Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
“Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?” Bill Clinton said in exasperation about Benjamin Netanyahu after one of the Israeli prime minister’s characteristic displays of arrogance in 1996.
Comments
I don't see much evidence that "the press" is deciding it's too sensitive to report. This is what's currently on Google News' "top stories" page:
by artappraiser on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:24pm
The incident in question happened five days ago. Your link of 600 sources goes to a page with fifteen sources and begins with one published forty minutes ago and ends with one from fifteen hours ago. The other links are all from today. There must have been something at least a bit sooner for "War in Context" to write about it this morning but seeing the great deal of attention it is getting now, but nothing dated earlier, is a strong indication that the news was held back for some time. That attention is also testament that the incident did have legitimate news value.
The author sites sources as saying they agreed not to publish the fact that it happened. That is the main point of the article, a gripe that journalists decided not to reveal "sensitive' news. Sensitive in the sense that people in high places would be embarrassed.
"I don't see much evidence that "the press" is deciding it's too sensitive to report."
The article gives the evidence that first person sources agreed among themselves not to report it and "sensitivity" was the reason they agreed on, although the sources are anonymous the article names the agency of one source. The time lag of five days gives supporting evidence that there was such an agreement and the pact held for a while. Now that the cat is out of the bag there is no need or purpose to be the only news source not talking about it.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:50pm
What evidence are you referring to lulu? Please spell out the evidence that this story was held back by every international journalist for a few days because it was "too sensitive." Please be as specific as you can be. You do realize that you are making or spreading an extraordinary allegation that is inextricably linked to an age-old trope about media control, I assume you know this anyway.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 7:10am
Every international journalist did not initially have the story. The journalists who did initially have the story held it back. That they held it back is the story that I linked to. I think that story is probably true.
I am making that statement based on stories I have read which I think are probably true but of which I have no first hand knowledge. Everything I think that I know about any person in a national or international leadership position comes from something I have heard or read. In that sense, almost everything I know comes from anecdotal evidence. I have read some things over the years that I did not believe and some things that it disappointed me to believe and some which I did not know whether to believe or not but which created suspicion. I have no first hand knowledge about anything in the story about Benjamin Netanyahu being called a liar by Sarkozy, no first hand knowledge that the story was withheld for days, nothing that I could testify to in court, so it could be said that I have no evidence at all that the story is true. It is, on my part, just hearsay, but I have now read several stories, skimmed several more, and looked at the time-line of quite a few. So far I have not seen anything which contradicts the essence of the alleged facts surrounding the first story I linked to, I find many sources now reporting it, and I have not seen any allegations that it did not happen as reported. I personally find no fault with the editorial comment included in the link I provided.
I have read that there was an international conference that was attended by Sarkozy and Obama as well as many other dignitaries. I have read that there was an incident on November 3 in which those two were having what they thought was a private conversation but were actually speaking over live microphones and what they said was heard by journalists. I have read that those journalists were asked to keep what they had heard confidential and that they agreed among themselves to do so. All this seems plausible. If that much is true then "the press" that had direct first-hand knowledge agreed not to publish it and their pact held for a few days. I didn't mean to mislead anyone into thinking that I thought every entity that could be referred to as "the press" had agreed to hold back the story and if you read beyond the title I think that you will see that the author of my linked story did not make that claim either. Obviously, some would have published it and obviously now that the story is out, none, even if they would rather that particular news didn't get out, will not publish it.
I have read that it is a part of French journalistic policy to not report on private conversations. I have read that in the past it was the policy of U. S. journalists to not report on some aspects of U. S. President's personal lives. The sexual wanderings of Kennedy and Eisenhower which were once thought by their contemporaries to be stories that should not be reported might be fair examples. Having read this [and believing it] makes it easy for me to believe that French journalists may have similar, if somewhat differently nuanced, standards on what they think is fair or important to report.
"You do realize that you are making or spreading an extraordinary allegation that is inextricably linked to an age-old trope about media control, I assume you know this anyway."
I realize nothing of the sort. To make sure we are talking about the same thing I will say that I believe you mean "control of the media" rather than "media control", which is a bit ambiguous. I think there are many examples of controlled media in the history of the planet but I am absolutely not saying that anyone "controls" the media in question in the story we are talking about even if there are those who would like to do so. Substitute the word "influence" and I will argue the case all day long or until I get bored with stating the obvious. Which ever comes first. I am pretty sure it would be boredom. That is about as specific as I can be at this time.
Do you argue that there are no interest groups, be they political, ideological, religious, or commercial, in France, or Europe as a whole, or in the U. S, that attempt to influence media coverage and that have some degree of success?
If you alone had overheard that conversation and knew that it could be verified but would never come out to the public unless you told of it, would you tell of it?
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 1:51pm
Nobody is invoking any "age-old trope" about control of the media, Bruce. Except for media deference to power, which should be axiomatic to any serious observer. What Sarkozy said and Obama's reaction to it were valid news stories. Its attempted suppression by those reporters present is a valid side-story.
Obviously, it served everybody's interest to suppress it -- The French, the Israelis, the Americans. But I think it's important for people to know that behind the smiles and formal handshakes, even his closest allies detest Netanyahu personally. And it has nothing to do with policies; I'm pretty sure Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak can't stand him either. Of that, of course, I have no evidence. But as to the fact that the story was initially suppressed, Lulu makes a convincing case.
by acanuck on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:00pm
“Who the fuck does he think he is? " ??!!??!!
He's the guy with the entire US evangelical/religious right making sure the US policy towards Israel goes his way. After all, as soon as the Jews all flock back home and rebuild the Temple the sooner the Second Coming and the rapture can occur.
by Beetlejuice on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 11:01am
We live in the world in which we live, and we write in a world in which things have been written.
This is not about whether Obama or Sarkozy cannot stand to be in the same room with Netanyahu. I wouldn't relish that prospect either. This is about ignoring age-old tropes about Jewish control over the media. If you think it's OK to ignore that, so be it. I don't have any problem pointing out that the notion that this wasn't reported because of some power play is a notion that should not be carelessly peddled.
For the record, the reasons given for not coming out with the story right away have been dealt with, at least in the Times. The reporting pool got information that they thought was off the record, and didn't publish anything about the conversation until it was leaked. That's hardly profound; that's the way journalism works.
And it has nothing to do with journalists not wanting to hurt anyone's sensitivities. There is simply no evidence of that. In short, that's simply absurd, and again, if one chooses to ignore the fact that Jews have frequently been accused of, inter alia, control of the media, then so be it. I would be more careful, and take it for what it's worth.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:31pm
I totally reject the notion that journalists should self-censor the facts they report, on the basis of "someone might blame the Jews for this." No one has, certainly not here, and if someone tries, that's the time to debate it.
Sometimes, Bruce, the Israeli government does do something blameworthy. The only correct thing to do is to blame it; the "trope" shouldn't enter the calculation. Sometimes individual Jews do bad things. Ditto. Fight the trope; don't sacrifice truth.
As for reporters deeming something off the record, that's not the way it works. It has to be mutually agreed: "I'm telling you this off the record, OK?" Nod.
If you overhear something by accident, it's on the record. If someone tells you after the fact, "That was off the record," it's still on the record. The Times is spinning. And yes, it has everything to do with governmental sensitivities.
by acanuck on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 3:59pm
I don't think there is any ban on criticizing the Israeli government when appropriate, so I'm not going to delve into that.
More interesting, I think, is what is off the record. Here, there was an offer for journalists to use a transmitter at a set time, to hear translated comments from Sarkozy and Obama that were for the public record. Some journalists put the contraption on early and overheard something that the journalists all understood was not supposed to be for public consumption. That's at least reasonably subject to an off the record admonition, and it seems like the reporters uniformly agreed with this.
The Times had no reason to spin this. First, of all the Times did not have a reporter involved and was just reported what it was told by the AP and Reuter's reporters who were there. Secondly, the Times does not cut slack whatsoever on matters pertaining to the State of Israel.
Here, there is zero evidence that journalists from all over bowed to the wishes of any government, Israel, the U.S., or France, in this case. What you do have is something that you assert is not off the record, and journalists concluding that it was.
So while we can agree and assume that the media are driven by all sorts of influences, my recommendation stands--when you have no evidence about someone or something pulling strings, you should be careful about how you approach the issue, particularly when you have to start hairsplitting to justify speculation which parallels age-old and ugly tropes.
I think this is a no-brainer.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 6:12pm
I don't mean to get into a loop here, Bruce. But I never suggested anyone twisted journalists' arms to suppress the initial story. Today's reporters are perfectly capable of kowtowing without anyone demanding it of them. Deference to power, like I said.
Most legitimate journalists would subscribe to my definition of what's on/off the record. It served me for a quarter-century and no senior editor ever told me it was wrong. I recall one award-winning reporter being booted from a "closed-door" meeting, then listening at the crack of the door, jotting down and reporting the entire proceedings. I gave her a pat on the back and a "Well done!" An accidentally open mic? Totally fair game.
The fact this was a "pool" report no doubt affected the initial decision to suppress. If every reporter were filing to his/her home newspaper, each of them would have broken the story. Each would have assumed, correctly, that at least one colleague would report it, and they'd have to answer to their own editors for why they did not.
But instead of one editor second-guessing them, the reporters knew they'd face criticism from at least some of the many editors who would receive their files and then feel obliged to publish them -- in turn angering their own risk-averse publishers. Prudence (of the cover-your-ass variety) dictated going along with the most timid of their colleagues, allowing them to tell their home-paper editors, "Well, I wanted to report Sarkozy's remarks, but I was outvoted."
Co-option and cowardice are systemic in the modern MSM. I can see how the Times is presenting the issue as one of journalistic ethics, but that's BS. Watergate would remain safely covered up today. And that's tragic.
by acanuck on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 8:55pm
"We live in the world in which we live, and we write in a world in which things have been written."
I agree completely
"...and again, if one chooses to ignore the fact that Jews have frequently been accused of, inter alia, control of the media, then so be it."
Again, you use the word "control" where, I would use the word "influence". And while I have certainly never tried to suggest that there is only one strong influence in the world on the news I do think that the Jewish influence is a strong one in the Western world, but I did not mention that influence in any way because it was not evident that direct Jewish influence was in play. You did, and in my opinion changed the subject, so here is a bit of evidence that there is not only an effort to influence but evidence of that efforts success.
"I would be more careful, and take it for what it's worth."
Offered with care for what it is worth;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65513272/Leaked-Bicom-Email
That link comes from this piece:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pro-israeli-lobby-group-made-bbc-sky-news-ch...
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 11/09/2011 - 5:35pm