Palestine and the Media

[bluesoul]

By JUDITH BROWN

After years of military occupation, Palestinians have many demands on their limited resources. Managing the media gets a low priority when faced with humanitarian demands from a population that needs amongst other things health care, education and replacement housing. Yet managing the media is an important way of getting your message across to a Western public that sympathises when Israelis are killed by Palestinian suicide bombers, while Palestinians are portrayed as a barbaric people who hate Israel and do not want peace.

In a conflict there are always two opposing viewpoints. The Palestinians want to present their side but are poorly resourced compared with Israel's efficient and effective media machine.

There are undoubtedly structural problems that make it easier for journalists to see the Israeli view--each Western journalist registers with the Israeli authorities, they have a handler and carry a beeper provided by Israel which keeps them up to date with news stories. They live and work in Jerusalem, where they are subject to the same fears of suicide bombs that helps them identify with Israelis. By comparison, currently only the Israeli award-winning journalist Amira Hass lives in the Palestinian territories. Access to the areas where Palestinians live is difficult. At times when there is an important news story, journalists are more likely to be denied access. Media offices are in Jerusalem, but Palestinian journalists no longer have press cards and most cannot travel into the city, which limits the chances of them working for foreign media agencies.

<snip>

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/brown02042004.html

[GabysPoppy]

1. If counterpunch ever wanted to tell the truth

The first paragraph would have read like this.


After years of missing opportunities to negotiate a peaceful settlement of an ongoing dispute, Palestinians have many demands on their limited resources because of all the money embezzled by their leader Arafat. Trying to control the media gets a higher priority than humanitarian demands from a population that needs amongst other things like health care, education, housing and responsible leadership. Yet controlling the media is very difficult when trying to convince the Western Public that suicide bombers are really volunteers from Welcome Wagon.

[bluesoul]

3. Counterpoint?

That must be another source. You don't even spell it right, let alone the rest...

[GabysPoppy]

7. Thank you for the observation

As for the rest, the truth is always hard to except at times.

[bluesoul]

10. Yeah

the truth. Some just can't handle it...

[Jim Sagle]

11. Others (CounterPunch) can't recognize it.

[Jim Sagle]

2. CounterPunch is a rabidly anti-Israel organ.

I wouldn't trust a word they said about I/P.

[bluesoul]

4. Sure

that's why Neve Gordon and Uri Avnery write for them right?

[GabysPoppy]

5. Exactly

[bluesoul]

6. So

Uri Avnery (or Amira Hass) and all those anti-war and other left-wing people and media are anti-Israeli (like Haaretz)?

[GabysPoppy]

8. Not to change the subject on you, but

Counterpunch was the media outlet branded as anti-Isreal.

Let's explain that in terms of the the Jeopardy game show.

Contestant: I'll take media assholes for $800 Alex.

Alex: The answer is counterpunch, don't forget to answer in the form of a question.

contestant: What is counterpunch?

Alex: correct, please choose another category

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

12. Again I pose the question to you

why is the JP not held to the same standard by you? Not talking about other posters here, I'm asking you.

As an american democrat is there any other Lord Black publication you would take time to consider the OP/ED pages, on any other issue than the topic of Israel?

Bill

[GabysPoppy]

13. Some information

Newspapers have what are called editorials and op/editorials. In this fashion they present to their readership views of each side.

Would you call the times a "right-wing rag" because they publish the words of Safire and Brooks? I have yet to meet the person who mistakenly takes them for being liberal or even moderate in their views. I believe I have also seen op/eds by Chuck Shumer appearing in the NY Post. If it is your purpose to criticize a publication because of editorials you dislike, go right ahead.

Publications like counterpunch or Arutz-Sheva which do have an almost 100% record of being biased may be worthy of that criticism but it is off base to include the Jerusalem Post in that category.

The same goes to viewpoints of "news" articles. For example the exploits of Suja Arafat and the missing Palestinian monies is a case in point. Virtually the same stories are in almost all of the major media outlets in the world. Does the story become untrue because the messenger of that story is the Jerusalem Post? Would you believe that recently a poster implied that the result of an Island/Canadian hockey game may be in doubt because it was reported by the NY Post?

I think you would have to agree that would be a "knee jerk" reaction to the highest degree.

I think as an American Democrat that I have the intelligence to read an editorial and discern for myself what to believe or disbelieve. With certain exceptions, (David Duke website for an example) I try to make it my business to not "knee jerk" remarks in any forum. More times than not, it becomes an embarrassing situation.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

15. tisk tisk...

My experience with a former black pub, The National Post, here in Canada actually does not do what you contend is the norm for others -actually the latest owners, the Asper's, imposed a policy of no dissent when it relates to issues regarding Israel. Not just in the NP but throughout the chain - and they have suffered as a result.

