Journalist Robert Fisk about criticising Israel - Page 2

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
If 50% of all US coverage was pro NAZI, yes I would expect the % of people that would support would be impacted and it would probably rise from the current 1% (pure guess on current percentage, but I think you'll accept it for the sake of the argument).
But as influential as the press may be, I doubt Nazi support would ever rise to 50 %.

Your post was thoughtful.

Now let´s have a closer look at your example: What if:

-Not 50% (of the media) were pro_Nazi, but 70-80.
-The *not* pro-Nazi voices were constantly belittled, ridiculed and called "antiaryan" (= super-super-evil).
-Furthermore, if you are *very* anti-Nazi, you are in danger of losing your job, plus other unpleasantnesses.
-And this has gone on for, say, 30 years.

How many would dare being anti-Nazi?

Ming · February 27, 2003, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Are you trying to distract?

I didn´t state the media in Iraq are balanced. But, are yours?

No... just making a point. It's usually more of a matter of the editorials reflecting the opinions of the readers than the editorials changing many people's minds.

And our media is far more balanced than those in Iraq or in the middle east in general

Is it 50/50... no way. Overall, Isreal enjoys much higher levels of support, so the media reflects thats.

But I'm sure you will find more anti Isreal stuff in the US than you will find pro Isreal stuff in the arab media

Felch · February 27, 2003, 22:25

It's an aspect of the free press. People are allowed to say what they want without government interference. This is what distinguishes the United States and Western Europe from the Arab world.

I'm curious, how many Austrian editorials are anti-Israel? And is this a cause or effect of how you feel?

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
I'm curious, how many Austrian editorials are anti-Israel? And is this a cause or effect of how you feel?

Good question. Media-bias in Austria concerning Israel is similar to the US, though not so pronounced. You have a range from very pro-Israel to moderately pro-Israel to neutral to slightly anti-Israel.

Though, afaIk, there is *no* medium in Austria that is *very* anti-Israel; it´s a taboo.

Now you might say in Germany (and, to a lesser degree, Austria) such a taboo is understandable, but is it really? Was it the Palestinians who were the perpetrators of Nazism? Did any Jew die in WWII so that Israel may now enjoy freedom from critique 6o years later? Doesn´t make sense to me.

And what about Britain? What about the US? What did *they* do to deserve getting one-sided info and rude words (like Mr. Fisk) when they complain? Seems a bit weird, but perhaps it´s just me.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 22:58

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Plenty of doves get plenty of air time as well.

Depends on how you define doves. I can see that some people who say 'it might be risky' or 'give UN a chance' get airtime. But does *anybody* get airtime who says: This war is *in itself* *wrong*, with or without UN support? Does *even one* person get airtime who says Iraq is in the right?

If you have a range of allowed opinions, but all tilted towards one side, this may *seem* balanced, but it isn´t.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
But does *anybody* get airtime who says: 1) This war is *in itself* *wrong*, with or without UN support? 2) Does *even one* person get airtime who says Iraq is in the right?

1) Yes.
2) No.

Felch · February 27, 2003, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Does *even one* person get airtime who says Iraq is in the right?

No because we believe lunatics should say what they have to say on street corners, not national news.

Iraq is in the wrong. If you deny that, then you deny resolution 1441, and thus the rule of international law. The only thing to discuss is how to deal with its criminal behavior.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

1) Yes.

Examples?

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Examples?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=75476

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
Iraq is in the wrong. If you deny that, then you deny resolution 1441, and thus the rule of international law.

You joking? Read this thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=78692
Even MtG, if I understand him correctly, believes that the SC doesn´t have the right to order souvereign states around.

Apart from this: Where´s your proof that Iraq is in violation? The missing of such proof is another major issue. (Not that the UN demands were legal in the first place.)

