Yourish.com

05/11/2009

Kassams still flying, in spite of NY Times interview with Hamas

Filed under: Gaza, Hamas, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

Funny, I could have sworn Khaled Meshaal told the New York Times that Hamas was no longer firing kassam rockets at Israel. Do you—do you think he was lying?

This evening’s rocket, launched from northern Gaza, landed in an open area near a kibbutz between the Sedot HaNegev and Sha’ar HaNegev Regional Councils.

No injuries were reported and no damage was caused.

I guess since Hamas didn’t claim it, they’re not lying, right?

Wrong.

The Hamas terrorist organization proudly claimed responsibility for a mortar attack on western Negev communities Wednesday morning, a day after the United Nations officially released a report criticizing Operation Cast Lead.

The attack also came one day after The New York Times published an interview with Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal, who claimed that the group had ceased its rocket attacks on Israel after the military operation ended.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, apparently. At least, you can fool the media. And some fools in government who are insisting on tying Iran’s behavior to the creation of a Palestinian state. Because it’s not like Iran regularly calls for the death of Israel or anything like that. Oh, and as for Meshaal telling the Times that Hamas would accept a two-state solution?

Shyeah, right.

The Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas will not accept a two-state solution as a means to end the conflict with Israel, the movement’s Damascus-based politburo chief Khaled Meshal said Saturday.

Meshal said that Hamas rejects the two-state solution but could still be part of a national unity government if a Palestinian state is established based on 1967 borders.

Meshal told the New York Times last week that Hamas has agreed with the rival Fatah movement to a state based on 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and a right of return for Palestinians. He said such a deal could be the basis for a long-lasting ceasefire. Some analysts saw the remarks as an indirect recognition of Israel.

If the media ever get tired of being played for suckers, they might get some of their readers back.

03/17/2009

Funniest missile ad ever

Filed under: Humor, Israel, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

An Israeli defense company is selling its missiles to India via a Bollywood campaign.

I think it has top 40 potential. But then, I’ve had a soft spot for these music videos ever since I first discovered them. I think they’re all silly and fun.

Of course, the usual anti-Israel venom is in the comments, but let’s stop and think about relative death tolls of wars and terror attacks by Islamic nations, and wars by Israel. I do believe the death toll of Islamic nations utterly dwarfs the death tolls of sixty years of war with Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors. But that’s a post for another time.

01/20/2009

The amazing life and deeds of Mohammed Badwan – The Human Shield

Filed under: Media, Media Bias — SnoopyTheGoon @ 7:00 am

Imagine a Palestinian boy who, as any other boy, liked football, playing in the yard, taunting his sisters, catching flies, running away from the boring lessons at school, etc. All was well with Mohammed Badwan until the the black magic of the Israeli military drastically changed the life of the lad. Here is his picture – during the first encounter with IDF:

The first time the name of the youngster comes up in the Palestinian chronicles is an article (_adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/04_05_03nl.php_) on the Adalah site:

Most recently, on 15 April 2004, the Israeli military used Mohammed Badwan, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from Biddo, West Bank as a human shield. Mohammed was taking part in a demonstration against the construction of The Wall in Biddo.

Not nice, agreed. But obviously the boy made a lasting impression on the Zionist aggressors, because a week barely passed, and he is used again – and in the same capacity (but now he is an year older). Electronic Intifada (_electronicintifada.net/v2/article2614.shtml_) knows the details:

According to the same sources, on 22nd April 2004, a 13 year old boy called Mohammed Said Essa Badwan/Badran was used as a human shield. Mohammed was peacefully taking part in spontaneous demonstration…

It becomes a habit with IDF (or with young Mohammed) apparently. Or, you can say, an innocent mistake in the date – nothing special.

But the amazing career of young Muhammad is only budding, just wait a bit. He is used again, now, according to Amnesty International (_amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2005&c=ISR_) report for 2005:

In April, Israeli soldiers used 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan as a “human shield” during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Biddu. The soldiers placed the boy on the hood of their jeep and tied him to the front windscreen to discourage Palestinian demonstrators from throwing stones in their direction.

Notice that he is still 13 years old. Again, it could be a clerical mistake, but the boy shows resilience and is highly reusable in his role of a human shield. This is probably why the Zionists decided to put him in some (hitherto secret) suspended animation machine. Apparently his age plays a critical role in their nefarious plans, since the next record of his appearance relates to 2007 (_lists.resist.ca/pipermail/onthebarricades/2008-April/000480.html_):

Palestinain children as young as 11 were used as human shields during an Israeli military invasion of Nablus in March 2007. 13 year-old Mohammad Badwan was tied by the arm to an Israeli military jeep…

It is Nablus now and three years later, but he is still 13 years old! And March of 2007 sees his return to Bidou in the same role. According to the Live Leak (_liveleak.com/view?i=76d_1173007758_)

Israeli human rights activists have accused border police of using a 13-year-old Palestinian as a human shield. Rabbis for Human Rights say that Mohammed Badwan was tied by police to a jeep during a recent demonstration in the West Bank village of Bidou.

This was posted in March 2007 too. Surely our boy gets around. Besides, is it possible that he’s developed some affinity for a specific border police jeep? Because the picture used is usually the same, sometimes cropped and sometimes not.

And if you thought for a moment that the wretched semi-existence of Mohammad, which could be described as frozen – woken up – tied to a jeep – frozen again, has a happy end, you are mistaken, because he was activated again recently – in 2009, according to Pakistani Scandals (_pakistaniscandals.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/palestinian-child-used-as-human-shield-by-israel_):

This is what happened to a Palestinian child who joined Teenagers throwing stones at Israeli border police. Muhammad Badwan was grabbed by officers and tied by an arm to the grille covering the windscreen of their security vehicle. Last night the 13 year olds father said the police had illegally used his son as a human Shield to try to stop the demonstrators throwing stones at them.

There are more events with different dates where Muhammad participated, but I hope you have got the picture by now.

Anyway – do you remember Fatima the Scarface?

How about the omnipresent Green Helmet?

Looks like a good time to start a new line of PR accessories – a flat Mohammed Badwan modeled after the Flat Fatima (no, not that Mohammed).

Way to go, boy – and you are only 13…

Afterword: As a matter of policy, I don’t provide direct links to anti-Israeli sites, but if you feel you just have to visit these places, remove the “(_ ” and “_)”, add “www.” and here you are.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

01/18/2009

The many layers of editors in the MSM

Filed under: Hamas, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 8:17 pm

The New York Times Opinionator blog, which one assumes also comes under those layers and layers of editors of the mainstream media that make such a difference between them and us lowly bloggers, has been in error about me since yesterday afternoon. I found the blog by sheer accident, and found even more accidentally that I am mentioned in the blog as such:

Opinionator error

Yes, that’s right. The people writing the Opinionator can’t tell that Neo-neocon and I are two wholly separate blogs and bloggers. I guess all of us female Jewish bloggers just look alike.

I posted a comment asking them to correct the error at 11:00 this morning. It is still in the moderation queue. Twelve other comments have been approved.

error

Way to go, New York Times. Not only can’t the Times correct errors in the print edition in a timely, equitable manner, but they can’t fix errors on a blog—which doesn’t have to wait for the print run to be published.

And the funniest thing of all? I never posted on the Jeffrey Goldberg post under discussion.

Update: It’s been fixed.

Welcome, Instapundit readers. Have a look around for all the Israel news (with snark) you can handle.

Since Meryl is so humble…

Filed under: Jews, Media — SnoopyTheGoon @ 4:33 pm

I shall do it for her. A honorable mention in JP today:

Latest hasbara weapon: ‘Army of bloggers’

The article is going on about that army, its potential, blah blah blah…

“Israel’s newest weapon on the public relations front is “an army of bloggers,” according to a statement issued by the Absorption Ministry Sunday afternoon.”

And Absorption Ministry is on top of this task too, so everything is cool. But my point is that to illustrate the article they’ve used the following screenshot:

Cool. Although – how do they count Meryl as a success case for the Absorption Ministry is left unclear…

Anyhow – congratulations!

12/30/2008

What Israel is doing is nothing to do with peace but its own selfish security concerns

Filed under: Hamas, Israel, Media — SnoopyTheGoon @ 11:59 am

This made me laugh and cry simultaneously. But I didn’t break my PC. It’s too… what?

Read more here, and many thanks to Andrew Ian Dodge.

Also – read the whole linked article in The London Daily News.

(Warning – after laughing and crying comes a puking session).