It's naive to use the openness to ideas from publications as the Times to equate that similar is necessarily done by others.

Again, I do not read the post so I appreciate your point of view.


Now regarding this statement:

"Would you believe that recently a poster implied that the result of an Island/Canadian hockey game may be in doubt because it was reported by the NY Post?"

Actually, was this not your analogy?

YOUR POST

“Here is something from the NY Post - Murdoch owned.

ISLANDERS FAIL
ANOTHER ROAD TEST

February 6, 2004 -- Canadiens 2 - Islanders 1

I bet on the Islanders last night. By your logic I should hold on to the betting slip because the story may be untrue.”

HIS RESPONSE

And actually, political views are more than occasionally expressed in sports reporting. I don't know enough about what this article is about to comment upon it though. Generally though, I think it's not paranoid to at least be suspicious of the motivations behind the placement of editorials in a right-wing newspaper. It's not irrelevant.

Regardless of its placement in this or that publication, there are two points:

-Jerusalem Post is a right-wing newspaper.
-The editorial equates determined political opposition to Israeli policies and actions to anti-Semitism."


“http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=51893”


but again, you want to make this statement based upon those posts:

"Would you believe that recently a poster implied that the result of an Island/Canadian hockey game may be in doubt because it was reported by the NY Post?"

"I try to make it my business to not "knee jerk" remarks in any forum. More times than not, it becomes an embarrassing situation."

It most certainly does.

I guess I have a higher standard as to what accurately represents the true facts of what was stated or 'implied', or what constitutes a "knee jerk remark".

Bill

[GabysPoppy]

16. Was that you?

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

17. Nope, just remembered the thread when you referenced it

above.

I found the analogy quite weak at the time.

took me about 5 mins to sift through a couple threads until I came upon it again.

thanks for asking though

Bill

[GabysPoppy]

18. Actually it was you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=51893#51938

This is the comment that stuck in my head.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

21. NO IT WAS NOT

the comment you referenced, misrepresented and I made the record straight on were posts between yourself and David_77.

Your question - "was that you?" - what reasonable person would take that question any other way? No it was not me. The posts we both were speaking to were between yourself and David_77.

No if, ands, or buts - are we clear on this point?


Now regarding your link: since you want to go there

MY (Noon_Blue_Apples) POST TO YOU

"One for you
Any other Lord Black publication you are at ease with in terms of agenda and propensity for journalistic integrity?"


YOUR RESPONSE TO ME

"David_77, please take note
I wish I could predict lottery numbers as well as knee jerk reactions."

Yes, MY knee jerk reactions

priceless

folks you can't make this stuff up.

we'll actually, it seems you can.

Do you want to continue this line?

pssssst - you're not doing to well

Bill

[bluesoul]

24. Noon Blue Apples

I admire you for trying. it's senseless really...

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

28. it really is - the 'game' has become trivial

hey, we all stick it to each other once in a while here...but to create conversations and act as though 'your side' is above the fray, chastising others for actions you yourself partake in...

The sad thing is...the 'tactic' of controlling this forum through reducing it to nonsensical abserdities...it benefits neither perspective. In fact, it was the impetus for placing the topic away from casual wondering visitors.

in the end, the issue is ignored. How is that to anyone's benefit, besides a visceral sense of 'winning'?

I'd rather make love to my wife.

Those that do make it here judge posters upon the words they have chosen to share. We don't need editorial opinions from on high to define who we are and how we fell towards other cultures...it is plain as day to those who are not partisan to the issues at hand.

let those without sin cast the first stone.

partisan slaps on the back is the most banal sense of 'victory' there is.

Its like an 'own goal' but you get the stat for scoring. You still lose the 'game'

Bill

[number6]

39. anti (to the) Right Wing (in) Israel.

;)

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. There's that term "organ" again

Funny how I tend to associate a slightly differentiate picture with Counterpunch.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

19. Oh yeah

the IDF show...

[GabysPoppy]

20. With the June Taylor Dancers

Starring Art Carney as Ed Norton.

And awaaaaay we go!!!!

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

22. and you speak of the knee jerk reactions of others

in the words of the Magistrate (if I may Sir)

"wear it well"

Bill

[GabysPoppy]

23. knee jerk reaction?

And I thought it was high comedy.

:shrug:

[Rhiannon12866]

25. This is an excellent point, bluesoul

Thanks for posting this. I heard an excellent speech yesterday on the radio while driving. The speaker explained that little will happen to resolve this conflict in an American election year and that the Palestinian cause will definitely not be helped, since Palestinians do not donate to American election campaigns.

[bluesoul]

26. Thanks

Nice word are always welcome ;)

[Rhiannon12866]

27. You deserve nice words

This is a problem that should not be ignored. If only we could solve it on DU.:-(

[tinnypriv]

29. That speaker happens to be right

Though I doubt they're fully aware of why they're right, if they are only just saying this now.

