quote: Amidst all the brouhaha over CNN's firing of Rick Sanchez for his remarks about Jews in the media, an important distinction is being missed. Yes, there are many individual Jews in positions of influence in Hollywood, in network television, in sports and entertainment, and in many other areas of American public life. These individuals, who happen to be Jewish, do not act together in any kind of conspiratorial manner. There is no "Jewish control" of any of these areas -- or of the many other areas, such as medicine, law, academia, finance -- where there are large numbers of individual Jews in high positions. Many of these individuals are Jewish only in the sense that their parents or grandparents happen to be Jews. They do not live Jewish lives or support Jewish causes. They certainly do not conspire to exercise any sort of "Jewish control" over the areas in which they work.
In short, Dershowitz notes that while there are many Jews in powerful positions in the media, this doesn't amount to any sort of "control." But surely this doesn't rule out whether or not these powerful individuals aren't mere individuals and are a collective when it comes to certain issues? In effect, knocking down the assertion that Jews "control the media" becomes a way to deflect the question of whether or not there is significant Jewish influence in the media when it comes to certain issues.
Here's an essay by a Jewish conservative named Stephen Stenlight. He works for an anti-immigration think-tank run by Mark Kirkorian of the National Review, and he became anti-immigrant from a "not good for the Jews" perspective. Here's an illuminating essay he wrote on the subject:
quote:It is also true that Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry, theoretically a boon in terms of the formation of favorable public images of Jews and sensitizing the American people to issues of concern to Jews. But ethnic dominance in an industry does not by itself mean that these centers of opinion and attitude formation in the national culture are sources of Jewish political power. They are not noticeably "Jewish" in the sense of advancing a Jewish agenda, Jewish communal interests, or the cause of Israel. And television, the Jewish industry par excellence, with its shallow values, grotesque materialism, celebration of violence, utter superficiality, anti-intellectualism, and sexploitation certainly does not advance anything that might be confused with Jewish values. It is probably true, however, that the situation would be worse in terms of the treatment of Jewish themes and issues in the media without this presence.
But Jewish clout in the media can help Israel and Jewish interests. Sure, you can't always be putting out positive stories about Israel without being transparent, but you can surely prevent anti-Zionist voices from getting airtime in the media, or prevent Israel from being critiqued harshly. Jewish clout in the media means the reluctance to air any information or news stories that (with enough coverage) would threaten America's bias towards Israel. And this is basically what Stenlight is saying.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often times Alan Dershowitz and Abraham Foxman wring their hands about charges of "dual loyalty." And here's honest Stenlight again:
quote:I am also familiar with the classic, well-honed answer to this tension anytime this phenomenon is cited: Israel and America are both democracies; they share values; they have common strategic interests; loyalty to one cannot conceivably involve disloyalty to the other, etc., etc. All of which begs huge questions, including an American strategic agenda that extends far beyond Israel, and while it may be true in practice most of the time, is by no means an absolute construct, devoid of all sort of potential exceptions. I say all this merely to remind us that we cannot pretend we are only part of the solution when we are also part of the problem; we have no less difficult a balancing act between group loyalty and a wider sense of belonging to America. That America has largely tolerated this dual loyalty we get a free pass, I suspect, largely over Christian guilt about the Holocaust makes it no less a reality.
posted
Sa'eed: While strictly speaking you are within the rules of the forum with the last few threads you have posted, and may find these topics fascinating and worthy of discussion, you have been posting a good deal exclusively about Jews.
There's nothing wrong about wanting to focus on one thing, but when it's a topic with the potential for so much aggression and emotionally charged debate, it might be wise to curb your enthusiasm somewhat and stick with one thread at a time. Saturating the forum with threads, especially one critical of the same thing over and over isn't in the spirit of the forums. For those who are Jewish it is also somewhat impolite, as I wouldn't enjoy visiting a forum where new threads like, "Are Mormons under reporting their Prop 8 donations?" and "Mormon Racism" kept routinely popping up.
There is of course no official quota for how many threads criticizing a specific topic may exist at any time, it's more a common courtesy thing. Could you tone it down a bit please?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was about to reply to Lisa. I was going to say:
I made this thread because I didn't want to derail the Rick Sanchez thread and I think this is a topic that's worthy of discussion. Lisa's thread implies that I have a thing about "Jews." I do, as far as anti-Zionism is concerned. But that's it. I'm an irreligious person and religious bigotry is alien to me so I feel that Lisa's thread is really nothing more than the usual attempt to conflate anti-zionism with unjustifiable bigotry against Jews -- a tactic that usually works in making would be critics of Zionism fearful of speaking out.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I am anti-Zionist so Jewish power in the media matters in the anti-Zionist cause.
So, complain about Israel. Fine, valid political argument.
Spouting on about some American Jewish conspiracy in entertainment is just purely offensive.
Isn't a Muslism a major shareholder in Fox news? These people are businessmen, they are not out for political gain or to help a country (other then maybe donations) on the other side of the world. They are out to fill their pockets. Jewish, Muslism, Christian businessmen have one giant thing in common, money. Thats it. If a pro-Israel stance gets ratings and sponsors, then thats what they give.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: So, was Stephen Stenlight (conservative Jew) spouting about an American Jewish conspiracy?
I'm not even sure your purpose of posting his essay. He says pretty blutly.
"They are not noticeably "Jewish" in the sense of advancing a Jewish agenda, Jewish communal interests, or the cause of Israel. "
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
"It is probably true, however, that the situation would be worse in terms of the treatment of Jewish themes and issues in the media without this presence."
Worse in what way? I think Stenlight, who seems to welcome 80% of the U.S's foreign aid going to Israel, would consider anti-Zionist voices becoming mainstream as bad and the Jewish presence in the media as a necessary preventive.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The charge of "self-hatred" is absolutely nonsensical and blatant ad hominem. Why respond to the substance of what Philip Weiss is saying -- just accuse him of hating himself! It's also hilarious that that article targets Andrew Sullivan and Stephen Walt (of "The Israeli Lobby" fame). It's nothing but an attempt to silence critics of Israel. Walt responded here:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: But he also says:
"It is probably true, however, that the situation would be worse in terms of the treatment of Jewish themes and issues in the media without this presence."
Worse in what way? I think Stenlight, who seems to welcome 80% of the U.S's foreign aid going to Israel, would consider anti-Zionist voices becoming mainstream as bad and the Jewish presence in the media as a necessary preventive.
You are having way to many discussions in the same post.
First of all, what is wrong with the lack of any type of prejudice? That is all it sounds like he is saying to me. That we may see more anti-semitism if Jews were not to heavily in show business. But that goes without saying for any group. The more you see of it in an industry, the better things get. Women are not nearly as bad off either BECAUSE they are so prevelant now in the media and the work place.
Now, about foreign aid going to Israel. How many times have Jews on the board agreed with you on that point? America gives foreign aid to Israel not because it is Jewish, but to KEEP a strong ally in an area where we have so few. Sounds like a decent investment in my eyes.
I'm also not sure where the 80% figure comes from. When I have read reports of military aid at least Israel is below Iraq and Afghanistan in numbers (obviously) and Egypt comes pretty close to Israel.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the media had remained silent on the issue of apartheid in South Africa that would that have been a demonstration of neutrality? Sometimes remaining silent about issues and not giving airtime to certain voices is not being neutral.
Yes, we need an ally in the region, significantly because of our support for their main enemy...which makes them hate us.
We bribe Egypt to remain at peace with Israel. And it's ridiculous of you to bring up the amount we give to Iraq and Afghanistan --countries which we recently invaded and which are in turmoil because of our actions. In any case, Steinlight brought up that figure. I'm sure he's not exaggerating and is more knowledgeable about this either of us.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: If the media had remained silent on the issue of apartheid in South Africa that would that have been a demonstration of neutrality? Sometimes remaining silent about issues and not giving airtime to certain voices is not being neutral.
Yes, we need an ally in the region, significantly because of our support for their main enemy...which makes them hate us.
We bribe Egypt to remain at peace with Israel. And it's ridiculous of you to bring up the amount we give to Iraq and Afghanistan --countries which we recently invaded and which are in turmoil because of our actions. In any case, Steinlight brought up that figure. I'm sure he's not exaggerating and is more knowledgeable about this either of us.
You made an unsubstantiated claim that 80% of foreign aid goes to Israel. 1 minute on Google and I was able to find corrected information. I put "(obviously)" for a reason.
We also give $100,000,000 to Palestine.
What voices are being ignored? The only positive press I ever see Israel get is when they give in on something. I always see pictures of Palestinean victims, but never of Israeli ones.
Show me some headline articles from major "Jewish" run organizations denouncing Palestine, and I agree to at least re-evaluate my thinking. Not op-ed pieces, headline news.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got that figure from Steinlights article.
I think you're missing the point though. My assertion isn't that our media spends its time condemning Palestinians. I assert that it shuts out anti-Zionist voices and those deemed too critical of Israel. For instance, Walt & Mearsheimer (who wrote "The Israel Lobby") and Philip Weiss (who runs mondoweiss.net) are not invited to discuss Israel on cable news, because in the mainstream media their position is taboo and, I assert, that is a consequence of the disproportionate Jewish influence in the media which Weiss and Steinlight highlight.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: But he also says:
"It is probably true, however, that the situation would be worse in terms of the treatment of Jewish themes and issues in the media without this presence."
Worse in what way? I think Stenlight, who seems to welcome 80% of the U.S's foreign aid going to Israel, would consider anti-Zionist voices becoming mainstream as bad and the Jewish presence in the media as a necessary preventive.
Worse because there would be only one side of the dialog without them, occasionally. It's not so much about making sure you aren't heard as it is making sure they are heard. Not an unreasonable fear, considering they have been locked out of communal dialogs everywhere they have gone in their history.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I got that figure from Steinlights article.
I think you're missing the point though. My assertion isn't that our media spends its time condemning Palestinians. I assert that it shuts out anti-Zionist voices and those deemed too critical of Israel. For instance, Walt & Mearsheimer (who wrote "The Israel Lobby") and Philip Weiss (who runs mondoweiss.net) are not invited to discuss Israel on cable news, because in the mainstream media their position is taboo and, I assert, that is a consequence of the disproportionate Jewish influence in the media which Weiss and Steinlight highlight.
I don't exactly see people on cable news pleading the case for zionism either. It is just not a topic most Americans are concerned with, therefore lack of ratings.
The only issue I see on the news is whether Israel is right or wrong in retaliating against Palestinean violence, and from my experience if anything the media tends to be biased towards Israel.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never quote opinion pieces as evidence (unless they provide citations themselves), first rule I teach my students when we get into internet research.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I got that figure from Steinlights article.
I think you're missing the point though. My assertion isn't that our media spends its time condemning Palestinians. I assert that it shuts out anti-Zionist voices and those deemed too critical of Israel. For instance, Walt & Mearsheimer (who wrote "The Israel Lobby") and Philip Weiss (who runs mondoweiss.net) are not invited to discuss Israel on cable news, because in the mainstream media their position is taboo and, I assert, that is a consequence of the disproportionate Jewish influence in the media which Weiss and Steinlight highlight.
I don't exactly see people on cable news pleading the case for zionism either.
They don't have to. America could not be supportive of the zionist enterprise, in terms of aid and diplomatic support. All that is necessary is to keep out from the mainstream media voices threatening to this status quo.
quote:The only issue I see on the news is whether Israel is right or wrong in retaliating against Palestinean violence,
Of course that's all you see.
quote:and from my experience if anything the media tends to be biased towards Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: But he also says:
"It is probably true, however, that the situation would be worse in terms of the treatment of Jewish themes and issues in the media without this presence."
Worse in what way? I think Stenlight, who seems to welcome 80% of the U.S's foreign aid going to Israel, would consider anti-Zionist voices becoming mainstream as bad and the Jewish presence in the media as a necessary preventive.
Worse because there would be only one side of the dialog without them, occasionally. It's not so much about making sure you aren't heard as it is making sure they are heard. Not an unreasonable fear, considering they have been locked out of communal dialogs everywhere they have gone in their history.
Without heavy Jewish presence in the media, there would be only one side of the debate? Really? Non-Jews in the media would just side against Israel/Jews like that and refuse to air their viewpoitns?
Maybe this is why Haim Saban, Israeli media mogul, seeks to "control" U.S media outlets in order to advocate for Israel:
quote: His greatest concern, [Saban] says, is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship. At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His 'three ways to be influential in American politics,' he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets."
posted
I think that some distiction needs to be made about what kind of media we are talking about. Are we primarily concerned with news (what I would call media outlets or entertainment? Are we including sitcoms? Dramas?
I would agree that there are probably a disproportionate number of Jewish people involved in entertainment media. I don't know that the same would be true for news media.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I got that figure from Steinlights article.
I think you're missing the point though. My assertion isn't that our media spends its time condemning Palestinians. I assert that it shuts out anti-Zionist voices and those deemed too critical of Israel. For instance, Walt & Mearsheimer (who wrote "The Israel Lobby") and Philip Weiss (who runs mondoweiss.net) are not invited to discuss Israel on cable news, because in the mainstream media their position is taboo and, I assert, that is a consequence of the disproportionate Jewish influence in the media which Weiss and Steinlight highlight.
I don't exactly see people on cable news pleading the case for zionism either.
They don't have to. America could not be supportive of the zionist enterprise, in terms of aid and diplomatic support. All that is necessary is to keep out from the mainstream media voices threatening to this status quo.
quote:The only issue I see on the news is whether Israel is right or wrong in retaliating against Palestinean violence,
Of course that's all you see.
quote:and from my experience if anything the media tends to be biased towards Israel.
You're getting it!
Mistype. Israel bias in regards to negativity about Israel.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: But he also says:
"It is probably true, however, that the situation would be worse in terms of the treatment of Jewish themes and issues in the media without this presence."
Worse in what way? I think Stenlight, who seems to welcome 80% of the U.S's foreign aid going to Israel, would consider anti-Zionist voices becoming mainstream as bad and the Jewish presence in the media as a necessary preventive.
Worse because there would be only one side of the dialog without them, occasionally. It's not so much about making sure you aren't heard as it is making sure they are heard. Not an unreasonable fear, considering they have been locked out of communal dialogs everywhere they have gone in their history.
Without heavy Jewish presence in the media, there would be only one side of the debate? Really? Non-Jews in the media would just side against Israel/Jews like that and refuse to air their viewpoitns?
Maybe this is why Haim Saban, Israeli media mogul, seeks to "control" U.S media outlets in order to advocate for Israel:
quote: His greatest concern, [Saban] says, is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship. At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His 'three ways to be influential in American politics,' he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets."
posted
I'm not even quite sure what it is you want. Anti-zionism, I would assume you mean people that want all the Jews out of Israel? What exactly is your definition of anti-zionism.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I'm not one of those people that thinks we should bow down and worship Israel, but honestly...
A huge media conspiracy made up of Jews? Just because you can find someone who says they believe in it doesn't make it true or logical. I can find people who have written essays on LOTS of things that are total nonsense. Many of them just forgot to take their medication...
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
These kinds of threads are utterly ridiculous, anti-semitic by definition, barely indistringuishable from 'teach the controversy' bs and only one step shy of jumping off of the slippery slope.
My reasoning for stopping these kinds of "discussions" are the same for stopping Iron Guard neofascists from talking in front of their class, if these kinds of discussions convince even one person that there is some kind of truth behind any of this garbage its a complete and total travesty.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting exercise. Some people say that Jewish people are wielding inordinate power in American media. A lot of us don't buy that, but it's very hard to prove a negative.
Let's do this to put the burden back on those who say this: let's all assume for a moment that's true. If it wasn't true, what would we see that would be different?
Would we see newspaper editorials condemning Israel? We see those now. Would we see talk show hosts who advocate for Palestinians? We see those now. Would we see anti-zionist blogs and message board discussions? Would we see Hollywood actors and directors excoriating Israel then getting awards? We see those now.
Just what would be different without this "cabal"?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Here's an interesting exercise. Some people say that Jewish people are wielding inordinate power in American media. A lot of us don't buy that, but it's very hard to prove a negative.
Let's do this to put the burden back on those who say this: let's all assume for a moment that's true. If it wasn't true, what would we see that would be different?
Would we see newspaper editorials condemning Israel? We see those now. Would we see talk show hosts who advocate for Palestinians? We see those now. Would we see anti-zionist blogs and message board discussions? Would we see Hollywood actors and directors excoriating Israel then getting awards? We see those now.
Just what would be different without this "cabal"?
You don't understand. There are wackos who think that the media is overwhelmingly pro-Israel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/qb][/QUOTE]You don't understand. There are wackos who think that the media is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Then the people who believe that can do the heavy lifting similar to various media watchdog groups and present numbers to prove their point. How many pro-Israel stories versus how many anti-Israel stories? You can do that with minutes of airtime, print pages, number of books published, etc. If people believe that the media is pro- or anti- something, let them prove it. (That ain't rocket science).
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
You don't understand. There are wackos who think that the media is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Then the people who believe that can do the heavy lifting similar to various media watchdog groups and present numbers to prove their point. How many pro-Israel stories versus how many anti-Israel stories? You can do that with minutes of airtime, print pages, number of books published, etc. If people believe that the media is pro- or anti- something, let them prove it. (That ain't rocket science). [/QB][/QUOTE]
I did ask him for just one article from something other then an op-ed piece. Just one.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Here's an interesting exercise. Some people say that Jewish people are wielding inordinate power in American media. A lot of us don't buy that, but it's very hard to prove a negative.
Let's do this to put the burden back on those who say this: let's all assume for a moment that's true. If it wasn't true, what would we see that would be different?
Would we see newspaper editorials condemning Israel? We see those now. Would we see talk show hosts who advocate for Palestinians? We see those now. Would we see anti-zionist blogs and message board discussions? Would we see Hollywood actors and directors excoriating Israel then getting awards? We see those now.
Just what would be different without this "cabal"?
According to Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, America and Israel's strategic interests are no where near the same. That's why there has to be a lobby--one of the most powerful in the U.S. Perhaps without heavy Jewish involvment in the media there would be more honest discussion of the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis and they -- Profs at Harvard -- would be invited to debate Israel firsters on cable news (like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Cliff May and so on.) And no, we don't have talk show hosts who advocate for Palestinians. Rachel Maddow is clearly afraid to dwell there, though she has raised the issue. Without heavy Jewish involvement in the media, you wouldn't have a crazy situation like this on NPR:
A riveting discussion of Zionism between one Zionist and...another. And so on.
My thesis is that there is an absence of anti-Zionist and Palestinian voices in the media. A Palestinian or someone very critical of Israel (along the lines of Walt & Mearsheimer, Mondoweiss) will rarely get airtime. The occasional Palestinian you see who gives his or her point of view does not disprove this.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Incorrect, Israel is one of the few western democracies in the middle east, it is in the US's strategic interest to insure Israel's survival.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A Palestinian or someone very critical of Israel (along the lines of Walt & Mearsheimer, Mondoweiss) will rarely get airtime.
posted
Any group that has been prevented from having a voice in the past would seek to make sure they will have one in the future.
The fact that the debate you linked to was aired, on NPR no less, shows that you are wrong. There IS a debate, and many sides are being heard. This isn't a binary situation....it isn't just one said or the other. Many people, such as myself, support Israel but do not believe that they are perfect, or that they do everything right.
Extremist rarely get airtime. They just don't represent the views of most people, and the very fact that hey are extreme limits their exposure.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't for one second believe that there is a "Jewish conspiracy" to control the media. I do believe that higher proportional representation of a group in the media industry leads to that group's interests getting more airtime. For example, female directors get close to 50/50 in gender ratio for speaking characters, male directors do much worse (they overrepresent men). Same with tv shows that have writers of both sexes vs just male writers, shows that have black producers/directors/writers vs not, etc. It's more blatant in entertainment media, but the same effect exists in news media too. It's not necessarily malevolent or even purposeful, people (including media executives) just naturally pay more attention to events and viewpoints that are related to their lives. This is why I support diversity in the news industry in general--to mitigate that effect.
You make a convincing case that Arabs are proportionally underrepresented in the media industries than Jews, and this affects the slant on reporting (small connotations like "raid" vs "attack" that add up to a general worldview that's more favorable to Israel and less favorable to Palestine than it otherwise would be).
But I'm iffy on your implied solutions. There's not a top down conspiracy controlling all of this, just basic social forces, so you can't just destroy the conspiracy (since it doesn't exist). And public campaigns to increase representation of one group usually help more than public campaigns to decrease representation of another; this is why affirmative action seeks to increase representation of blacks and Latinos in top colleges, not decrease representation of whites and Asians. So how to increase representation of Arabs in the news industry?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Any group that has been prevented from having a voice in the past would seek to make sure they will have one in the future.
Be that as it may, that current advantage/dominance is currently used in the interest of Israel by shutting out voices deemed too critical of Israel.
quote:The fact that the debate you linked to was aired, on NPR no less, shows that you are wrong. There IS a debate, and many sides are being heard. This isn't a binary situation....it isn't just one said or the other. Many people, such as myself, support Israel but do not believe that they are perfect, or that they do everything right.
But the parameters of the debate were absurd. That's the point. Two zionists argued against each other.
quote:Extremist rarely get airtime. They just don't represent the views of most people, and the very fact that hey are extreme limits their exposure.
Jewish media dominance has made it so that non-Zionists voices, or those who agree with the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, are deemed as "extremists." This is a specification of how Jewish dominance media serves Jewish interests.
quote:Again, ratings. The vast majority of Americans aren't interested in a debate on zionism.
Osama and many terrorists cite the U.S support for Israel as a cause of why they hate the U.S. The Muslim's world's view on the U.S is significantly colored by the US's preference for Israel. In short, I think anyone who actually reads/watches the news would find the topic interesting enough to follow. That there is not much interest on the part of Americans in the issue of Zionism is not a result of mere lack of interest but rather a consequence of lack of knowledge, which serves Jewish interests in keeping Americans ignorant of the wide support Zionism enjoys among Jews and the dual loyalty this entails (as Stenlight mentions.) I think the sort of coverage of Israel that we do get is meant to engender disinterest and apathy in non-Zionist Americans. Most Americans (who care enough about their country to watch the news seriously) would find it interesting to hear W&M claim that America and Israel do not have a terrorist problem but that America has a terrorist problem because of Israel. That they aren't allowed to hear this is a triumph of Jewish media influence.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
I have heard it argued that America only has a terrorist problem because of its support of Israel. What about Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Germany. Are all of their terrorist problems because of their support of Israel? Is the taliban only working in Afghanistan and Iraq (where thousands of native Afghanis and Iraqis have been killed) because of THEIR support of Israel?
The second point: you point out that the Jewish presence in American media is "disproportionate." It is a mighty leap from saying that a group is powerful, to concluding that that group has control.
Newsweek magazine recently sold for what, a dollar? What prevents anti-zionists from starting a cable network, a magazine, a Huffington Post-style website? They, presumably, could ask for grants from some of the oil-rich nations with an interest for peace in the middle east.
In the age of c-span, kindle, infomercials, public access tv, internet blogging, etc., it just doesn't seem to hold water to say that anyone controls the media to an extent that you can't get your viewpoint out there.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spain, France and Germany had/have soldiers in Afghanistan and I'm sure some crazy individuals think that they were engaged in a war against "Islam." That that is the case (a consequence of the Afghan/Iraq wars) does not rule out that the U.S support for Israel inspires extremism and rage against the U.S.
Some Syrian businessman tried to buy Newsweek when it was for sale, and I'm sure for far more than a dollar. It was sold to ardent Zionist whose wife came under the scrutiny of the FBI for reasons having to do with dual loyalty. Newsweek is an iconic American periodical so it's likely that there was ideological reasons behind that sale.
And anyway, I'm glad that you're suggesting anti-Zionists/W&M types find alternative media and establish there own outlets to dispense their viewpoints. This at last acknowledges that they don't have much of a chance of being heard in the media in which Jews have very disproportionate influence.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fact: Stephen Walt's blog is published by the Washington Post company. Doesn't this mean I'm wrong? Maybe. But it's a mere instance of someone very critical of the U.S's relationship with Israel being given a space to dispense his views. And it's a blog. W&M had to publish their paper (which the book was based on) in the London Review of Books because American periodicals felt it was too hot. And there's a reason for that: books the Jews would be mad.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Things like this never make the news in the US. If it'd been Jews attacking Arabs, the entire world, including the US, would have gone completely berserk. So please, spare me the nonsense about the media being pro-Israel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice play for sympathy. Shall I post stories about Jews kicking out Arabs out of their homes in East Jerusalem or stories about Israeli soldiers punching Palestinian youth in the face? Nah, that would be kind of cheap.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
