what I said on an earlier post because it applies here –
My recommendation for those of Witty’s ilk is if they want to see the halt to the monolithic “The Jews” that they stop the “Lobby” process as defined by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, which is a very broad spectrum consisting not only of media but always having preferential access to media (and this cannot be broke off from ownership of the media). Which I believe hits the bulls eye of activity as well as the silence that Citizen speaks about – both work by activity and silence which work together in this instance as commission and omission that creates an appearance if not of a cabal a big club, with non-stop open media access while dissent is quashed and ignored.
M&W lay out what they men from pages 111 in their volume to 150, it is not merely the formal lobby but “loose coalition.” It might be more aptly described as the “pro-Israel community.” The boundaries cannot be identified precisely, the list is so long that it takes this many pages to accurately describe it. Plus most get unfettered main media access, with its consequent international platform. When so few of the opposition get any “press” it makes them appear as outliers, and begins to take on and is dismissed as an extreme fringe. This is what individuals like Witty rely upon, and what he takes upon himself on this blog, to call Phil’s approach “racist.”
Whereas there is access to everything which is contrary to this view supported by the mass media (as described above), it is that media which is most accessed by the general population. Many who are so wearied by trying to eek out an existence turn to because it is easy, rather than trying to mine for web sites.
While we are at it let me give a fuller definition of free speech, which major media is supposed to be tied to. Some envision free speech as merely the ability to express yourself in any given group individually without reprisal and so on – but its official definition as defined at the founding of this country is quite different. It not only means an ability to speak ones mind in an official sense, but to have an EQUAL PLATFORM. That platform for national issues that effect everyone, use public monies, and is quite questionable (indiscriminate support of Israel as well as other issues that effect every ones pocketbook) does not have an equal access platform in the major media. Until this issue is addressed it will have the appearance which some find so objectionable (”the Jews” as a monolithic group, etc.).
In other words, you have to take the broad definitive nature of the Lobby, as correctly described by M&W coupled with the ownership issue. These two are inseparable in fleshing out the condition we are talking about in regard to MSM.
Yes. Chapter 4 of The Israel Lobby is titled “What Is The Israel Lobby?”
PP 111 to 150.
In the conclusion to that chapter, it is said, ” In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby
is no different than from other interest groups like the farm lobby, steel and textile workers, and a host of ethnic lobbies, although the groups and individuals who
comprise the Israel Lobby are in an unusually favorable position to influence U S
foreign policy.”
Chapter 4 is entitled “Guiding The Policy Process.”
In the intro, it states, the Lobby’s strategic operatives go ”
to considerable lengths to ensure that public discourse about Israel is favorable
and that it echoes the strategic and moral rationales discussed in Chapters 2 & 3.”
Chapter 2 covers “Israel: Strategic Asset Or Liability?”
Chapter 3 covers “A Dwindling Moral Case.”
“but its official definition as defined at the founding of this country is quite different. …. but to have an EQUAL PLATFORM”
You do have equal platform. Nobody is preventing you from starting your own newspaper.
Nice sidestep MW, like many others you like to parse paragraphs to your own convenience and designs, note carefully the context written above –
“That platform for national issues that effect everyone, use public monies, and is quite questionable (indiscriminate support of Israel as well as other issues that effect every ones pocketbook) does not have an equal access platform in the major media.”
The starting up of a “major media” today is not only monetarily prohibitive (by design I might add) but is flat out denied (see FCC). Which will make it a local concern if a paper is started, and that falls under the rubric of what I said above -
“Some envision free speech as merely the ability to express yourself in any given group individually without reprisal and so on…”
I don’t think anything else has to be said to reply to your empty retort MW.
Michael W — that’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted on this website. “You do have equal platform. Nobody is preventing you from starting your own newspaper.”
Again,
Palestinian perspective IS represented in the mass media.
The reason that the editors of ALL of the major mass media in the US reject the radical Palestinian approach, is because the approach itself is fanatic.
The inference “THE Jews control the media” is a racist formulation, more racist than “Zionism is racist”.
Phil should know better.
You’re invited to make as many pontifications not based in fact as you like Richard, just do not expect us to see them as factual arguments. That is the response your statement deserves.
Phil should know …what about our leaders and others they should be the ones frying..does phil control their doings, no..but he only providing truth and corrected accuracy in what may have been portrayed otherwise elsewhere.
I always try to see the root cause and fix it, This needs help from above there are no real people to encourage or go via tv media and try the truth bombardment to deprogram maybe sent by virus to actively correct the errors in those peoples systems..everyone uses pc. Are they not cousins anyway
come now witty.. once upon a time a tooth ferry left something under your pillow, but to still believe in tooth ferries is a bit uncharacteristic of a discerning mind… perhaps you left yours somewhere while making this comment…
Witty – “Palestinian perspective IS represented in the mass media.” – really now? Palestinians are very sure 100s died at Jenin – yet even HRW insisted to them and internationals on the spot that it was only 52! link to ccmep.org
The UN said “at least 52 died” adding that there’s no evidence it reached 500. Yet there are at least two places where the BBC says it was 52 in total.
And I’m told that Palestinians themselves estimate the Gaza death toll this time round as being at least 5,000 – but there’s no scrap of that anywhere in the media.
Oops, I mean Chapter 5 is entitled “Guiding The Policy Process.”
And, yes, V, one must couple this information with the ownership issue.
Witty’s comments here for the last couple of years ignore the reality of USA foreign policy and its ever-growing detriment to the USA, obscuring such detriment
by fastening onto red herrings in this context, such as the anti-semitic one-size- fits -all
“the Jews.”
Witty protests on this blog all the time as if The Lobby does not exist at all and as if
it isn’t causing great harm to the USA and is determined to cause more simply because
the USA’s best interests are not The Lobby’s main concern.
To expand Citizen, as an example –
“According to historian Melvin I. Urofsky, “no other ethnic group in American history has so extensive involvement with a foreign nation.” Steven T. Rosenthal agrees, writing that “since 1967 …there has been no other country whose citizens have been as committed to the success of another country as American Jews have been to Israel.” In 1981 the political scientist Robert H. Trice described the pro-Israel lobby as “comprised of at least 75 organizations-mostly Jewish-that actively support most of the actions and policy positions of the Israeli government.” The actions of these groups and individuals go beyond merely voting for pro-Israel candidates to include writing letters to politicians or news organizations, making financial contributions to pro-Israel candidates, and giving active support to one or more pro-Israel organizations, whose leaders often contact them directly to convey their agenda.” Israel Lobby, pg. 115.
However, you must even go beyond of this but still falling short of calling the Israel Lobby American Jewry – there are many types of organizations and individuals in responsible places. There are the special interest groups like the ZOA Zionist Organization of America, Washington Institute For Near East Policy, the ADL, Christians United for Israel, journalists and academics, various institutions like Indyk’s Brookings Institution, American Jewish Congress, Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism, Americans for a Safe Israel, American Friends of Likud, Mercaz-USA, Hadassah.
“There are also think tanks, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Middle East Forum, WINEP. There are also dozens of pro-Israel Pac’s, The Center For Responsive Politics tracks some three dozen pro-Isral Pac’s (and than there are stealth pac’s whose name do not reveal them).
Politically you have the neoconservatives as an entire group. Academics pop up all over the place supporting every move of Israel. You have an entire side of journalists and publications – JP, Commentary, New York Sun, wall Street Journal, and others that obviously lean in this direction (NYT, WP, etc.).
You also have the entire Christian Zionist camp. They even hold to a theological format which makes the Zionists the “untouchables,” and an eschatology which has an entire different format for Jewish “salvation.”
Really, this is merely scratching the surface. When all of them are orchestrated (however not losing their “diversity”) the effects are predictable.
If all of those Christians who subscribe to duel covenant eschatology and believe the Jews are still God’s chosen people per the bible can be categorized as Christian Zionists (no matter how much or little they engage in activism or lobbying on behalf of Israel), then why can’t all the Jewish members and supporters of all the Jewish groups you mention above be categorized as “Jewish Zionists”?
I submit they can and should be. I submit the reason they are NOT is because many of them are also members of the left-liberal ruling coalition, and that MSM opinion makers are overwhelming partisan left-liberals, and include a large contingent of liberal Jewish Zionists or pro-Zionist Judeophile liberals, and do not want such a crucial component of their coalition categorized and stereotyped.
They don’t mind mostly Evangelical Zionists being stereotyped as superstitious, ignorant and bigoted because those vote mostly Republican; but they don’t want Jewish Zionists categorized and stereotyped as such because, for example, 20% of Democrats in the U.S. Senate are Jewish Zionists. To stereotype and smear them would be to damage the political interests of left-liberalism.
This is how Jewish Zionists adopting a liberal identity or façade have served the interests of Zionism. By the traditional anti-authoritarian definition of liberalism, though, they clearly are NOT liberals — not foreign policy-wise, and with their speech codes, censorship and Big Government bullying and social engineering, increasingly not domestically, either.
PEP (Progressive Except Palestine) is definitely a real phenomenon, but I submit the majority of PEP’s aren’t authentically progressive, but rather poseurs who have adopted a progressive persona in order to advance the interests of Zionism from inside the left-liberal camp. They now have such influence there that establishment liberalism itself is fraudulently “liberal.”
Chris Moore,
What is “social engineering”?
Chris M – on the subject of PEP, the reverse is true as well. Neo-cons by and large have no interest in Republican politics or conservative values — they simply believe in manipulating the levers of power to have the children of Texas, Ohio and the Carolinas go off to die in the Middle East for WINEP’s “Clean Break” manifesto. Neo-cons destroyed the Republican party by infiltrating the Bush administration and agitating for an unjust war that has left the US in multiple quagmires. Now China is concerned that we’re printing too much funny money to pay our national debt and six countries are arguing that the US dollar should not be the world’s standard currency. As the US declines as the former “sole superpower” in the world’s eyes, history will trace it back directly to US foreign policy under George Bush, and the cabal of neo-cons who pushed through an unnecessary war that squandered blood and treasure and destroyed our standing in the free world.
Canadian Jewish Council and other pro-Israel Jewish group have started the process – through Canadian Parliament Coalition to combat Anti-Semitism – to such and several other realities – be considered as cases of ‘anti-Semitism’.
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Progressive on Palestine is mutual acceptance. Its moving that way now, on the two-state thesis.
What Phil, Norman, and others call “progressive on Palestine” is not as it opposes the concept of self-governance of Israelis, in favor of a currently arbitrary selection of jurisdiction of river to sea.
Sorry, Norman has recently stated support for the two-state solution.
Gee Richard, that would make a nice but not a viable argument. I am sure it would fit somewhere under one of the posts, it is just not the subject here.
The whole exercise centers around “how come there are more Palestinian voice in the mass media?”
How come “only Israel’s perspective is articulated”.
But, it just ain’t true. In the last year Rashid Khalidi has a lead op-ed in the Times, Fayyad had an op-ed, the foreign minister of Gaza Hamas had an op-ed, the bureau assistant in Gaza is Arab.
Why don’t they report on Belin? They did.
Why didn’t they report on the blockade of Gaza? They did.
Its a lame accusation.
If one were to rely on headlines for one’s news, rather than the content itself, this site would be known as a low tabloid.
Why is that? Phil obviously has an appreciation for nuance and complexity, as indicated by this article and his willingness to publish something that conflicts with hero Blankfurt.
This is just a test Richard – you do know the difference between an op-ed page and a major report from a region, don’t you? I hope so.
The main question is NOT ” ‘why’ don’t they report on Belin or Gaza,” the question is ‘WHAT’ DO THEY REPORT on Belin and Gaza. I take it you read the times Richard, and you would not be so foolish as to try to swap stories.
Lame V,
Read the history of Times reports from Gaza. They are genuinely balanced, NOT RADICAL certainly. Read the Times editorials on the region.
You are whining on this. Phil is whining on this. The two of you are presenting different theses than Walt/Mearsheimer in their book and currently.
Phil’s presentation is different than nuance. While he may retain an intellectually complex and restrained view not driven by animosity in his private analysis, the way that he frames his articles, and picks his material to publish, and picks his partners, contains a great deal of animosity.
“Persuading” by repetition and Pavlovian invocation of cause celebre. But, NOT by cool-thinking.
He should take the test of navigating through responding to the comments, at least once thoroughly, so that he has the experience of the baiting and trivialization of others’ arguments that occurs.
Richard, you must get a different version of the NYT than Phil and I do…lol Tey are “balanced” alright, balanced to one side.
M&W chief concern in their book is not the Palestinians – but the relationship of Israel to the USA, the workings of the lobby domestically, etc.
Yes, we are all salivating Pavlovian dogs Richard, you are the only “cool thinking” one…you are patently being ridiculous. You should break the hermetic seal that encases your mind
Witty – if the NYT were really to have mended its ways over Israel/Gaza, then that would be an earthquake.
Because, until now, according to Norman Finkelstein in the preface to one of his books:
(Sorry folks, there are html tags in there to end each of 4 paragraphs and start another, but they don’t seem to have taken effect).
@ Richard Witty September 7, 2009 at 6:39 am
Read the history of Times reports from Gaza. They are genuinely balanced, NOT RADICAL certainly. Read the Times editorials on the region.
Here is an analysis of ‘genuine balance’ in the NYT from ifamericansknew.org.
Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine
The New York Times
Check out their other analyses of media imbalance at ifamericansknew.org Media Report Cards.
Colin, good report. Here is a video from the same source with a little broader spectrum (it is not just the NYT):
OFF THE CHARTS
Well,
I’ve certainly argued with Norman Finkelstein over this.
But, your reports of innacuracy are from sources that consider uniquely innaccurate.
What are your impressions of actual NY Times reporting, that you know from experience, from knowing better.
I’ve been a journalist, and attended events with Washington Post representatives, in which our subsequent published articles of the same events were night and day. I was angry over what they omitted. The particular case was a press conference at the Nicaraguan embassy in DC, about a year after their revolution.
I wrote about the inspiring poet, women’s education advocate, and liberation priest that spoke. The Post wrote about Ortega’s brother, as a communist (which Jimmy Carter affirmed!!!!). Six months later, the Ortega’s instituted a purge, and the poet and liberation priest had been executed, on the basis that they were counter-revolutionary.
We were both right.
Maybe if they published what I had written, Carter would have defeated Reagan, and the contras would have lost their Washington support (Carter also supported the contras). Maybe the purge would never have been “necessary”. Maybe the two visionaries would still be alive, and the Marxist-Leninist disciplined party official would have been just another voice in a comprehensive and vibrant revolution.
In some ways it becomes tiresome going over the same ground with you Richard, because you cannot see or speak straight – you are a person with an agenda, and would deny truth if it bit you on the nose. So, I will let some one else speak about the wonders of modern “professional” journalism –
PROPAGANDA, THE PRESS, AND CENSORSHIP
Even though I have posted this before I think sometimes repetition part of learning – “the truth is always subversive.”
news via the internet is an area of interest to me… google is big in this area and it is said to be partly run by a person of jewish background.. google has a lot of clout at the moment.. another area of interest to me is ‘money’…. who owns the federal reserve, or is calling the shots at large ”’american” banks???? money buys influence.. if we are looking for fairness or equality, it will be difficult if this isn’t considered as well..
Pingback: Grahams ain’t Jewish
“Persuading” by repetition and Pavlovian invocation of cause celebre. But, NOT by cool-thinking.
The I/P debate is a culture war in which you just don’t think coolly. Neither side does. Both sides prompt Pavlovian responses. I see a certain bad faith in slamming someone for playing by the rules of the game.
Actually, I see a very positive side to the enormous power of Jews in America’s infotainment industry and the Israel Lobby’s power to neutralize congress.
Normally, historically, over centuries, a depression like recession, with massive unemployment 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 may actually get to the bottom of all of this finally.
Anyway you slice it, the North American public is not shown the real deal, the cost of their elected leaders’ policy, something to know to question Why with some zeal.
Here’s a typical example; in the case of the USA’s rabid Israel policy, to multiply
by photos of dead Palestinian babies:
link to lewrockwell.com