For example, a previous conversation (with yourself, funnily enough :D):

"To conclude, essentially, you can forget any serious M/E diplomacy until after the elections in 2004 (unless of course, the whole thing blows up in the face of the US and Israel. Not likely in my view, but possible nevertheless)" (Oct 19 2003)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=19120 (See especially post #126)

[Rhiannon12866]

Yes, I remember this dialogue

Nothing has changed, more's the pity. The longer that The U.S. (Bush*) fails to act, the more lives will be lost. This has not been a good week anywhere in the Middle East. The speaker that I heard on the radio said that he had hopes for the "road map" when it was "the Quartet" that was behind it. But now, it is really just the U.S. This is not a hopeful sign. Bush* is just not ignoring this, but we know he is prejudiced in favor of Sharon. This conflict needs an unbiased party and has, as yet, to find one, since President Clinton. Why they don't bring him in, or President Carter, who managed to bring together Begin and Sadat, is beyond me, but Bush* is the most partisan president in history, despite being "elected" without a mandate.

[GabysPoppy]

31. Never forget one fact

Bush and his whole family are the biggest anti-semites on this planet.

[_Jumper_]

32. So why is Shrub helping Israel against the Arabs?

Does he just hate Arabs more?

[Rhiannon12866]

34. In 1998 the governors' conference was held in this part of the world

Bush* thought his "special status" could get him a private meeting with Yassar Arafat. Arafat snubbed him and he has refused to deal with Arafat ever since. Meanwhile, Sharon befriended him, hence Bush* called him "a man of peace." I cannot even begin to look into the mind of Bush*, but these are facts.:shrug:

[Rhiannon12866]

40. I was going to ask Jumper's question

They may be anti-Semites, which I can easily believe, but they sure seem to hate the other side even more.:shrug:

[tinnypriv]

35. I think this is a crucial misunderstanding

It isn't that the U.S. is failing to act, it is the fact it is acting, but in the wrong way (i.e. blocking a justice-based political settlement).

For a current example (repeatedly pointed out in Israel by the more astute commentators), it appears that there is a serious possiblility that the U.S. might provide Israel with a (disastrous IMO) quid pro quo in return for the announced withdrawal from Gaza.

The talk, by senior Sharon sources, is of "rewards", namely that Israel gets the annexation of large settlement blocs, the right to keep every settlement in the WB intact until it decides there is "peace", the right to murderous bombardment of Gaza (even after withdrawal), the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, approval of the current path of the fence and much else.

All the above (if granted), amounts to giving Israel control of 50-60% of the WB, essentially destroying a serious two-state solution and confining the indigenous population to separated bantustans (though South Africa was more generous, so the comparison is unfair).

The point is, the U.S. decision on whether to grant these rewards is an action, whether or not the U.S. population knows anything about it. Incidentially, they don't know because of extremely effective (and surely conscious) suppression of the facts (if you like, I can cite some examples of that, which are interesting in of themselves).

As for Carter and Sadat, the former didn't have a great deal to do with the latter. Sadat offered peace in 1971, was turned down by Israel and the U.S. and then the '73 war led to Camp David. Carter was quite irrelevant - the most important factor was that Egypt demonstrated that it could speak the "language of force" in '73. As a direct consequence, Israel and the U.S. accepted the longstanding '71 offer. If you're interested, consult Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (p150-171).

To address the "Roadmap", the Quartet was never behind it. That is window dressing, as can easily be determined by the fact that the U.S. was able to prevent publication of the document until it needed it to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq.

In any case, the Roadmap is contradictory nonsense, rejected by the GOI and laughed at in the highest circles (Sharon - Cabinet meetings etc). All well reported in Israel (though not particularly critically, I should stress).

[Rhiannon12866]

36. I agree with you completely, tinnypriv

The U.S. is rewarding Israel for its unconscionable behavior. They made a huge deal about France threatening to use its veto over the Iraq issue, but France has only used this twice in the history of the U.N. The U.S. has used theirs 86 times, usually in support of their ally, Israel, who is in constant violation of U.N. sanctions. And they keep talking about Iraq violating U.N. sanctions. But most people just don't know. It comes down to a matter of money. They give these huge aid packages to Israel. These should come with the stipulation that they evacuate the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza, stop the "targeted killings" and the razing of Palestinian homes and make a serious effort in negotiation in the effort for peace. Period. But George Bush*, unlike Clinton or Carter, doesn't see this as a priority, so it just isn't getting done. We need new leadership. Meanwhile, those on both sides continue to die.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[number6]

37. I agree

our "Press" is pro-Bush, pro Pentagon, pro-Corporate
and anti-Palestinian

[number6]

38. kick

:kick: