Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

How Israel controls our media

by shergald Sun Oct 3rd, 2010 at 08:38:57 PM EST


The same day that Rick Sanchez, a CNN Spanish language reporter located in Miami, USA, was fired by the network after making controversial comments on a radio show, saying that Jon Stewart was a "bigot" and that CNN and the other networks are all run by Jewish people, the above video appeared on YouTube claiming a similar Jewish (read Israeli) "control" of the networks when it comes to reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We are informed that "once you have watched this (video) all should be clear to you! Always question the MSM and why their news is being reported. There is always an agenda and there is always censorship and manipulation of your thoughts."

Although I'd like to see a formally published study of the issue that goes beyond Mearshirmer and Walt's classic, The Israel Lobby, all we have to go by today is common experience, what we get to see, and especially what we don't get to see (censorship) about the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular.

"Our" in the title of course refers to American media, even though some European media like the BBC have been accused of similar censorship influences.

Jews in Hollywood are the core problem. Apparently.

Can I recommend that you eschew the use of "Jewish" when you mean "Israeli"?  Despite the best efforts of the PR campaign you are complaining about (I think, it's hard to tell) the two terms are not coterminous and you're simply playing into the hands of the Israeli and American far-right.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 07:28:52 AM EST
You have a point but then you don't, because the recent accusations of press control are just like those quoted in the ADL article you linked to. There are few Israelis actually directly involved in the US media, compared to the broader community of rightish American Jews (and nonJewish supporters) and Jewish and Israeli organizations (quoted in the video) who alledgedly act on Israel's behalf to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ongoing occupation and colonization, out of the news, or conversely, to depict Palestinians as evil perpetrators. For example, a rocket landing in the Negev is likely to be reported in the US, but not the deaths of civilians by the IDF in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter, or the dire situation in Gaza.

There are of course left wing Jews and Jewish organizations in the US, which are against Israel's actions toward the Palestinians, so that no absolute conflation of terms is legitimate. Also note that I am repeating an old theme as to why we don't get the news or get a biased interpretation when it comes to the conflict, which is what the video contends. I suggest a more indepth study with facts.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 08:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So be specific, unless you want to associate with the mad Protocols of Zion brigade.

Most of Israel's right-wing anti-Palestinian supporters in the US media and political worlds seem to be Christians. By a factor of lots and lots and lots, as far as I can tell.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 08:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your last statements certainly deserves a few links.

The Christian Zionists and other conservative Christian orgs may be strong supporters of Israel, but how they are involved in news censorship is another question you might want to answer.

The video quotes many organizations that are involved in news censorship (difficult to read off the screen, I know), but I'm not seeing many Christian orgs among them.

Re. your previous comment, you might like to know that the ADL under Abe Foxman is now part of the censorship brigade. Foxman's repeated theme is that criticism of Israel stimulates anti-Semitism. Stop it. And just recently he joined the anti-Islam effort coming from pro-Israeli organizations, about Iran and its bomb.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 09:11:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know who the ADL are.

You appear committed to furthering their agenda, part of which is exploiting anti-anti-semitism by conflating Israel with all Judaism.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 09:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I spoke above about a need for indepth study of the issue of news censorship and bias in the US media.

Alison Weir, a journalist who runs the site, If Americans Knew,

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

has done some statistical research on reporting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrating censorship and bias in the US media. More work like hers is needed.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 09:16:09 AM EST
For people commenting who have nothing to say about the topic, I think it would be better for them not to say anything.

It is getting to the point where only meta points or criticisms of the messenger are elicited on these IP diaries. It's old hat and a common way to derail or hijack the diary, a phenomenon with which I am thoroughly familiar from a long experience on Daily Kos. The only thing I have not seen here at ET so far are accusations of anti-Semitism.

What I said earlier to Colman's trivial remarks stands, lest he find some sources to support his idiotic points.


by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 11:15:03 AM EST
Colman, as an Irishman who seems, or sort of seems to be leftist, you might want to get involved with this group of Irish human rights advocates, calling themselves for many years, the

Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, at

http://www.ipsc.ie/

They are currently part of a convoy to Gaza where they hope once again to break the inhumane siege of Gaza, which I'm certain you are entirely against.


by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 11:35:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The diary is about "Jewish (read: Israeli)" control of the US media.

How is Colman's remark off-topic or meta?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 11:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Obviously, the remark is not "about "Jewish (read: Israeli) control of the US media," but about the way it was expressed. However, he did go on to claim that most of the censorship and bias of IP in US media is by Christian organizations, about which we wait in vain for links and substantiation. Wrong but content focused.

But he was not the only commenter, was he?

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 12:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Further comments were sparked by your asking Colman if he was an agent of GIYUS.

It really isn't worth wrangling with you.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 12:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Read again. Colman's ridiculous idea that all that was said is blasphemy against Judaism is what sparked the "talking point" point. I noticed that you didn't think anything wrong with his broad equation, at least you said nothing about it. But I guess that's the way a "community" operates, which I here called attention to before. Communities easily become cliques, single minded and highly self protective.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 02:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Colman did not claim "that all that was said is blasphemy against Judaism", he just pointed, as so I did, the potential risk there is to conflate Jewish and Israeli. So you're putting words he didn't say in his mouth. And you accused him of being an Israel's PR agent. We do not accept this kind of behaviour on ET, period.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you dislike having comment threads cluttered by people pointing and laughing at stupid and offensive insinuations that regulars here are astroturfing for Israel... then perhaps you should stop insinuating that regulars here are astroturfing for Israel. At least until and unless you have something more substantial to back it up with than the fact that they criticise your writings.

Just a suggestion.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 12:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the suggestion.

May I also suggest that if you have nothing substantial to say about a diary that you stay away. Colman hijacked the diary on a trivial, misunderstood point, and then everyone else piled on.

A think tank this place is not!

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 03:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, no.

Colman objected to what appeared to be a counterproductive talking point. You responded by accusing him of being an astroturfer. You got called on that. You claimed that getting called out for smearing another contributor constituted "hijacking."

One of the things that causes European Tribune to have a high signal-to-noise ratio is that commenters enjoy the presumption of good faith. Baseless accusations of astroturfing undermine this principle. Therefore baseless accusations of astroturfing are usually called out wherever and whenever they pop up.

I fully understand the desire to control the message of one's diaries and their comment threads. Staying on message is an important component of effective advertising. I do not, however, find it particularly conducive to intellectual discourse much above the level of YouTube comment threads.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 03:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Interestingly, FairLeft, who said he may have been temporarily banned from ET, read the posts here and called it "trolling." I told him that there was a clique here that often jumps on my diaries with extraneous comments about meta or language having nothing at all to do with the topic of the diary. And here we have another example.

Take my advise. I write for the lurkers (information seekers, in my opinion), not for the 1%, the group of very active bloggers like yourself that in my mind acts like a clique. My advise is to just stay away, and let the diary decend into oblivion off the recent diary list. My purpose is served simply by posting.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I write for the lurkers (information seekers, in my opinion), not for the 1%, the group of very active bloggers [...] My purpose is served simply by posting.

In other words, you are in the business of advertising, rather than scholarship. Which would explain the undue insistence on message control that keeps getting you into hot water.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:20:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hot water? How absurd, but a good excuse for diary hijacking.

As I suggested before, lurkers come here seeking information, just as I do when I lurk on sites elsewhere. And that is just what I provide. Bye.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
FairLeft, who said he may have been temporarily banned from ET, read the posts here and called it "trolling."

Yes, fairleft is certainly an expert when it comes to identifying trolls... ;-)

I write for the lurkers (information seekers, in my opinion), not for the 1%, the group of very active bloggers

Yawn... You have said that many times. But without these active bloggers who take care of the editorial content, ET wouldn't draw many lurkers. Indeed, without them, ET wouldn't exist at all.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At last count, maybe six months ago (I can no longer find the site meter), there were 1,700 visitors on average who click on ET daily. To suggest that you know why 95% of them, the lurkers, come here, that it is due to editorial input, is highly questionable.

I often get this input, which I can assure amounts to little more than diary hijacking. Jake long ago made his views known by complaining of IP diaries per se, editorial input otherwise lacking.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
To suggest that you know why 95% of them, the lurkers, come here, that it is due to editorial input, is highly questionable.

So why do you think they come here? For the awesome design of the site? For the beautiful pictures? Wait... maybe only to read your diaries?
 

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 04:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FairLeft's comment on Booman, where both of us seem welcomed (Booman averages around 5000 daily visitors, by the way).

Very well-done video.

Hey, sorry about you getting trolled again over at eurotrib. I'm (temporarily?) banned over there, otherwise I would help you out.

FairLeft is an old veteran on the matter of trolling, being a highly experienced blogger who also cut his teeth dealing with the right wing at Daily Kos. Over there, when a diary was hijacked (in the way mine are here), it was usually by right wing Zionists stationed there to defend Israel, right or wrong. The quality of his diaries also transcend much of what I see here at ET. Sorry to be judgmental about it, but it is true.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 05:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When quoting posts in other (sub)threads, it is considered polite to provide a link to the original.

FairLeft is an old veteran on the matter of trolling, being a highly experienced blogger

Melanchthon is also an old veteran on the matter of trolling and a highly experienced blogger. Got any more authoritarian fallacies you want to get out of your system?

who also cut his teeth dealing with the right wing at Daily Kos.

Now you are insinuating that European Tribune is comparable to a gathering of right-wing Kossacks.

Over there, when a diary was hijacked (in the way mine are here),

Again, your diary was not hijacked. Colman objected to some of your rhetoric and asked for a clarification. You then accused him of astroturfing. This is unacceptable, and you were slapped down. You then persisted with your bullshit slander, now against the people who slapped you down for the first bullshit slander. It was always in your power to end that cycle, simply by ceasing to slander other commenters.

it was usually by right wing Zionists stationed there to defend Israel, right or wrong.

But apparently you chose to keep digging.

The quality of his diaries also transcend much of what I see here at ET. Sorry to be judgmental about it, but it is true.

De gustibus non est disputandum, I suppose. Although I would be curious as to what meterstick you're measuring by here. For instance, could you find three of fairleft's contributions here (or your own, for that matter) that would compare favourably with this, this and this, so we can get some idea about what you consider transcendental diaries?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 05:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jake you lost be a long time ago when you called ET a think tank. What you said above seems like nothing more than more self aggrandizement.

by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 08:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I take it that this is a way of saying "no I will not answer your question, and no I will not provide a link to the material I quoted."

This is precisely the sort of habits that make it sort of hard to engage with you on any matter of substance.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 02:06:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just one question. Do you have any interest in the proIsrael censorship of media in the US and perhaps in Europe? If so, let's here it. If not, just what are you doing here?


by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 05:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are your seriously trying to get your pound of flesh with this? Where in this diary have you been criticized as a messenger before this particular post?

Conflating terminology, and/or people taking issues with the usage of terminology happens in every possible field of discussion, particularly on a controversial topic. Either you take that heat like an adult, or you should consider stop posting at ET. No need to come back complaining the response is not what you want it to be.

by Nomad on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 06:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps you can draw my attention to just one of the 36 posts above that show any interest whatsoever in the topic of this diary, as opposed say to criticizing the diarist. Have fun searching. I've experienced this kind of behavior before, repeatedly.

So let me repeat. I post here not for the clique that that runs the blog, but for the majority lurkers.

PS: Where is the site meter?


by shergald on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 08:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have posted many diaries, some of them with interesting information which couldn't be easily found elsewhere, like the early flotilla diaries. I recommended some of them. However, you have now taken the habit of insulting anyone who dares to make the slightest remark on your diaries. That's not the way ET works.

You don't care about the community? So be it. If you post only for lurkers, I suggest you create your own site, so all the lurkers who come here to read your diaries will follow you there.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Mon Oct 4th, 2010 at 11:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm still searching for just one comment that expresses interest in the topic of this diary, from the "community," as opposed to the meta or the language issues its members often bring up.

I glad that you found some of these diaries interesting. But I'm still surprised, that for the international focus ET intends to have, not more about Israel-European relations and the Palestinian drive for freedom is blogged about.

Based on Swen Triloqvist's information, only 1% of daily visitors to ET are "very active," who I believe constitute the so-called "community" here, 5% are just "active," perhaps just commenters or diary cross-posters, and 94% are "lurkers," information seekers. I think he is probably correct. Thoughts?

by shergald on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 09:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One assumes that the reason why the lurkers return is because they find the information presented here at ET to be useful, and they appreciate the 'actions' of the 6% in providing content and also in moderating discussions so that the debating follows the rules that have been built up over several years of operation.

Your failure to understand and apply these rules to your own content contributions puts you outside the community. As a community, working together, we cover many issues. We don't always agree on those issues, but each of us tries to lay out a reasonable argument for our view and to follow up dissenting comments in a civilized manner. Most of us do not get involved in every diary because some diaries are beyond our individual competence. That does not mean that as individuals we are not interested to read many of them.

I agree with gringo that many of your past diaries have contained interesting information not seen elsewhere. But your manner of presentation and discussion severely weaken the importance of those diaries.

But what I most object to is the fact that a lot of time has been wasted by excellent contributors on trying to get you to understand what you steadfastly refuse to understand.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 11:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jake once made the same claim about following rules and then made false specifications, about which I asked for examples. He was unable to do so, suggesting people can sometimes lie in their efforts to suppress content, in this case about IP. Jake has a long history with me about posting on IP, even once claiming that the "think tank" already resolved the conflict. Matter closed. No more need to post on it.

Perhaps you would like to put up examples, which one would ordinarily expect when making such claims about rules and such.

by shergald on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 02:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

That's enough.

Comments closed in this thread.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 02:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm still searching for just one comment that expresses interest in the topic of this diary

As to that, the diary is rather too short to evoke much interest in the topic: just four short grafs in all - and the longest of them is an ill-advised attempt to link your issue with the Sanchez/Stewart flap.

What information there is is contained in the video. And as a video it works. But as a thoughtful analysis it would fall short.

More care would earn you more respect.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 12:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Sanchez gaff just happened to be contemporaneous. Nothing more. His views about Stewart are clearly way off base.

What you stated is true, as sometimes just a video will deliver the message, one which has long been proposed as to why Americans see a censored, biased,. even distorted view of the Middle East and the IP conflict. Perhaps a rerun of the great documetary, Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land is well deserved, as it is still very relevant. For your sake,

Part I:

Part II:



by shergald on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 02:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shergald, my humble advice is that you try to ignore comments that you consider provocative, or as Christians like to say "turn the other cheek."  

Sometimes, the remarks that you might be inclined to consider as unfair criticism were not intended to be taken that way. Above all do continue posting here, if possible.  I read your diaries and I am sure many others do as well.  No one else here provides regular coverage of these same issues.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 12:43:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your advise and comment.

by shergald on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 09:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also a rather insulting comment as I am part of the group who runs this blog. Besides that, there are a fair number of regulars who have equally chipped in critically to your irritable reactions.

So let me repeat: Interest does not mean sheer uncritical commentary. For the rest, I concur with Melanchthon above.

by Nomad on Tue Oct 5th, 2010 at 03:24:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]