Posts tagged media
Posts tagged media
Once, in a more innocent era, beheading was
dismissed as just a word. Placard-carrying
youth at a Sydney Moslem protest, 2012
It’s right and appropriate that Australia’s ABC use the word terror in connection with today’s reporting of the country’s largest counter-terror activity in history. But for how long?
When Islamist sociopaths in the Sydney ‘burbs threaten to murder and/or behead Australians, that’s terror, and the people doing it are terrorists. But when they or their cousins in their Middle East villages threaten the very same to Israelis or to Arabs who pray in a different direction or whose view of their shared religion is different in some big or small way, why are they then called militants or activists?
The head of Reuters in the days right after 9/11 said the reason is “that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" [Sydney Morning Herald, 2004]. But we, and that includes the media, have to get this right. There isa way to know terror, to define terror, to classify certain actions and people as terrorist. Getting this wrong has huge life-and-death consequences. The senior people at the BBC don’t agree, and say instead that using the word “terrorist” “can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”:
…we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people, but we try to avoid the word ourselves; not because we are morally neutral towards terrorism, nor because we have any sympathy for the perpetrators of the inhuman atrocities which all too often we have to report, but because terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones. [BBC: Language when Reporting Terrorism]
That’s one of the reasons people who think the way we do have for years tried to publicly shame the BBC’s policy guidelines [full text online here] on how and when to use “terror”.
If Australian news reports this evening referred to the people who threaten to behead other Australians by calling them militants or activists, most members of their Australian audience would be outraged.
But as Israelis, we have gotten used to the reality of reporters and their editors engaging in walking-on-eggshells terminological acrobatics in order to disgracefully avoid using the one accurate descriptor: terrorist.
Same protest, same Sydney public park, even
younger supporter of beheading for the sake
of Islam [Image Source]
A seminal article by Daniel Pipes in the New York Sun ten years ago surveyed the state of the euphemisms-for-terrorism art. His listing included activists (Pakistan Times).assailants (National Public Radio), attackers (Economist), bombers (The Guardian), commandos (Agence France-Presse which also called them ”membres du commando”), criminals (Times of London), extremists (United Press International), fighters (Washington Post), group (The Australian), guerrillas (New York Post in an editorial), gunmen (Reuters), hostage-takers (Los Angeles Times), insurgents (a New York Times headline), kidnappers (The Observer), militants (Chicago Tribune), perpetrators (New York Times), radicals (BBC), rebels (Sydney Morning Herald), separatists (Christian Science Monitor),
(A good thing suicide bomber is not on his list: if we had our way, no one would ever use that term. Those people are human bombs.)
A year ago, we wrote here about how
George Carlin, the great and late, joked that people once used to get old and die but not any more. Nowadays they become pre-elderly; then turn into senior citizens; then pass away in a terminal episode or following a negative patient care outcome or in response to atherapeutic misadventure. The world is poorer with him gone. But with the greatest of respect (non-euphemistically, that would be: recognizing the utter foolishness of what people routinely do), it’s not at all humorous when the authorities hijack our language in order to advance policies which, if they had to explain them, would beoffensive, repugnant and unacceptable.
The terrorists are a serious threat to just about everyone, and it’s ludicrous to think “we" have "them" on the run. The terrorists can do immense harm, turn people’s lives upside down, inflict huge pain and destruction. But unless we let them, they cannot change the shape of society. Those euphemisms and the fuzzy, agenda-driven thinking behind them, however, can do immense harm to the ability of civilized countries to keep their people and their achievements safe. What we do with words really does make a difference.
If the great majority of Jews are liberal-progressive and if the vast majority of progressive-left Jews believe in Israel as the national homeland for the Jewish people, just where is their media presence?
I just do not see it. Do you?
Given the fact that most Jews are progressive and given…
It is a very important piece
Ha bevet olyan figyelmes dolgokat például, hogy kinyitja neked az ajtót, alád tolja a széket vagy érdeklődik, hogy ment a prezentációd a melóban, akkor egyértelmű, hogy törődik veled. És ez a hálószobában sem lesz másképp, arra fókuszál majd, hogy örömet okozzon neked.
Megfogja a kezed az asztal felett vagy végigsimítja a hátad séta közben? Akkor egy szerencsés csajszi vagy, hiszen a kiszemelted pontosan tudja, mi esik jól neked. Ezt a különleges képességét pedig az ágyban sem fogja elfelejteni.
Te vagy az első
Sok srác csak magával van elfoglalva, viszont ha a te pasijelölted először megkérdezi, neked milyen napod volt, és csak utána számol be az övéről, vagy azt a filmet nézitek a moziban, amit te szeretnél, akkor nyert ügyed van. Mivel ennek a fiúnak hancúrozás közben is te leszel a No.1.
Nem siet sehova
Ha egy pasi komolyan gondolja veled, akkor nem sietteti az összebújást, hiszen tudja, még úgyis rengeteg időtök lesz a hancúrozásra. Szóval, ha érzed a srácon, hogy kerüli a témát, sőt még fel sem akar vinni magához, ne ijedj meg. Nagyon is kíván, csak előbb jobban meg szeretne ismerni téged, hogy az első szex szuperül sikerüljön.
Akkor is tűzijátékra számíthatsz az ágyban, ha a srác non-stop bókol neked. Ugyanis azzal, hogy százszor elmondja, mennyire okos vagy, megdicséri a ruhádat vagy a baba pofidat, az önbizalmadat tuningolja. És úgy egyszerűen nem lehet rossz a szex, ha dögösnek érzed magad, igaz?
miért tízéves kislányok írják ezeket?
Szerintem szellemileg tízévesek sincsenek. Az ilyenek retardált szellemi- és lelkinyomorékoknak (íróknak olvaswóknak egyaránt) , 40 évesen egyedül hüppögve is a cosmo a szellemi iránytű, meg a szex és new york .
semmi baj nincs se ezzel a cikkel, se a cosmopolitannal. a célközönség a 16-17 éves kislányok, nekik tökéletes.gyanítom, hogy aki cosmót olvas, az nem narancsot meg ÉS-t, szóval nem kell kiakadni, a buta kislányoknak pontosan megfel. se többet, se kevesebbet nem akar nyújtani. ez is egy skill, hogy huszon-harminc évesen olyan cikket írjunk, ami a tizenéves korosztálynak szól.
Nem skill ez, hanem csupán ennyit tudnak. Mondjuk igény sincs többer és mondjuk el, hogy nagyon ebben a műfajban nehéz minden lapszámot megtölteni, hisz nimdig ugyanaz a téma…..
dehát ez tényleg egy sötét hely. (via pblue)
Azok a bizonyos amerikai lapok legalább ilyen sötét helyek, csak nekik van polírozott ideológiájuk, meg műmájer felsőbbrendűségük is hozzá.
Az Orbán-rendszer persze egy sötét hely, csak lássuk már, hogy pontosan ki kritizálja és lássuk már “a legnagyobb amerikai lapok”-nak nevezett sajtótermékeket annak, amik: agenda-driven szélbalba hajló propagandatermékeknek.
Még akkor is, ha nagy a hatásuk és néha valóban jót írnak.
Matti Friedman on Media Bias Against Israel
Ever wonder why we hear so much about Israel and so little about other conflicts? Some of the stats in this report will SHOCK you.
Former Associated Press reporter Matti Friedman, who penned an extensive expose on the mainstream media bias against Israel in Tablet Magazine, spoke on Sunday about the extent and effect of the failed coverage.
"There’s a disproportionate focus on Israel," he explained. "It’s objectively disproportional if you look at the staffing of big news organizations."
Asked what was the net result of the disproportionate staffing devoted to Israel-related coverage, Friedman offered that the net result “is an objectively disproportionate focus on a country that if you look at it with dispassionate eyes isn’t all that important beyond the emotional connection that some people feel with it” before pointing out that close to 200,000 people died in Syria in 2013, while only 42 died in Israel.
Friedman also noted that Jerusalem was safer than Portland, Oregon which is regarded as one of the safest places in the United States.
"The obsession with this (Arab-Israeli) conflict is an obsession which skews the way in which we see the world."
This flowchart is sadly accurate.
One of the fundamental mistakes in the coverage of Gaza in the media, in the UN and by so-called “human rights” groups is the utter inability to understand a basic fact:
The IDF is not a human being.
It is not acting out of malice, or frustration, or revenge.
The IDF have perhaps thousands of targets in Gaza - tunnels, weapons caches, rocket launchers, command and control facilities, terrorist communications infrastructure. It has limited time and resources to destroy them all. It bases its decisions and priorities on intelligence, on real time battle circumstances, on the presence or absence of civilians, and dozens of other factors.
The IDF has layers of command, teams of lawyers reviewing every major decision, checks and balances, auditing and accountability - like any decent sized organization. It has to. It cannot possibly be effective without it.
But from watching the images and listening to the reporting in Gaza, the journalists make assumptions as if the IDF is a whiny toddler who is lashing out at anything and everything.
In other words, the media and politicians are using their ignorance of modern warfare as an excuse to project their own human emotions of irritation or revenge or spite, emotions they might have while driving or at the bar or at work, onto an organization that by definition cannot be driven by knee-jerk emotions.
It is no coincidence that the people who defend the IDF the most are often those with military experience. They know what an army is like and they can see the extraordinary lengths Israel is going to in order to minimize casualties.
This morning, Al Arabiya published this video showing, within one hour, the destruction of a series of building in Beit Hanoun. It is easy, and lazy, to anthropomorphize this to some sort of desire by the IDF to lay Gaza to waste within a single hour before a ceasefire. But let’s look at it a little more closely:
The implication is that Israel is wantonly and methodically destroying buildings for no reason.
But the video actually shows what is almost certainly an attempt to destroy a Hamas terror tunnel under the buildings.
Nearly all of the explosions seen are in a straight line from left to right, only the second explosion seems to be in a different area, probably a different operation.
More than once, there seem to be secondary explosions of (presumably) weapons caches, at least at 0:17 and 0:42.
Tunnels under buildings cannot be destroyed without destroying the buildings. And we know that Hamas has built hundreds of such tunnels under buildings in Gaza. By any measure, they are a valid primary military objective.
People who think that the IDF is bombing buildings just for fun, or for revenge, or purely for spite to hurt Gazans show that they are biased from the outset. Professional armies don’t act the way humans do - not when each bomb costs tens of thousands of dollars and when every shell must be accounted for and justified. There are plenty of real targets in Gaza thanks to Hamas and the other terror groups, and the idea that the IDF is only trying to make people miserable - a subtext of many clueless reporters’ stories - is nothing but slander.
The media and NGOs cannot admit when they don’t know what’s going on, That’s why you are hearing a constant refrain of “indiscriminate bombing” and the like. But two seconds of thought show that this is a reflection of ignorance, not of knowledge. There is no military or political advantage for indiscriminate bombing, and as even HRW admits when it is defending terrorists, intention is the key. Without knowing the intent of the IDF - something that it cannot reveal in real time without affecting its abilities - everything else is just guesswork, and those guesses more often than not reflect the biases of the reporters and NGOs rather than anything approaching reality.
A BBC rövid jelentésben figyelmezteti olvasóit és nézőit a világ minden táján, hogy a mai nap folyamán hamis felvételek jelentek meg az Izraeli Védelmi Erők állítólagos pusztításairól a gázai övezetben. Ezek a felvételek nem a most folyó, aktuális harci cselekményeket ábrázolják, sőt, nem is Gázában készültek, ellenben igazolhatóan a 2009-es szíriai és iraki konfliktus képei láthatóak rajtuk.
A közösségi oldalakon sajnos így is több százezer alkalommal osztották meg a „ #GazaUnderAttack” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnO4gy8dQIc) cím alatt elérhető felvételeket – ezek azonban közönséges hamisítványok, melyek kétségtelenül régebbi és földrajzilag máshol történt eseményeket ábrázolnak, nem az Izraeli Légierő mostani csapásait, melyeket a gázai övezet rakétaindító állványaira mért.
Ajvé, mi történt, hogy a világ egyik legantiszemitább és legizraelellenesebb médiuma megírja ezt a közismert tényt?
Ennyire nyerésre állnak a zsidók?
One of many notable features of the BBC’s reporting on the subject of the recent nine-month round of talks between Israel and the PLO was its persistent failure to adequately clarify to BBC audiences the significance of the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.
That issue was incorrectly presented to audiences as being a new demand and was framed exclusively in terms of relating to the topic of the ‘right of return’ of Palestinian refugees: see for example
A BBC antiszemita, iszlám- és arabbarát. A fenti összefoglaló meg jó.
Obama’s Orwellian FCC: Hey, let’s put monitors in every newsroom
This story doesn’t come from some crazy, anti-Obama conspiracy web site. This comes from Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the FCC, writing in the the Wall Street Journal. According to him, the Obama administration’s FCC is primed to begin a trial period for a new program aimed at newsrooms across the country. The stated objective is a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs” to obtain the “the process by which stories are selected.”
From The Wall Street Journal:
News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.
But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.
The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.
Read the Rest (H/T: ACLJ)
This is scary people. This is Marxist dictator type stuff here.
It should be noted that the questions from the FCC don’t have to be answered, as participation in the program is “voluntary.” But, as is explained in the article, the FCC has the power to withhold licenses from whom it will. If it doesn’t like what a news organization is doing, it will simply prevent them from operating. In other words, the government will control the media.
Jerusalem: The Media Myth of Two Cities
What the civilised West (wtf???) does not want to beleieve is now simply reality. The Palestinian method has been copied and applied succesfully. And applied in the West.
Breivik caims he is a freedom-fighter, fighting against the islamization of Europe and this resonates in the hearts of many. Now, he is going international, creating a network of imprisoned freedom-fighters.
Now it is time, BBC, Guardian and the rest of the bias-media to print on the front pages: who is a terrorist for one, that is a freedom-fighter for an other.
terrorism: politically motivated violence against noncombatants.