P.S. But the picture of F-16 is undeniably nice. Here it comes:

Mmm… still, cutting a piece of that missile on the right. Oh well…

Update by Meryl: Snoopy put the article’s headline as this post title. Yes, that’s a headline in a British newspaper. Damn Israel and its own selfish security concerns! Can’t they think about someone else for a change?

Wow. Just—wow.

(Glad to have you back, Snoopy!)

11/20/2008

The Duh Factor

Filed under: Media — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

Hold on to your hats, kiddies. The crack editorial staff at the AP has come up with the most astonishing headline of the decade:

Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to 16-year high

They’re right. Financial crisis, credit crunch, homebuying down, construction down, Circuit City going into Chapter 11, auto dealers going out of business—who would have thought that the number of people registering for unemployment benefits would go up?

New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to a 16-year high, the Labor Department said Thursday, providing more evidence of a rapidly weakening job market expected to get even worse next year.

The government said new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 from a downwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. That’s much higher than Wall Street economists’ expectations of 505,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

I see that they changed the headline to one much less, well, stupid.

Stocks point lower after jobless claims jump
Investors list of worries is growing following a government report that weekly unemployment claims have unexpectedly increased.

Stock futures contracts have wavered Thursday as investors worry about the fate of Detroit’s big automakers and juggle broader fears about the struggling economy. But a jump in new claims for unemployment benefits to a 16-year high has added to investors unease.

The Labor Department’s report has reported that new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 last week. Thomson Reuters says analysts expected 505,000.

But this is bad. Get ready for Dow 7,000. Oil’s down around $50 a barrel, too (which is not bad for consumers). Gas is down to $1.62 in the Richmond area.

07/30/2008

Values of classical journalism

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

via memeorandum

I wanted to believe the worst of the Obama campaign. I wanted to believe that they had released the note that the candidate had place in the Kotel (Western Wall) to two newspapers.

There was some indication that the paper making the claim, Ma’ariv was being honest.

Not anymore.

The New Republic’s blog that had previously accepted Ma’ariv’s story, has dug a little deeper and found:

I just got off the phone with a Ma’ariv spokesman who says that the accusation is “completely false,” and that he has no idea who these papers were quoting from Ma’ariv. “No official spokesman for Ma’ariv told this to any of the papers.” I’ve got some calls in to these papers to find out where they got the quote. (I’ll update here when I hear back.) He told me definitively that “the Obama campaign did not give us a copy of the letter or approve it for printing.”

Hot Air writes:

Something’s fishy with Ma’ariv, though. TNR notes that unnamed “spokesmen” pushing the “Obama approved it” line were quoted by three different Israeli papers last night. And today?

Last October Ehud Asheri wrote in Haaretz:

Ofer Nimrodi, owner of the mass-circulation daily newspaper Ma’ariv, has been experiencing something unfamiliar these days: rare esteem and praise is greeting the appointment of the editors-in-chief Doron Galezer and Ruthie Yuval, the likes of which the battered publisher has never enjoyed.

Fifteen years after he bought the newspaper, there appears at long last the possibility that he will be extricated from his outsider position in print journalism and will earn equal status in the exclusive club of the veteran publishers who, unlike him, were born into the industry.

The change in the way the wind is blowing can be attributed first of all to what Galezer and Yuval represent: traditional, independent, investigative journalism that is not linked by umbilical cord to wealth, does not habitually hobnob socially with politicians in the places they frequent, and is not tainted by obsequious populism.

Both of them grew up in the solid school of the Haaretz group, and both have proven that it is possible to maintain the values of classical journalism even in the commercial environment of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, and television’s Channel 2.

Those “values of classical journalism” were on full display during the recent controversy over Sen. Obama’s note in the wall.

I’m sorry I fell for it.

See also Rubicon3.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/14/2008

Still unanswered

Newsbusters takes the NYT to task for ignoring the result of the Enderlein-Karsenty case. (Newsbusters acknowledged that the result was covered half-heartedly in the NYT’s blog.)
Newsbuster’s author Warner Todd Huston asks:

So what gives, New York Times? Why the reluctance to cover this new twist in the al-Dura story that you have used so many times in the past to support Palestinian terrorists? You have used this tale to beat the Israelis up for 8 years, now. But, we have final proof that this is a faked video. The Jews didn’t kill little Muhammad al-Dura.

( via memeorandum )

Instapundit answers (with a question):

Because it opens the door to suggestions that this wasn’t an aberration, but the norm in Mideast coverage?

It’s a topic I wrote to the Times’s public editor about two months ago. At the time I wrote:

As I’ve shown above the Times accepted a narrative that shaped a lot of its reporting at the time. One piece of that narrative was exposed quickly. In another case a Times reporter used a highly suspect statement of an interested party to support the narrative. Now another part of the narrative has been shown to be suspect. At least in the name of accuracy one would hope that the Times would look into the case and what it implies.

In addition to the immediate issue of the origins of the “Aqsa intifada”, the case calls into question the widespread use of local stringers who may be more interested in promoting an agenda than in accuracy. The Times’s lack of curiosity in this case reflects poorly on its commitment to getting the story correct.

I still have not received a response from Clark Hoyt. I don’t think that accuracy is the main goal of the NYT.

This failure doesn’t just apply to the NYT but to nearly every major media outlet in American.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/08/2008

Still the Samir?

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media, Media Bias, Terrorism — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

Given the sympathy that the Washington Post once showed for Samir Kuntar in a news story, the editorial An Unwelcome Hero was welcome, if flawed.

If anyone ever deserved the title “baby-killer,” it is Samir Kuntar. Yet his freedom has been a popular demand in Lebanon and the cause of Lebanon-based gunslingers for almost three decades. Abbas’s gang hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985 in a failed effort to win Mr. Kuntar’s release. After Abbas faded into semi-retirement in Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad, Hezbollah took up the Kuntar cause, attempting to get Israel to swap him for bodies of Israelis killed in Hezbollah raids.

That’s correct, however, I’m a bit troubled by the conclusion:

Great changes must take place across the Middle East before a lasting peace can be achieved. Israel must make territorial compromises and foster a dignified future for the Palestinians. But attitudes among Israel’s enemies must be transformed as well. A good place to start would be to declare that people such as Samir Kuntar deserve to rot in prison, no matter what the religion or nationality of the children they kill.

I’m not bothered by their wish that Kuntar rot in jail instead of seeing him executed; the Post’s editors don’t believe in the death penalty. It’s the mantra about great changes and how Israel must make “territorial compromises” and “foster a dignified future,” these are both programs that Israel has been engaged in for the past 15 years. For the Post’s correct complaint about Lebanon and Hezbollah it ignores the bigger problem: Kuntar and terrorists like him are heroes even to the so-called Palestinian “moderates.” For there to be peace in the Middle East great changes are necessary, but the greatest change is the acceptance by the Arabs generally, and the Palestinians specifically, of the Israel’s right to exist. Fifteen years of peace processing and Israeli concessions have not changed that fundamental problem.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/04/2008

Fine Arabian chargers

Filed under: Media, Media Bias — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 6:30 pm

Horse racing appears to be really popular among the Palestinians.

Unfortunately there was an accident at the races today near Nablus.

A Palestinian man , left and a horse rider, lay on the ground after they collided during a horse race …

More interesting is that they also have horse races in Gaza. Camel races too.

I wouldn’t say that the animals in either case look particularly undernourished. How severe was the Israeli blockade really in terms of letting in food and necessities?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/02/2008

The world’s worst motivational poster

Filed under: Media, Miscellaneous, Parody, palestinian politics — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 12:01 am

I’m sure you’ve seen those motivational posters around.
Listless

(This parody was created by Despair, Inc.’s Parody Motivator Generator.)

I saw this picture and thought it must be the world’s least appropriate motivational poster.

Israelly Cool! thinks it’s part of a subliminal effort to affect people’s perceptions.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

05/21/2008

Dura-bull

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media, Media Bias — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Knowing that the verdict in the Karsenty-Enderlin trial is due today, I looked for some news. But when I googled “Karsenty” I got precisely one result in the news section. It had to do with a talk Phillipe Karsenty gave a few weeks ago.

However when I did a blog search, there were plenty of results.

Israel Matzav explains why the MSM is so uninterested in the verdict:

The bottom line is that the mainstream media outside France is ignoring the case because they know that they are guilty of the same fraud of which France 2 is guilty: They use ‘Palestinian’ stringers rather than their own real reporters in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and in other ‘war zones’ like Iraq.

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Neil Netanel wrote in a similar vein a few weeks ago:

The kind of media manipulation to which the al-Dura incident points is all too common in reporting from the region. Recall the initial Palestinian reports in September 2000 of an Israeli massacre of 3,000 Palestinian civilians in Jenin, broadcast without question by CNN, NPR, the BBC, and others, while the truth turned out to be 52 Palestinians killed, most of whom were armed combatants. (See here and here.) More recently, Hamas has staged and Western media reported electricity shortages in Gaza, replete with candles purporting to provide needed light while, as it turned out, screens blocked sunshine from streaming in through the window.Certainly, some media outlets seem all too eager to transmit reports of Israeli atrocities. But the problem is far broader and deeper than that. Both broadcast and print journalists face tremendous pressure to produce under a highly competitive 24/7 news cycle. At the same time, many news organizations have sharply reduced their staff of foreign correspondents. As a result, they are increasingly reliant on local stringers and camera operators to report on local stories. In areas of conflict, it is inevitable that more than a trivial percentage of local reporters will be partisans and that video footage will be designed or doctored to favor one side or the other.

One hopes that major news organizations are able and willing to weed out the vast majority of questionable reporting, just as CNN refused to broadcast the al-Dura footage. But there are, of course, no guarantees. And, as I emphasized in an ealier post, fact-checking, like quality original reporting, costs a lot of money.

For their part, bloggers do an admirable job of exposing media failures. At the same time, for better or for worse, the Internet serves as an unfiltered outlet for the stories and footage that media organizations deem insufficiently trustworthy to carry.

(BTW, the Jenin libel occurred in April 2002, not Sept 2000.)

It’s not just the general problem of relying on notoriously unreliable (truthwise) stringers, it’s that most of the media was complicit in spreading the al-Dura libel.

The media’s ignoring the Karsenty-Enderlin case shows their lack of accountability for their own actions. They refuses to divorce itself from their “rough draft of history” fantasy; that all they’re doing is acting as stenographers in good faith. But they’re not; they are agenda driven, interested only in advancing causes to which they are sympathetic.

In the al-Dura case the narrative of an Israeli overreaction was too compelling to ignore. They swallowed the story whole, without a second thought. Even now they are too convinced of their on righteousness to have second thoughts nearly eight years later.

The MSM lives on its arrogance. Its declining fortunes is one of the reason for its continued decline.

So why not challenge Clark Hoyt ( public@nytimes.com ) or Deborah Howell ( ombudsman@washpost.com ) to get their papers to cover the trial and take a long overdue look in the mirror?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

04/06/2008

Marash speaks out

Filed under: Media, Media Bias — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

David Marash who was the American face of Al Jazeera English has an interview where he explains his decision to leave. I find his naivitee about Al Jazeera a bit disconcerting. Still here’s his identification of the point where AJE stopped being “objective” or “transparent.”

DM: I think that the world changed about nine, ten months ago. And I think the single event in that change was the visit to the gulf by Vice President Cheney, where he went to line up the allied ducks in a row behind the possibility of action against Iran. And instead of getting acquiescence, the United States got defiance, and instead ducks in a row the ducks basically went off on their own and the first sort of major breakthrough on that was the Mecca agreement, which defied the American foreign policy by letting Hamas into the tent of the governance of the Palestinian territories. This enraged the State Department and was one crystal clear sign that the Mideast region was now off campus, was off on its own. And it is around this time, and I think not coincidentally, that you see the state of Qatar and the royal family of Qatar starting to make up their feud with the Saudis, and you start to see on both Al Jazeera Arabic and English a very sort of first-personish, “my Haj” stories that were boosterish of the Haj and of Saudi Arabia. And you start to see stories of analysis in The New York Times where regional people are noting that Al Jazeera seems to be changing its editorial stance toward Saudi Arabia. I’m suggesting that around that time, a decision was made at the highest levels of [Al Jazeera] that simply following the American political leadership and the American political ideal of global, universalist values carried out in an absolutely pure, multipolar, First Amendment global conversation, was no longer the safest or smartest course, and that it was time, in fact, to get right with the region. And I think part of getting right with the region was slightly changing the editorial ambition of Al Jazeera English, and I think it has subsequently become a more narrowly focused, more univocal channel than was originally conceived.

I don’t necessarily read this as Marash blaming the administration, though I suppose it could be read that way. It does make me wonder why the United States spends so much effort trying to make nice with the Arab world when it’s clear that the Arab world doesn’t much care for us.

Incidentally this contradicts Marash’s earlier claims that the English at the station were more anti-American than the Qataris. (Maybe that’s true, but it was suggested that it was the Brit anti-Americanism that alienated him.)

Related thoughts from the Jewish Press.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

03/25/2008

It’s all in the branding

Filed under: Hamas, Israel, Media, Media Bias, Terrorism — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

We noted the other day that allied forces have been wreaking havoc with the PR arms of Al Qaeda.In turn this has contributed to a decrease in the number those volunteering to fight the infidels in Iraq.

So the al Qaeda recruiter, often working out of a local mosque, makes a free trip to Iraq, ending in a glorious death for the cause, sound like a solution. But over the last year, the number of such volunteers has declined from 120 a month, to about 40. The main reason for this is bad news, and some survivors, coming back from Iraq. Not many of these losers make it back, but the word gets on to the Internet, and this has caused quite a commotion on pro-terrorist web sites and message boards. There’s also been a sharp drop in pro-terrorist combat videos coming out of Iraq. This is largely due to the death or capture of the people responsible for getting those videos onto the Internet.

If you can’t romanticize self-destruction you won’t have a lot of volunteers for suicide missions.

Of course it’s not only the true believers who help recruitment efforts, it’s also the media! The Washington Times reports on a new study:

Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university’s Kennedy School of Government.

Abe Greenwald observes:

But maybe the media executives who’ve been so eager to run photos of flag-draped coffins and the journalists who start each day thinking of a fresh way to cover America’s demise could keep this in mind.Particularly now. We are in the midst of a “five years on” media riot. The number 4000 is suddenly everywhere. Yes, a free press is a cornerstone of our democracy. But it shouldn’t be exploited for the sole purpose of lamenting out military efforts. The success of the troop surge was barely acknowledged for half a year, and yet the 4000th U.S. casualty in Iraq made it into the headlines at the speed of light.

Of course if Katharine Graham’s 1986 essay about freedom vs. terror is any indication, we should simply trust the media to do the right thing.

These problems of covering terrorism are serious. But in spite of them, I believe the benefits of full disclosure far outweigh any possible adverse consequences. I believe the harm of restricting coverage far surpasses the evils of broadcasting even erroneous or damaging information.American democracy rests on the belief, which the centuries have proven true, that people can and do make intelligent decisions about great issues if they have the facts.

Graham’s essay isn’t bad and its conclusion, that government ought not to interfere in reporting is reasonable. Still in subsequent years we’ve seen how the media has failed to act responsibly.

In a recent article, in Graham’s own Washington Post, Hamas is no longer a terrorist organization, but a “radical Islamist movement that has declared its intention to destroy Israel.” Or “it’s considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel.”

And with Hamas so defined, it doesn’t take much for the Post to honor its representatives with op-ed space. Graham had written

The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we’ve learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult.

Nowadays her heirs are willingly playing a role in the manipulation.The pliability of the media and many government isn’t lost on members of Hamas. In its brief against CAIR, the Investigative Project reported the following conversation (via memeorandum):

Awad: What is important is that the language of the address is there even
for the American. But, the issue is how to use it.
….
Omar Ahmad: There is a difference between you saying “I want to restore the ‘48
land” and when you say “I want to destroy Israel”.
….
Awad: Yes, there are different but parallel types of address. There
shouldn’t be contradiction. Address people according to their minds.
When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn’t know
anything. As for the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something, I know how to address him, you see?

Terrorists know their audiences. If allowed to communicate effectively, they will be more effective in spreading their terror. If their communication efforts are stymied, they won’t be as effective. Israel was correct in its recent decision to ban al Jazeera. France was right to ban Al Manar. And the coalition forces seemingly have made a difference by targeting the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda.

But when the media or governments legitimize terror groups, they help them. I believe that Katharine Graham’s essay was in response to Margaret Thatcher’s quote:

Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.

I don’t remember if Thatcher was threatening government restrictions on the media or just asking the media to act responsibly. Her message is one that has been too often ignored by the media in recent years as the media has often been full partners in allowing terrorists to re-brand themselves.

If the West is to turn back the Islamist challenge, it must not just fight on the battlefields but on Madison Avenue too.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

01/23/2008

Palestinian snipers fire on Israeli journalists

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

Israeli journalists covering the death of an Ecuadoran worker by Palestinian sniper fire were attacked—by Palestinian snipers. It’s all on video, and it’s on YouTube. Thanks to Giyus for the heads-up.

I eagerly await the complaint from Reporters Without Borders.

12/28/2007

See u.n. the funny papers

Filed under: Israel, Media, Pop Culture — Soccerdad @ 11:30 am

I seem to remember that sometimes when he left J. Jonah Jameson, Spiderman would say “See you in the funny papers.”

Apparently that’s where we’re now going to see the U.N. In the funny papers. With Spiderman. (via memeorandum)

He has fought against foes ranging from the Green Goblin to Doctor Octopus, but Spider-Man now faces an even more formidable challenge: improving the battered image of the United Nations.In a move reminiscent of storylines developed during the World War II, the U.N. is joining forces with Marvel Comics, creators of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk, to create a comic book showing the international body working with superheroes to solve bloody conflicts and rid the world of disease.

The comic, initially to be distributed free to 1 million U.S. schoolchildren, will be set in a war-torn fictional country and feature superheroes such as Spider-Man working with U.N. agencies such as Unicef and the “blue hats,” the U.N. peacekeepers.

HotAir exclaims:

This is a waste of a perfectly good ficticious super hero.

comments:

The UN has to resort to fiction to bolster its image because a book about the UN doing any good would by definition have to be a work of fiction.

and asks:

Why not set the book in an actual war-torn country and highlight the heroic acts of real, actual US military men and women to help the people who live there? There is no shortage of those real heroes. We don’t need to credit their deeds to made-up comic book characters.

While this doesn’t quite answer his question, Marvel did sort of honor the military, with a special series of comics including the recently deceased, Captain America:

Captain America may not be back from the dead, but he’s back — sort of.Four months after Marvel Comics unexpectedly killed off the champion of liberty and the American way, he appears in a comic made exclusively for U.S. soldiers. He is seen on a videotape made before his death.

One million copies of “The New Avengers: The Spirit of America,” the fifth in Marvel’s series for the military, will be available free starting Saturday at military base stores worldwide.

The impetus for the series comes from a boy.

Marvel Comics started the military series in 2005 after getting a call from a young boy, saying he could no longer afford to send comics to his two brothers serving in Iraq, Sabouni said.Marvel sent the boy a box of comics but wanted to do more, so the company started working with AAFES to develop something just for soldiers. The military series has been very popular, with books selling quickly after their release.

“You have the fantasy aspect, but they’re staying true to our culture,” said Lt. Col. William Thurmond, an AAFES spokesman. “You can’t ask for anything more if you’re a comic book fan.”

Blue Crab Boulevard really lets Marvel have it. Ed Driscoll notes that this isn’t the first time Marvel has engaged in dubious propaganda.

Let’s finish up with semi-related items:

OK so if you want Spiderman check the UN. But it you want spider webbing, check out Israel.

Now totally off-topic, a member of the U.S. Military got a writing gig with Marvel!

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

12/18/2007

On reporting, awarding, exploding

Filed under: Israel, Media, Media Bias — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Abby Wisse Schachter delivers a devastating critique of the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz

But Haaretz’s ideological crusade is not limited to the editorial or opinion pages. Its editors are only too happy to publish defamatory feature stories as well. On November 30, the weekend section of Haaretz (the equivalent of the New York Times’s Sunday Magazine) featured a cover story on the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think tank that, incidentally, used to employ Mr. Hazony. A shorter English version of the article is available here. So egregious were the mistakes and so blatant the inaccuracies that the Shalem Center posted the following response on its own Web site. Haaretz has thus far issued no correction nor has it provided space to rebut the claims made in its original article. And for good reason: The sole purpose of the story is to disparage a think-tank whose world-view the editors of Haaretz oppose. But instead of a feature analyzing the center’s stated beliefs versus its accomplishments, or even questioning the legitimacy of Shalem’s Zionist mission, the story deals in gossip, supposed improprieties, and the personal habits and salaries of Shalem’s founders. This is worth 4,500 words? It is when your goal is to defame an organization whose success you envy and whose vision you loathe.

As far as the idea that Ha’aretz is Israel’s New York Times she writes:

…the New York Times doesn’t stoop this low.

(I’m not so certain about that. But certainly it doesn’t stoop so low as frequently as Ha’aretz does.)

Not a good day for media as Honest Reporting issues its annual Dishonest Reporter awards for 2007. The winner this year is Mrs. Jamie Rubin – better known as Christiane Amanpour – for her series God’s Warriors. Congratulations Christiane.

The awards are well earned. (Though the spectacle of Clark Hoyt defending his paper’s decision to run an op-ed by Ahmed Youssef of Hamas didn’t make it.) I do have a quibble though with one item. Father Manuail Musalam is always good for an anti-Israel quote, he didn’t need to be strongarmed into anything.

And while we’re in an awards mode, check out Elder of Ziyon’s Splodie Awards. They’re like the Darwins but with limited eligibility.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

11/22/2007

Adult entertainment

Filed under: Humor, Meanderings, Media, Pop Culture, Television — Soccerdad @ 7:00 am

The original episodes of Sesame Street have been issued on DVD. But our children better not watch them. It wouldn’t be right.

Just don’t bring the children. According to an earnest warning on Volumes 1 and 2, “Sesame Street: Old School” is adults-only: “These early ‘Sesame Street’ episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child.”

Virgina Heffernan explains in Sweeping the Clouds away:

Live-action cows also charge the 1969 screen — cows eating common grass, not grain improved with hormones. Cows are milked by plain old farmers, who use their unsanitary hands and fill one bucket at a time. Elsewhere, two brothers risk concussion while whaling on each other with allergenic feather pillows. Overweight layabouts, lacking touch-screen iPods and headphones, jockey for airtime with their deafening transistor radios. And one of those radios plays a late-’60s news report — something about a “senior American official” and “two billion in credit over the next five years” — that conjures a bleak economic climate, with war debt and stagflation in the offing.The old “Sesame Street” is not for the faint of heart, and certainly not for softies born since 1998, when the chipper “Elmo’s World” started. Anyone who considers bull markets normal, extracurricular activities sacrosanct and New York a tidy, governable place — well, the original “Sesame Street” might hurt your feelings.

What?

Well for one thing, there was Cookie Monster doing his Allistair Cooke impersontation:

I asked Carol-Lynn Parente, the executive producer of “Sesame Street,” how exactly the first episodes were unsuitable for toddlers in 2007. She told me about Alistair Cookie and the parody “Monsterpiece Theater.” Alistair Cookie, played by Cookie Monster, used to appear with a pipe, which he later gobbled. According to Parente, “That modeled the wrong behavior” — smoking, eating pipes — “so we reshot those scenes without the pipe, and then we dropped the parody altogether.”

Cookie Monster? wrong behavior?

As for Cookie Monster, he can be seen in the old-school episodes in his former inglorious incarnation: a blue, googly-eyed cookievore with a signature gobble (“om nom nom nom”). Originally designed by Jim Henson for use in commercials for General Foods International and Frito-Lay, Cookie Monster was never a righteous figure. His controversial conversion to a more diverse diet wouldn’t come until 2005, and in the early seasons he comes across a Child’s First Addict.

No we wouldn’t want our children to follow his example.

Unfortunately one of the examples does strike as a reason to be careful.

Back then — as on the very first episode, which aired on PBS Nov. 10, 1969 — a pretty, lonely girl like Sally might find herself befriended by an older male stranger who held her hand and took her home. Granted, Gordon just wanted Sally to meet his wife and have some milk and cookies, but . . . well, he could have wanted anything. As it was, he fed her milk and cookies. The milk looks dangerously whole.

Some of the reasons why Sesame Street isn’t fit for children sound like warmed over political correctness. The last one mentioned here, though, reflects the our society’s loss of innocence. At the same time that our society has become overprotective of children in silly ways, in other ways new hazards have appeared that we must protect them from.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll adds:

Forty years from now, when the current season of Sesame Street is being assembled for release on whatever the successor format to the successor format of DVD is, how much of it will have to be reshot to comply with how much further the nanny state is sure to have expanded further?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

10/26/2007

Am ha-aretz-ut

Filed under: Israel, Media — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

There was a typically arrogant column in Ha’aretz earlier this week, Nimrodi’s Test by one Ehud Asheri. It’s about the change in leadership at the helm of the competing daily, Ma’ariv.

Ofer Nimrodi, owner of the mass-circulation daily newspaper Ma’ariv, has been experiencing something unfamiliar these days: rare esteem and praise is greeting the appointment of the editors-in-chief Doron Galezer and Ruthie Yuval, the likes of which the battered publisher has never enjoyed.Fifteen years after he bought the newspaper, there appears at long last the possibility that he will be extricated from his outsider position in print journalism and will earn equal status in the exclusive club of the veteran publishers who, unlike him, were born into the industry.

The change in the way the wind is blowing can be attributed first of all to what Galezer and Yuval represent: traditional, independent, investigative journalism that is not linked by umbilical cord to wealth, does not habitually hobnob socially with politicians in the places they frequent, and is not tainted by obsequious populism.

Both of them grew up in the solid school of the Haaretz group, and both have proven that it is possible to maintain the values of classical journalism even in the commercial environment of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, and television’s Channel 2.

Gee that’s subtle. Ha’aretz doesn’t stand for anything high minded. It is New York Times of Israel. For those who like Ha’aretz, that’s meant as a compliment, for those who don’t, well, I don’t need to spell it out.

The author then goes to dismiss outgoing Ma’ariv editor Amnon Dankner.

The departing editor, Amnon Dankner, was Nimrodi’s energetic defender in the criminal affairs in which the latter was embroiled, and Dankner’s appointment gave the signal for two main trends in the editorial line: the popular bordering on sensationalism, and a battle against “the rule of law and order gangs” (and the old elites in general).

One of Dankner’s sins was that he didn’t automatically assume that everyone involved in Israel’s legal system was above criticism as most folks at Ha’aretz assume. That’s why it’s implied that he was against the rule of law.

Until now, you could dismiss Yedioth Ahronot – too commercial and Ma’ariv – too sensational, but you could always rely on Ha’aretz. Yes, siree. As good as money in the bank.

Of course, maybe Mr. Asheri ought to be careful and not hurt his arm while he pats himself on his back. Michael Totten reports

The Syrian state-run propaganda organ Cham Press published a fake story about Lebanese Member of Parliament Walid Jumblatt’s supposed plan to meet Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the United States last weekend to coordinate a regime-change in Syria. No Western media organization I know of took this non-story seriously. Israeli media, though, scooped it right up. Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and Infolive TV published their own articles about the imaginary meeting between Jumblatt and Barak. None had a source for their story other than the Syrian government’s website.

And that led to

Cham Press now says Israel’s Omedia reported that Jumblatt met with Barak and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in Washington. Cham Press no longer quotes only itself; it quotes Israeli websites as backup. But the only reason Israeli media reported any of this in the first place is the initial false story appearing in Cham Press. Syrian media is still just quoting itself—only now it does so through Israel.

Credibility is an important asset for any news organization. I suspect that this wasn’t the first time Ha’aretz has been fooled. What that saying I’ve heard about pride?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Israel may dump CNN

Filed under: Israel, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

Israel’s main cable provider may drop CNN from their menu.

With negotiations over a new contract at a stalemate, Israel’s largest cable provider is set to bump CNN from its program roster at the end of the month.

The news that the Atlanta-based network might soon disappear from a majority of Israeli living rooms will probably not come as a disappointment to a vocal segment of the Israeli viewing public that views the cable network’s coverage of Israel and the Middle East as biased against the Jewish state.

But don’t start cheering quite yet. Look what they’re thinking of replacing it with:

Yet the same crowd is unlikely to be very happy with this week’s announcement about the channel that the cable and telecommunications company HOT is poised to sign to a contact instead: Al-Jazeera English.

Yossi Lubaton, a spokesman for HOT, says a deal with the controversial Qatar-based news network is imminent. It “should be finalized within a few days,” the Israeli English-language daily Jerusalem Post quoted him as saying.

You have got to be kidding me. Israel is not only fighting an uphill battle in the world media, but their major cable provider is ready to put money in the pockets of the most virulently anti-Israel network this side of Hezbollah and Hamas-TV?

It was unclear whether HOT’s disclosure this week of its talks with Al-Jazeera – dubbed “Terror TV” by some for its broadcast of videotapes by Osama bin Laden on its main Arabic-language channel – is simply a way to force CNN to back down in the current contract talks.

Earlier this year, the cable company successfully renegotiated new and more lucrative contracts with BBC Prime, National Geographic and Fox Sports after it announced its intention to drop them from programming.

Here’s hoping. Because I don’t want to believe that Israelis are truly that dumb.

10/16/2007

Aspen station decides not to air Holocaust denial film

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Media — Elder of Ziyon @ 9:00 am

An Aspen public-access TV station has decided not to air a Holocaust-denial video that was being pushed by a 9/11 “truther”:

The GrassRoots TV board of directors voted Monday to ban a controversial Holocaust-denial film.

Steve Campbell, founder of Citizens for 9/11 Truth, asked the station to air “Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II” on Oct. 1.

But after prescreening the film, which questions conventional wisdom about the Holocaust, GrassRoots TV board members stopped the airing, pending further debate.

The board held an open forum on the matter Oct. 11 to gauge community reaction.

“The GrassRoots Television board has decided not to air the film ‘Judea declares War on Germany,’” GrassRoots TV board chairman Alan Feldman said in a statement after the board meeting Monday.

“After careful consideration and community input, the board concluded that this film is obscene, repugnant to the generally accepted notion of what is appropriate in our community. GrassRoots TV will not allow the station to be used as a vehicle to incite hatred against any group. GrassRoots Television will issue a more detailed statement to our community in coming days.”

Feldman promised a board policy in the future: “Our community spoke, and we have given it a lot of rational thinking,” Feldman said. “We have the ability to refuse to air something if we believe it’s obscene.”

Campbell called it a “poor decision.”

“Unfortunately, it shows basically what I and others have tried to say about this whole issue,” Campbell said. “There are those who don’t want you to see this information, and they’ll do anything they can to stop you from watching it. And that’s just what they’re doing.”

Campbell has shown other controversial films on GrassRoots, as well as on Rifle’s public access station, he said.

He called the debate over “Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II” a matter of “conscious-raising.”

“I just think that it’s a travesty what’s going on,” Campbell said.

Campbell said he is not planning any legal action against GrassRoots but added, “By censoring this film, it’s only going to make people watch it more.”

Campbell said that while he is being censored now, “The truth will come out. It’s just like the grass that grows between the cracks in the sidewalk.”

He said he might try and air the film in another venue, but he was disappointed that the large audience in Aspen wouldn’t see it.

“This is part of the beginning of the loss of our freedoms of expression and speech and the dissemination of information just so certain people can maintain their status quo,” Campbell said.

As I discussed last week, the Aspen Times newspaper editorialized that the film be shown.

Notice how they cover this story above: giving far more space to the illiterate anti-semite (”conscious-raising”?) than to the people who made the decision. Not to mention the oh-so-politically correct way of referring to one of the purest forms of hate speech as simply “controversial” and as “question(ing the) conventional wisdom about the Holocaust.”

The “censored” video is available at Amazon (one reviewer, 4 stars) and can be seen on-line if you care to look for it.

The name of the production company, believe it or not, is Amalek Productions.

(cross-posted to Elder of Ziyon

10/10/2007

The fog of turf wars

Filed under: Israel, Media, Terrorism — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

I had previously been skeptical of claims that Israel struck a nuclear facility in Syria. Now apparently the reason everyone was assuming that it was a nuclear facility is because the word “nuclear” was floating around the halls of power.

ABC News recently confirmed that Israel presented evidence to the Bush administration that Syria did indeed have a nuclear program underway. Meryl Yourish predicted that

From the left and from the Israel-haters, they will insist that Israel’s intelligence was cooked. This, in spite of North Korea’s reaction, and in spite of the fact that Syria has had nothing to say, and has not demanded a UN investigation, or a Security Council or General Assembly resolution condemning the raid.

Indeed that has happened. There’s been a proliferation of articles over the past couple of weeks arguing that the Israeli intelligence was uncertain but it was Vice President Cheney and his neo-cons who supported the strike.

Michael Isikoff and Dan Ephron wrote in Newsweek about the possibility that the Israel strike on Syria may be a foreshadowing of a strike on Iran.

In Washington, on the other hand, the consensus against a strike is firmer than most people realize. The Pentagon worries that another war will break America’s already overstretched military, while the intelligence community believes Iran is not yet on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough. The latter assessment is expected to appear in a secret National Intelligence Estimate currently nearing completion, according to three intelligence officials who asked for anonymity when discussing nonpublic material. The report is expected to say Iran will not be able to build a nuclear bomb until at least 2010 and possibly 2015. One explanation for the lag: Iran is having trouble with its centrifuge-enrichment technology, according to U.S. and European officials.
. . .
There are still voices pushing for firmer action against Tehran, most notably within Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. But the steady departure of administration neocons over the past two years has also helped tilt the balance away from war.

The Newsweek article isn’t entirely bad. It does give weight to Israeli concerns about an Iranian nuclear bomb.

The Jewish state has cause for worry. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows regularly to destroy the country; former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, considered a moderate, warned in 2001 that Tehran could do away with Israel with just one nuclear bomb. In Tel Aviv last week, former deputy Defense minister Ephraim Sneh concurred. Sneh, a dovish member of Israel’s Parliament and a retired brigadier general, took a NEWSWEEK reporter to the observation deck atop the 50-story Azrieli Center. “There is Haifa just over the horizon, Ben-Gurion airport over there, the Defense Ministry down below,” he said, to show how small the country is. “You can see in this space the majority of our intellectual, economic, political assets are concentrated. One nuclear bomb is enough to wipe out Israel.”

Still even if they understand Israel’s concerns, the reporters pretty harsh in describing Cheney and his staffer, David Wurmser.

A few months before he quit, according to two knowledgeable sources, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz—and perhaps other sites—in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out. The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran. (Wurmser’s remarks were first reported last week by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons and corroborated by NEWSWEEK.)

The Clemons article is breathtaking. It alleges that, in an administration that values loyalty above all, VP Cheney and his staff have worked to undermine the President. I can believe that Wurmser could have made remarks such as the ones attributed to him, but only quoting Cheney as presenting one of several possibilities not as a policy prescription. If he really boasting of a policy at odds with the President attributed of his boss, I can’t believe that President Bush wouldn’t have fired Cheney on the spot.

The New York Times is the latest media outlet to (over)emphasize the split in the administration. (via memeorandum)

At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.The debate has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea.

By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.

But even as casting Cheney and his allies as credulous, the Times seemingly endorses their premises.

It has long been known that North Korean scientists have aided Damascus in developing sophisticated ballistic missile technology, and there appears to be little debate that North Koreans frequently visited a site in the Syrian desert that Israeli jets attacked Sept. 6. Where officials disagree is whether the accumulated evidence points to a Syrian nuclear program that poses a significant threat to the Middle East.

It’s also interesting that Turkey seemingly were alarmed by the Israeli intelligence.

Last week, Turkish officials traveled to Damascus to present the Syrian government with the Israeli dossier on what was believed to be a Syrian nuclear program, according to a Middle East security analyst in Washington. The analyst said that Syrian officials vigorously denied the intelligence and said that what the Israelis hit was a storage depot for strategic missiles.

Finally the Times quotes Bruce Riedel who argues

Still, Mr. Riedel said Israel would not have launched the strike in Syria if it believed Damascus was merely developing more sophisticated ballistic missiles or chemical weapons.“Those red lines were crossed 20 years ago,” he said. “You don’t risk general war in the Middle East over an extra 100 kilometers’ range on a missile system.”

Or unless Israel suspected that Syria was getting actually getting close to using those weapons (even if the facility didn’t represent a nascent nuclear program).The article goes on to argue that the deal with North Korea was a good one that only upset “conservatives.”

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Thomas Joscelyn notes the problem with a different reporter, in Sy Hersh’s Overactive Imagination :

So, we have come full circle. Baer suspected that Mugniyah and his masters were involved in 9/11 when he wrote about it in 2002. Hersh approved of Baer’s informed deduction. And the 9/11 Commission found evidence confirming Baer’s suspicion. But, you would never know any of this by reading Hersh’s reporting on the Bush administration’s supposed intentions regarding Iran over the last couple of years. The long-time investigative journalist has been focused purely on the neoconservatives’ supposedly nefarious influence in Washington.Make no mistake: none of this is intended to suggest that Hersh or his sources do not have the right to be skeptical about the efficacy of military strikes against Iran. Indeed, this author shares their skepticism, but for different reasons. And certainly one can be critical of the Bush administration for not doing more to probe the evidence cited by the 9/11 Commission.

But wouldn’t Hersh’s reporting on Iran be better served if he were to revisit the issue of Iran’s and Hezbollah’s possible complicity in 9/11? That may not be an easy sell for readers now hooked on tales of executive branch duplicity and neoconservative plotting told by sources who gladly share hearsay. However, it would certainly improve the public’s understanding of our terrorist enemies.

The problem of the Israeli strike against Syria is that the target remains classified. So no reporters can know how good the Israeli information is. Absent those hard facts, the story changes from being what threat Syria, Iran and North Korea pose to the West to administration infighting. Reporters can casually sidestep the real issue to reinforce their own prejudices. (Secretary Rice is responsibly focusing on diplomacy; VP Cheney is recklessly advocating war.)

Kevin Drum lends his own reading to the situation:

But one thing is sure: the Israeli evidence must have been pretty far from a smoking gun if there’s this much confusion even among the top mucky mucks. Very peculiar.

Given the Syrian silence, the Turkish concerns and the risks Israel incurred, I would draw the opposite conclusion. Like Israel Matzav, the skepticism ought to be cast on the diplomacy-first crowd:

I wonder if there is any scenario in which Rice could be convinced to drop the ‘diplomatic approach’ to Syria and North Korea. I doubt it. Because I doubt it, I discount what she says. Of course, both the Syrians and North Koreans are denying anything was there, but that makes the North Korean reaction to the strike awfully strange: If they had nothing there, why did they react? They are ten thousand miles away!

The Hashmonean adds:

The failure to at least confront North Korea in the open before proceeding maddeningly down the road of six party talks speaks volumes to the path of multilateral weakness now being pursued by the USA, and speaks just as loudly to the looming issue of Iran.The notion that the US will be able to deal with Iran is now a fleeting one…

That is why it is dangerous for the media to get too caught up in Washington turf wars and ignore the real one against terror.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

10/09/2007

An example of media spin in Ynet

Filed under: Israel, Media, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

Let’s take a look at this article about Israeli opinion on turning over Jerusalem to non-Israeli rule. The headline:

Poll: 37% of Israelis willing to cede sovereignty in Jerusalem’s holy sites

My first thought at that headline was utter shock that so many Israelis were so willing to give up the Temple Mount to the governorship of people who have proven in the past that they have no intention of letting Jews worship at their own holy sites. But then I read the article.

Let’s look at the relevant data.

When asked who should remain sovereign of the Western Wall and Temple Mount, 61% believed Israel should be named sovereign, 16% voted for joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty, 21% said the holy places should be under international rule and 1% said Jordan should be named the holy places’ sovereign.

So, let’s rerun those numbers with a different spin. That 16% of joint rule should not be lumped in with those willing to “cede” sovereignty, as the Islamic Waqf already runs far too much of the Temple Mount complex. That’s not really ceding sovereignty, although under the current terms, Jews are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. Now the numbers run like this:

78% of Israelis want sole or partnered Israeli rule of Jerusalem’s holy sites.

But then, let’s take a look at the spin on handing the Hashemites the keys to the Jewish holy places, which was revealed in a news article yesterday (that Ehud Olmert immediately denied):

99% of Israelis not willing to cede sovereignty of Jerusalem’s holy sites to Jordan

So many different ways to spin this. Of course, the one that Omri is going to use is:

38% of Israelis out of their minds

As for my opinion: You have got to be kidding me. That many Israelis don’t care about the Temple Mount? That many Israelis have forgotten that under Muslim rules, Jews were forbidden to set foot on their holiest of holy places? That many Israelis don’t know that the Waqf is doing its damnedest to destroy all evidence of Jewish rule of Jerusalem in the Temple Mount?

What is wrong with those people?

It’s times like this that I worry the most for Israel.

09/21/2007

A big hole in the desert (and in the story)

Filed under: Iran, Israel, Media, Syria — Soccerdad @ 8:30 am

It’s been a bit disquieting to read the newspapers lately. Something big is possibly happening and little if any reporting is being done about it. Until yesterday.

Yesterday’s Washington Post ran an editorial Shock Waves from Syria:

Media accounts are beginning to converge on a report that Israel bombed a facility where it believed Syria was attempting to hatch its own nuclear weapons program with North Korea’s assistance. The Post’s Glenn Kessler reported that the strike came three days after a ship carrying material from North Korea docked at a Syrian port and delivered containers that Israel believes held nuclear materials. It’s not clear whether U.S. intelligence agencies concur with Israel’s conclusion, and independent experts have said that Syria lacks the resources for a credible nuclear weapons program.

The previous Glenn Kessler articles are here and here. The independent expert is apparently Joseph Cirincione who told Foreign Policy Passport

This story is nonsense. The Washington Post story should have been headlined “White House Officials Try to Push North Korea-Syria Connection.”

This is a political story, not a threat story. The mainstream media seems to have learned nothing from the run-up to war in Iraq. It is a sad commentary on how selective leaks from administration officials who have repeatedly misled the press are still treated as if they were absolute truth.Once again, this appears to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted “intelligence” to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda. If this sounds like the run-up to the war in Iraq, it should. This time it appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement. Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.

To which Kessler responded

All I can say in response is that I (and a number of uncredited colleagues) spent more than week knocking on doors of many agencies, seeking answers. No one tried to wave us off the story, including people who normally I thought would have tried their best to prevent us from printing it. I did note a number of caveats and explained that Syria never had much of a nuclear program. There appears to be a connection to the Israeli raid, which is now the subject of some of the tightest censorship in years.

To many “independent experts” the Bush administration is a bunch of out of control psychopaths looking for any excuse to go to war, whereas Kessler notes that even the more levelheaded members of the government believe that there’s something there. (Yes, there’s something missing in all this reporting, which I’ll get to later.)

Today there’s been a proliferation of American reporting on the topic. The Washington Post reported Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site and secrecy seems to be affecting every part of the story

The target of Israel’s attack was said to be in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. A Middle East expert who interviewed one of the pilots involved said they operated under such strict operational security that the airmen flying air cover for the attack aircraft did not know the details of the mission. The pilots who conducted the attack were briefed only after they were in the air, he said. Syrian authorities said there were no casualties.U.S. sources would discuss the Israeli intelligence, which included satellite imagery, only on condition of anonymity, and many details about the North Korean-Syrian connection remain unknown. The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the extent of North Korean assistance and the seriousness of the Syrian effort are uncertain, raising the possibility that North Korea was merely unloading items it no longer needed. Syria has actively pursued chemical weapons in the past but not nuclear arms — leaving some proliferation experts skeptical of the intelligence that prompted Israel’s attack.

The secrecy leads to this conclusion

“There is no question it was a major raid. It was an extremely important target,” said Bruce Riedel, a former intelligence officer at Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. “It came at a time the Israelis were very concerned about war with Syria and wanted to dampen down the prospects of war. The decision was taken despite their concerns it could produce a war. That decision reflects how important this target was to Israeli military planners.”

(Bruce Riedel, whom you might recall from yesterday’s news apparently wears many hats. Yesterday he “… was a negotiator in the 2000 Camp David effort.”)

The NY Times finally does a little more reporting on the topic with Bush Declines to Lift Veil of Secrecy Over Israeli Airstrike on Syria.

One former diplomat who has spoken to Israelis involved in the decision to attack said the airstrike was aimed at what Israel believed to be a Syrian nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea. The two countries already have a relationship that has concentrated on missile technology, which North Korea has long exported.The former diplomat, along with current and former American and Israeli officials, said a shipment of North Korean material labeled as cement arrived by ship three days before the attack. That material was transferred to a facility, which Israel bombed.

Current and former American and Israeli officials have said the Israelis gave the Bush administration advance notice of the attack.

While the article also finds plenty of sources skeptical about the nuclear angle, there is an acknowledgment that Israel did something out of the ordinary.

Charles Krauthammer has valiantly tried to tie all the loose ends together, in Middle East Volcano (or here).

Tensions are already extremely high because of Iran’s headlong rush to go nuclear. In fending off sanctions and possible military action, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has chosen a radically aggressive campaign to assemble, deploy, flaunt and partially activate Iran’s proxies in the Arab Middle East:

(1) Hamas launching rockets into Israeli towns and villages across the border from the Gaza Strip. Its intention is to invite an Israeli reaction, preferably a bloody and telegenic ground assault.

(2) Hezbollah heavily rearmed with Iranian rockets transshipped through Syria and preparing for the next round of fighting with Israel. The third Lebanon war, now inevitable, awaits only Tehran’s order.

(3) Syria, Iran’s only Arab client state, building up forces across the Golan Heights frontier with Israel. And on Wednesday, yet another anti-Syrian member of Lebanon’s parliament was killed in a massive car bombing.

(4) The al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard training and equipping Shiite extremist militias in the use of the deadliest IEDs and rocketry against American and Iraqi troops. Iran is similarly helping the Taliban attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Why is Iran doing this? Because it has its eye on a single prize: the bomb. It needs a bit more time, knowing that once it goes nuclear, it becomes the regional superpower and Persian Gulf hegemon.

Krauthammer earlier in his essay wrote

Second, there are ominous implications for the Middle East. Syria has long had chemical weapons — on Monday, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported on an accident that killed dozens of Syrians and Iranians loading a nerve-gas warhead onto a Syrian missile — but Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Syria.

All the MSM reporting and speculation has centered around a Syrian nuclear program. But what if the raid is somehow related to that chemical explosion a few weeks ago? Maybe the latest shipment wasn’t a new type of weapon but the expansion of Syria’s existing chemical program?

Meryl Yourish had already noted that the summer’s explosion probably involved Iran. Israel Matzav provides reasons why he believes that the Israeli target was chemical not nuclear. The Hashmonean doesn’t rule out the nuclear angle but concludes

Channel 10 reports local area hospitals had to treat many of the injured from the event, among them over a dozen Iranian technicians.. Makes further mention of the Iranian Syrian defense pact signed last year, stipulating one of the key areas of cooperation? The adapting / arming of Syrian Scud arsenals with chemical weapons.

(Emphasis mine.)

Could it be then that Krauthammer’s overall analysis is correct even is one detail is wrong? Iran is ratcheting up tensions in order to be able to complete its nuclear program. However, the WMD in the picture are not nuclear but chemical. I realize that neither Israeli nor American officials need to disabuse journalists of their mistaken speculations. However, why aren’t these reporters tying the Israeli strike to the chemical explosion?

And was PM Olmert’s expression of admiration for Syria meant as a taunt?

UPDATE: More at Memeorandum.

UPDATE II: via Small Wars JournalCon Coughlin’s reading of the situation is alarming.

But judging from the small scraps of information that have emerged, it would be fair to conclude that a new axis of evil is under construction, with Syria assuming Iraq’s place. But unlike Iraq, Syria has well-documented links to the pariah regimes in North Korea and Teheran, and is cooperating with them on a range of projects, from the acquisition of long-range ballistic missiles to the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. The failure to find ready-to-use stockpiles of WMD in Iraq following Saddam’s overthrow may have seriously undermined the coalition’s justification for invading Iraq, but no such doubts exist about Syria’s capability. Even before the Israeli raid, Syria had been identified by a number of intelligence and government agencies as possessing the largest and most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Middle East. Moreover, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, Syria has the delivery systems to make them a palpable threat.

UPDATE III: Buzztracker 1, 2, 3.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

, , , .

08/26/2007

That professional mainstream media

Filed under: Media — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

Aren’t you glad these guys are our news gatekeepers? Because they come up with headlines like this:

Icky Algae Worries New England Fishermen
STOCKBRIDGE, Vt. — It looks like a clump of soiled sheep’s wool, a cottony green or white mass that’s turning up on rocks and river bottoms, snarling waterways.

Already a scourge in New Zealand and parts of the American South and West, the aquatic algae called “rock snot” is creeping into New England, where it is turning up in pristine rivers and alarming fishermen and wildlife biologists.

“It scares me,” said Lawton Weber, a fly fishing guide, who first spotted it on the Connecticut River in northern Vermont in June. “It’s an aesthetic eyesore when it’s in full bloom mode and its impact on the trout population is going to be significant.”

Ooooh. Icky and scary. But “icky”—now there’s a professional journalist’s dream adjective for you.

If you’re six.

Say hello to the dog days of August, and slow news days.

08/07/2007

Fact checking

Filed under: Media — Meryl Yourish @ 12:11 am

Ace points to a conversation between Ross Douthat and Jonathan Chait about the Scott Beauchamp affair. Ross talks about the excellence of the Atlantic’s fact-checking process, and Ace mentions that Jonathan Chait seems rather surprised that the fact-checkers actuallly call up article sources and ask if they are being quoted accurately.

I find it shocking that a senior editor at TNR would seem so unversed in the process of fact-checking. I spent a fair amount of time in magazine publishing during my typesetting/desktop publishing career. One of my stints was as a typesetter at New Woman, a monthly women’s magazine owned by K-III Magazines, which was one of the biggest cheapskate corporations in the publishing world back then. Most people aspired to get enough experience on a K-III magazine to go work for Conde Nast or some other publisher that paid much better. But even this cheapskate monthly women’s magazine had a fact-checker, and his fact-checking was superb. I often heard him on the phone during the workday. He called every author’s interview subject to make sure that the subject said what the author quoted them as saying. He checked the accuracy of the facts of each story, either with reference books or by calling agencies referred to in articles. Nothing got into the magazine without being thoroughly fact-checked. And this was all for a women’s magazine that ran articles on fashion, diet, exercise, and women’s issues.

To find that neither Slate nor TNR has fact-checking as thorough as the underpaid twentysomething assistant editors I worked with at New Woman is a very sad reflection on the state of Slate and TNR—not on the state of fact-checking.

07/30/2007

The IDF finally gets on the media bandwagon

Filed under: Israel, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

It looks like the Israelis have finally figured out that they’ve lost the media war for decades. They’re working to change the information battlefield.

A year after the Kafr Kana bombing during the Second Lebanon War and the IDF’s failure to speedily produce video footage justifying its attack, the IDF Spokesman’s Office has implemented a number of lessons aimed at preventing future operational failures from having detrimental diplomatic consequences.

[...] The Kafr Kana bombing has not been forgotten by the IDF and serves today as a key case study for the IDF Spokesman’s Office during training for field commanders on the importance of correctly utilizing the media.

According to a number of senior IDF officers interviewed by The Jerusalem Post, the failure to quickly release the rocket-fire footage was due to a misconception and under-awareness by the Israel Air Force of the event’s far-reaching consequences.

According to a high-ranking military source, shortly after the bombing an IAF general dismissed a number of requests by IDF Spokeswoman Brig.-Gen. Miri Regev to receive the footage, claiming that it was classified and could not be released to the public.

Yes, that’s the bad news. Now the good news:

Since the war, the IDF Spokesman’s Office under Regev has worked hard at training field commanders to better interact with the media. Last week, she laid the cornerstone for a military media school next to the National Defense College at Glilot that will provide compulsory classes on the media to high-ranking officers.

“The most important lesson learned from the Kafr Kana incident was that there needs to be better awareness throughout the IDF about the importance of cooperating with the Spokesman’s Office and to keep it in the operational loop,” a senior IDF officer said Sunday.

The lack of media awareness was not limited to IDF officers but was also seen in government officials, including a senior politician, involved in the decision-making process throughout the war, who said there was no point in releasing the footage earlier in the day since, according to him, the networks would broadcast it.

To improve this, the IDF Spokesman’s Office provides regular lectures teaching field commanders the importance of releasing footage and information about operations as quickly as possible. In addition, the IDF has recently made technological upgrades to some of its systems that allow for quicker collection, retrieval and release of media-worthy material.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office has also been working to train its reserve officers, particularly those from the Foreign Press Section, to better recognize events that could have diplomatic consequences and to more assertively state their case before field commanders.

File this under: About frakkin’ time. Years ago, the Israeli ambassador to Washington spoke at my synagogue. Afterwards, one of the congregants and I were discussing with the ambassador Israel’s negative image in the media. We tried to explain to him that Israel was getting hammered by the Palestinian representatives. He kept telling us, over and over again, that Americans supported Israel. Not the point, we told him, and tried to explain that you can’t keep getting hammered in the world media without seeing your image suffer. He absolutely refused to hear us, and we left feeling very frustrated. That was Israeli policy—and still is, in far too many quarters—toward the Palestinian media blitz that’s had decades to dig itself in. I can’t find the article, but I do recall reading that Arafat sent his media people to top PR classes and learned from the Soviets how to get his message across.

It’s about damned time that Israel finally started facing its crappy relations with the media and began fighting back with the same tools. If there’s video footage available, the networks will use it. That Qana video would have gone a long way towards proving that Hezbollah lied about stationing missiles in civilian areas. They should make these tapes available on YouTube, as well. Viral marketing isn’t only for commercial products.

Israel needs to get her side of the story out on a regular basis, and stop letting the terrorists frame the narrative. Hezbollah did that par excellence last summer.

07/04/2007

But what about that famous Muslim kindness to captives?

Filed under: Gaza, Hamas, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 10:09 am

Say, remember how Alan Johnston said in a video that he was being treated kindly and looked after well? Turns out not so much. (Well, no, we didn’t believe him.)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) – Gaunt but smiling, kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston emerged Wednesday from 16 weeks of solitary confinement in a dark room, an experience he said was “like being buried alive.”

[...] At a news conference with Hamas officials, Johnston – who was held in captivity far longer than any other foreigner kidnapped in Gaza – described his experience as “occasionally terrifying.”

“The last 16 weeks, of course, were just the very worst you can imagine of my life, like being buried alive, really, removed from the world,” he said.

Headed by a man known as Abu Khaled, he said, his kidnappers were “often rude and unpleasant.” They kept him chained and in solitary confinement for 16 weeks and “did threaten my life a number of times in various ways,” Johnston said.

[...] After his release in Gaza, Johnston recounted for reporters how he was chained up for 24 hours at one point, moved twice during his captivity and beaten “a bit” in the last half hour before he was released.

After getting sick because of the food early in his captivity, he said, he was given a simple diet of bread, cheese and eggs. After the first month, he was confined to an apartment where the shutters were always drawn.

“It’s been basically three months since I saw the sun,” he told BBC TV.

Imagine that. His Islamic captors were not the kind, gentle captors that we are told Muslims are supposed to be. I’m shocked. Shocked, I say. I simply can’t imagine how Gilad Shalit is being treated, assuming (and it’s still a very big assumption) that he’s still alive.

I found this part of the article very interesting:

After his release, Johnston was surrounded by armed Hamas security men and hustled to a press conference with Ismail Haniyeh, the former Palestinian prime minister who now heads the Hamas regime in Gaza. Haniyeh draped a Palestinian flag around Johnston’s shoulders – which he quickly removed – and pinned a Palestinian flag pin on his blue blazer.

Trying to keep that famous impartiality, eh?

Love the way Hamas is milking this. There are currently over 1800 news items on Google News, second only to the Scooter Libby story. But I think it will be short-lived, and it will do nothing to change the way the world thinks of the organization of terrorists and murderers.

And of course, Johnston did not go to Egypt when he was freed. He was rushed to Jerusalem, where he knew he would be safe and cared for.

After a breakfast of beans and falafel with Haniyeh, Johnston set out for Jerusalem in the company of British diplomats, arriving at Britain’s Jerusalem consulate later in the morning and waving to a crowd of reporters waiting outside. The BBC’s Jerusalem bureau was decorated with colorful balloons, and bottles of champagne were open on the newsdesk.

Yep. Safe in Israel. Not safe in Gaza. It’s a no-brainer.

Asked if he would return to Gaza, Johnston told Al-Jazeera satellite news, “After many months of kidnapping, I think I need a break.”

There’s a live press conference with Johnston right now. First thing he said: “My job is about putting ideas into words.” Uh, no, that job is to report the news. At least there’s no sign of the Palestinian flag pin on his jacket anymore. He’s thanking the international media and the BBC. He is most notably not thanking Hamas. Hm. There may be hope after all.

05/14/2007

The wonderful world of web

Filed under: Computers, Media — Meryl Yourish @ 10:48 pm

I was reading an article on Katherine Hepburn in the Times, and came across a word I didn’t know. I double-clicked it, intending to copy/paste it into my dictionary.com toolbar. But I didn’t have to. The double-click set off the Times’ internal dictionary pop-up.

Now that’s service.

I take back all of the bad things I said and thought about the Times for, oh, the last month. Tabula rasa for them, at least until their next anti-Israel editorial.

Oh. The word is chiaroscuro.

Update: They actually tell you about the feature at the very bottom of each page. Like I read the small print. But still—it’s there. I found it more amazing not to have been tipped off.

Powered by WordPress