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Apart from this: Where´s your proof that Iraq is in violation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=75476

No, I was talking about someone saying you have no right to threaten a souvereign state with war at all; opposing the 'New World Order' as a matter of principle. AfaIk, no one like this gets airtime.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
No, I was talking about someone saying you have no right to threaten a souvereign state with war at all;

That's not what you said. Just accept that you were proven wrong and move on. Redefining terms after the fact only serves to make you look childish.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

Inconclusive. The burden on proof doesn´t lie on the defendant; not in a civilized trial.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

That's not what you said. Just accept that you were proven wrong and move on. Redefining terms after the fact only serves to make you look childish.

That´s what I said; stop lying.

"But does *anybody* get airtime who says: This war is *in itself* *wrong*, with or without UN support?"

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
The burden on proof doesn´t lie on the defendant; not in a civilized trial.

This isn't a trial and the UN did put the burden of proof on Iraq in 1441.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

This isn't a trial and the UN did put the burden of proof on Iraq in 1441.

Says you. France interpretes 1441 differently.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
That´s what I said; stop lying.

That exactly what you said. You wanted to know if anyone got airtime that believed that this war was wrong and didn't particularly care about UN approval. I gave you a published example. If you had wanted to add more qualifiers to you initial statement, you should have done so before the fact instead of making an arse of yourself now. You just can't seem to accept being wrong.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You wanted to know if anyone got airtime that believed that this war was wrong and didn't particularly care about UN approval. I gave you a published example.

Not just wrong; *in itself* (that is: without qualification) wrong. But never mind: Your article sure didn´t appear in a widely-read paper, right?

And it´s about a minority of one, right? So my argument there is no balanced debate about either this war or Israel stands.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Your article sure didn´t appear in a widely-read paper, right?

You didn't ask for that.

Quote:

And it´s about a minority of one, right?

You didn't ask for that either.

Comrade Tribune · February 27, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

You didn't ask for that.

I actually said 'on air'.

But I think you are just trying to create smoke, anyway, and you know it.

DinoDoc · February 27, 2003, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I actually said 'on air'.

It was close enough.

Quote:

But I think you are just trying to are create smoke,

I'm just answering you questions as best I can. Be more specific in the future if you didn't like the results.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm just answering you questions as best I can.

How accomodating of you.

But I wonder why no one answered this one: (quote from previous page)

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

If 50% of all US coverage was pro NAZI, yes I would expect the % of people that would support would be impacted and it would probably rise from the current 1% (pure guess on current percentage, but I think you'll accept it for the sake of the argument).
But as influential as the press may be, I doubt Nazi support would ever rise to 50 %.

Your post was thoughtful.

Now let´s have a closer look at your example: What if:

-Not 50% (of the media) were pro_Nazi, but 70-80.
-The *not* pro-Nazi voices were constantly belittled, ridiculed and called "antiaryan" (= super-super-evil).
-Furthermore, if you are *very* anti-Nazi, you are in danger of losing your job, plus other unpleasantnesses.
-And this has gone on for, say, 30 years.

How many would dare being anti-Nazi?

Oerdin · February 28, 2003, 00:49

Fiske is a piece of ****. He goes out of his way to attack Jews, to call them names, and then gets mad when people say he's anti-semetic. He can go to hell; and this is a gentile speaking.

Urban Ranger · February 28, 2003, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Its OLD NEWS... and not really news, just a rehash of the fact that everybody knows already... that this is one VERY BIASED guy.

If what he said is true, that the incidents Fisk listed did happen, even if he is indeed biased doesn't mean his point is invalid.

Urban Ranger · February 28, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
Iraq is in the wrong. If you deny that, then you deny resolution 1441, and thus the rule of international law. The only thing to discuss is how to deal with its criminal behavior.

Don't we all know by now that the US wants to invade Iraq is not because it violated a Security Council resolution? Shall I mention Israel again?

Edan · February 28, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Don't we all know by now that the US wants to invade Iraq is not because it violated a Security Council resolution? Shall I mention Israel again?

Which resolutions w/ regards to Israel were passed under Chapter 7?