# is Reuters anti Israel?



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

Reuters news agency admitted on Sunday that it had digitally altered a photograph of an Israeli attack on Lebanon on Saturday, showing more smoke than was actually present. 

The photograph, as initially published, showed an aerial view of Beirut after an IAF attack, with two large pillars of smoke rising over the city. The caption read: Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs. 

The agency has since withdrawn the photograph, issued an apology and released the unaltered picture. Its public relations department said the photographer had been suspended until the investigation was completed. 

Reuters was notified of the alteration by American bloggers who noticed repeating patterns within the smoke plumes, indicating that part of the image was duplicated several times. 

The scene was photographed by Adnan Hajj, who had also photographed the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Kana last week, in which the Lebanese initially claimed 58 fatalities, but could later only confirm 28. 


You are F**king kidding me!!!!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

The missiles were made by Halliburton and personally signed by George W. Bush.

This one does not surprise me, what surprises me is that they thought nobody would notice. It wasn't a good fake.


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

[

https://images.google.ca/imgres?imgur...lr=&sa=N


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Yes, Reuters is probably anti-Israel, as is most of Europe.

In fact I would say most of Europe is anti-Semitic, and always has been.

Europe seems to have forgotten that Israel is a legacy of Europe's own psychosis with regards to Jews. With just a cursory look at the entire region's history, one can see that the cesspool ranging from North Africa all the way to India is a result of Europe's colonialism. This was also the case with the SE Asian wars. Yet Europe conveniently lays the blame on the US, without taking responsibility for their own actions with regards to the turmoil in this part of the world which is in reality their own legacy.

M8


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

"is Reuters anti Israel?" Yes, of course, along with the rest of the leftist mainstream press. . . .


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The Charlotte Observer fired a photographer last week for altering a photo. The photo, as is usually the case in instances like this, had nothing to do with anything political. The photographer simply wanted a prettier photo so he could win more awards and get better raises and so people would continue to believe he had the talent that had won him numerous awards.

I would imagine this is the case with the Reuters photo. It still amazes me that presumably intelligent people are so quick to conclude there is some kind of institutional bias when almost always these situations arise out of someone's personal ambition, greed and lack of ethics. Think about it. It is preposterous to believe an organization like Reuters would dictate anything like this because journalists like to complain among themselves about work, and this kind of thing would not remain a secret for long.

The real cause of journalists cheating is that technology has made it so much easier to do it now (and so much easier to be caught, too). Before, if you wanted to tweak a photo, you had to have some real darkroom skills, and even then there were limits to what you could do. Now you can go into Photoshop and do pretty much anything you want, if you lack integrity. Before, if you wanted to plagiarize, you had to type in, word for word, the work you were stealing. Now, if you lack integrity, you can just cut and paste. It is so tempting for the lazy, the unethical and those whose talents do not quite measure up to their ambitions and their need for praise.


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

"The real cause of journalists cheating is that" -- they have a left-wing bias and are thus too ready to believe anything that agrees with their pre-conceived conclusions. . . .


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Kudos to *crs* for injecting some rationality into this thread. No huge, international, pan-cultural private-sector organization or corporation in this day and age make 'pro-this' or 'anti-that' a part of its policies (despite the left- and right-wing fantasies of various individuals and special interest groups). Mistakes happen; maybe on the day in question the news editors were in a rush, the photo filled a need, and so they published it without a lot of analysis or close scrutiny.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> "The real cause of journalists cheating is that" -- they have a left-wing bias and are thus too ready to believe anything that agrees with their pre-conceived conclusions. . . .


Patrick, I am curious. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of how a newsroom actually works, or do you base your theory on what someone like Rush Limbaugh tells you? Because I am certain if you actually attended even one news meeting at any large or even midsize news organization, you would have to change your mind because there certainly is a diversity of opinion, and sometimes even heated debate, in deciding which news is important enough to be used and how it is played. There are some U.S. newspapers that are now inviting readers to watch this process. It would be a learning experience for someone like you if a newspaper near you is doing this.

Newsrooms are surprisingly apolitical when taken as a whole, and individually people of all persuasions are found in positions of power on any of them. For instance, I was managing editor of a newspaper whose opinion pages were perhaps farther to the right than any daily in the nation, and for eight years I worked on another conservative newspaper whose editor had served in the Nixon administration. And I worked on several newspapers whose opinion pages leaned decidedly to the left. On all of them I found the process of dealing with news to be about the same and the end result of national and international news on Page 1 to be remarkably in agreement day to day. Indeed, the paper edited by the Nixonian frequently ran New York Times stories on the front page because news professionals trust other news organizations to be unbiased on news stories, no matter where the opinion pages lean.


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

crs said:


> Patrick, I am curious. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of how a newsroom actually works, or do you base your theory on what someone like Rush Limbaugh tells you? Because I am certain if you actually attended even one news meeting at any large or even midsize news organization, you would have to change your mind because there certainly is a diversity of opinion, and sometimes even heated debate, in deciding which news is important enough to be used and how it is played. There are some U.S. newspapers that are now inviting readers to watch this process. It would be a learning experience for someone like you if a newspaper near you is doing this.
> 
> Newsrooms are surprisingly apolitical when taken as a whole, and individually people of all persuasions are found in positions of power on any of them. For instance, I was managing editor of a newspaper whose opinion pages were perhaps farther to the right than any daily in the nation, and for eight years I worked on another conservative newspaper whose editor had served in the Nixon administration. And I worked on several newspapers whose opinion pages leaned decidedly to the left. On all of them I found the process of dealing with news to be about the same and the end result of national and international news on Page 1 to be remarkably in agreement day to day. Indeed, the paper edited by the Nixonian frequently ran New York Times stories on the front page because news professionals trust other news organizations to be unbiased on news stories, no matter where the opinion pages lean.


You have to be kidding me regaring "Newsrooms are surprisingly apolitical when taken as a whole." Maybe this is true at Fox, but that is about it on the national level. I am an independent, but I have to say, the news organizations lean bigtime to the left. It isn't so much they are anti-Israel is that they are sympathetic to anything that is anti-usa.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

joeyzaza said:


> You have to be kidding me regaring "Newsrooms are surprisingly apolitical when taken as a whole." Maybe this is true at Fox, but that is about it on the national level. I am an independent, but I have to say, the news organizations lean bigtime to the left. It isn't so much they are anti-Israel is that they are sympathetic to anything that is anti-usa.


What we have is a nation of crybabies who are quick to blame anyone but themselves for their problems and obnoxious behaviors and who feel some weird sense of entitlement that their preconceptions ought to be validated rather than challenged. Except for technological advances, newsgathering has not changed significantly in the past 50 years. What has changed significantly over the past 30 years is a therapy-addled, talk-show-addicted society that expects its every whim, desire and prejudice to be catered to and is quick to cry "unfair" when it isn't. We haven't changed, you have.

I have read about "surveys" that supposedly show most journalists are liberals. The curious thing is that I've been in the business for more than 30 years, almost all of them on newspapers of more than 200,000 circulation, and not only have none of my newsrooms been surveyed, neither could I imagine any editor with an iota of common sense permitting such a survey of his employees. Newsrooms feel they have done a good job when extremists from both sides of the political spectrum express unhappiness with us, which is almost always the case. So the Limbaugh lemmings and Moore ********** can scream all they want because we know that neither represents thinking people who will actually purchase and read a newspaper on a daily basis; they would much rather engage in the more passive route of having a babbling personality do their thinking for them.

It is not our job to preach to the choir the way Fox News does, for that is pandering and dishonesty of the worst sort. You obviously believe Fox is unbiased because it reflects your views. My professional opinion is that Fox is basically prostitution, just as "Air America" is.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> What we have is a nation of crybabies who are quick to blame anyone but themselves for their problems and obnoxious behaviors and who feel some weird sense of entitlement that their preconceptions ought to be validated rather than challenged.


I almost agree with every word in that paragraph save one:

What we have is a *media* of crybabies who are quick to blame anyone but themselves for their problems and obnoxious behaviors and who feel some weird sense of entitlement that their preconceptions ought to be validated rather than challenged.

javascript:emoticon(':hammerhead:')


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I'd let your attempt at humor go, Chuck, but the fact is that the news media, especially newspapers, seek no validation and routinely publish letters criticizing their coverage as well as, in most places, both conservative and liberal commentators on the op-ed page. It is not the media that are intolerant of dissenting viewpoints, it is the folks who are addicted to the radio and television commentators who tell them only what they wish to hear.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Aw, but you're taking all the fun out of his rant by injecting realism and sense.



crs said:


> Patrick, I am curious. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of how a newsroom actually works, or do you base your theory on what someone like Rush Limbaugh tells you? Because I am certain if you actually attended even one news meeting at any large or even midsize news organization, you would have to change your mind because there certainly is a diversity of opinion, and sometimes even heated debate, in deciding which news is important enough to be used and how it is played. There are some U.S. newspapers that are now inviting readers to watch this process. It would be a learning experience for someone like you if a newspaper near you is doing this.
> 
> Newsrooms are surprisingly apolitical when taken as a whole, and individually people of all persuasions are found in positions of power on any of them. For instance, I was managing editor of a newspaper whose opinion pages were perhaps farther to the right than any daily in the nation, and for eight years I worked on another conservative newspaper whose editor had served in the Nixon administration. And I worked on several newspapers whose opinion pages leaned decidedly to the left. On all of them I found the process of dealing with news to be about the same and the end result of national and international news on Page 1 to be remarkably in agreement day to day. Indeed, the paper edited by the Nixonian frequently ran New York Times stories on the front page because news professionals trust other news organizations to be unbiased on news stories, no matter where the opinion pages lean.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

attempt hell, that was genuinely humorous.

I would respectfully disagree with your opinion on this. Yup, I think Fox leans right and watch as a result but others clearly lean left IMHO. If your disdain for Fox and talk radio is due to your perception that they are biased and all others are fair then welllllllllll... I think maybe you doth protest excessively.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> attempt hell, that was genuinely humorous.
> 
> I would respectfully disagree with your opinion on this. Yup, I think Fox leans right and watch as a result but others clearly lean left IMHO. If your disdain for Fox and talk radio is due to your perception that they are biased and all others are fair then welllllllllll... I think maybe you doth protest excessively.


Actually, I think Fox is a joke because Rupert Murdoch, who is willing to lose $1 million per month to own the New York Post just so he can have a conservative mouthpiece in the nation's largest city, has no sense of journalism integrity and neither does any of his "news" outlets like Fox.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Is CNN and or the big 3 networks fair in your mind? Just curious on how far apart our perceptions are.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> Is CNN and or the big 3 networks fair in your mind? Just curious on how far apart our perceptions are.


Personally I don't take television news seriously. It's show biz.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Oh crap, I agree with a liberal from the media. THAT terrifies me


----------



## jcbmath (Jan 11, 2006)

This is awfully scant evidence for such a sweeping claim. Some questions that should be answered before such a claim is made:

What is the process for reviewing photos at Reuters? Did the editorial staff even look at the photo let alone order the modifications? How many photos of the current conflict/past conflicts involving Isreali has Reuters published? Have others been doctored? What does "Reuters is anti-israeli" mean precisely? Perhaps its one photographer. Does employing him make the organization anti-israeli? What if its an editor, then?


----------



## passingtime (Jun 23, 2005)

jcbmath said:


> This is awfully scant evidence for such a sweeping claim. Some questions that should be answered before such a claim is made:
> 
> What is the process for reviewing photos at Reuters? Did the editorial staff even look at the photo let alone order the modifications? How many photos of the current conflict/past conflicts involving Isreali has Reuters published? Have others been doctored? What does "Reuters is anti-israeli" mean precisely? Perhaps its one photographer. Does employing him make the organization anti-israeli? What if its an editor, then?


I have done work for a lot of newspapers as well as for Reuters although I am not in the news gathering side.

Bias is an accusation that is frequently levelled at Reuters. A typical complaint is that Reuters doesn't use the word terrorist. In a national context that complaint may make sense, but in an international context it does. Take Hizbollah as an example; in the West it is regarded as a terrorist organisation, in the Arab world it isn't, in the rest of the world they are ambivalent. Reuters deals with an international market, not a national one, and so restricts itself to reporting the facts leaving it to news outlets to tailor the story to their local audience.

As for the picture; the kill notice is from the Picture Archive which is a huge collection of photgraphs contributed by both Reuters photographers and stringers with Reuters acting as a broker. News outlets pick up pictures and use them (for a very reasonable fee). Adnan had contributed pictures before so I suspect that the picture desk simply checked to see if it was usable and catalogued his picture. If it was controversial it would have been referred but in this case it was really just a stock picture.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Reuters, like most news agencies, has global affiliates. Those reporting from Beirut are most likely Lebanese or Arab. Unlike the press here, who are decidely anti-American, the press in the middle east is still nationalistic ala Al Jazeera. I always take reports from Reuters/UPI with a grain of salt. I think the doctoring of the photos is proof of that. I'm sure they would just say that they were just trying to "clean up the image" so that it would appear clearer to the viewing audience.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Yes, Reuters is probably anti-Israel, as is most of Europe.
> 
> In fact I would say most of Europe is anti-Semitic, and always has been.


As long as you're going to make baseless and broad generalizations, why stop there? I think you could replace "Europe" by "the world" in your statement ("the whole world is anti-Semitic").


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Étienne said:


> As long as you're going to make baseless and broad generalizations, why stop there? I think you could replace "Europe" by "the world" in your statement ("the whole world is anti-Semitic").


Given the history of the Jewish people and the persecution they have been subjected to over the past few millenia I don't think its a far stretch to make such a claim!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The photo was taken by a freelancer, not a staffer, and was manipulated by him, not by the news agency. As I expected, he says he was trying to eliminate flaws in the photo:

https://www.nysun.com/article/37387?access=515784


----------



## passingtime (Jun 23, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Reuters, like most news agencies, has global affiliates. Those reporting from Beirut are most likely Lebanese or Arab.


To clear up how this works...

There are no affiliates as such although like all news agencies Reuters takes stories from stringers (freelancers) in addition to their own reporters. There is a bureau in each country run by Reuters staff who collect stories from Reuters journalists and stringers (freelancers). The stories are edited by the bureau to make them usable and to ensure that they are correct, after which they are filed.

Because the Middle East is such a big story at the moment it is more likely than normal that stories will be from Reuters reporters rather than stringers.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Another problem with claiming this photo manipulation is "anti-Israel" is that one needs to explain how the manipulation _was_ anti-Israel. All the photographer did was darken the existing smoke clouds and add extra smoke. No one apparently disputes the underlying fact that Israeli aircraft had bombed a building in Beirut and that it was burning, which is what the point of the picture was.

The photographer should be fired for this since it constitutes tampering with a news photo, but I'm hard pressed to see how making the picture more dramatic through the alteration of the existing elements is inherently "anti-Israel".


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

Srynerson said:


> Another problem with claiming this photo manipulation is "anti-Israel" is that one needs to explain how the manipulation _was_ anti-Israel. All the photographer did was darken the existing smoke clouds and add extra smoke. No one apparently disputes the underlying fact that Israeli aircraft had bombed a building in Beirut and that it was burning, which is what the point of the picture was.
> 
> The photographer should be fired for this since it constitutes tampering with a news photo, but I'm hard pressed to see how making the picture more dramatic through the alteration of the existing elements is inherently "anti-Israel".


It is anti-Israel becuase it obviously presents a more damagin image then what is true. A building a little bit on fire is not as bad as a building with a large amount of fire and smoke.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The problem with any sort of manipulation is that it distorts the picture and imposes the editors subjective interpretation. That then leads into the realm of editorializing. Why take a picture? Just have an artist render the image and use artistic license. For a T.V. picture, why not enhance the sound, why not have the reporter run around the scene frantic, why not shake the camera a little to give the viewer a "feel" for the power of the explosion (never mind that the footage may be old and has just been "refined" for further clarity). 

On the theme of manipulation, it is also that if the coverage is one sided. Hezbollah rockets reign down on Israeli towns indiscriminately and there is the attitude in the media that "well that's what terrorists do so where is the news of that." Israel meanwhile hits a building with some civilians in it (as always happens in war) and the wrath of the media is down upon them. Iran comes out and explicitly states that they have been supplying Hezbollah with advanced missile/rocket systems and it is simply talked about in passing. A sovereign government, member of the U.N. states that it is materially supporting a terrorist organization and nothing is mentioned. Meanwhile the U.S. sells weapons to Israel and the news coverage revolves around whether this may "hurt the image of the U.S. as an honest broker" in this situation.


----------



## passingtime (Jun 23, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> On the theme of manipulation, it is also that if the coverage is one sided. Hezbollah rockets reign down on Israeli towns indiscriminately and there is the attitude in the media that "well that's what terrorists do so where is the news of that." Israel meanwhile hits a building with some civilians in it (as always happens in war) and the wrath of the media is down upon them.


This comes back to the point crs made; TV is about theatre and dead children pull in the crowds whereas a crater in the road and an ambulance pulling away doesn't. That's a bit extreme but it is why you think you see bias. If Israel was getting more coverage it would be because things there had got a lot worse.



> Iran comes out and explicitly states that they have been supplying Hezbollah with advanced missile/rocket systems and it is simply talked about in passing.


This isn't news. If it really was an advanced missile that would be news. The missiles supplied by Syria are much more interesting but that is to esoteric for the mainstream TV news.



> A sovereign government, member of the U.N. states that it is materially supporting a terrorist organization and nothing is mentioned. Meanwhile the U.S. sells weapons to Israel and the news coverage revolves around whether this may "hurt the image of the U.S. as an honest broker" in this situation.


Because nobody sees Iran as a honest broker and so it isn't news?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> The problem with any sort of manipulation is that it distorts the picture and imposes the editors subjective interpretation. That then leads into the realm of editorializing. Why take a picture? Just have an artist render the image and use artistic license. For a T.V. picture, why not enhance the sound, why not have the reporter run around the scene frantic, why not shake the camera a little to give the viewer a "feel" for the power of the explosion (never mind that the footage may be old and has just been "refined" for further clarity).


People read too much into the motives of those who engage in photo manipulation. Top editors, who usually come up through the word ranks rather than the visual ranks (although there are exceptions), are of course horrified when a photographer, graphic artist or page designer does anything to alter a photograph's reality and usually will fire someone who gets caught doing it. The younger visual people often have an entirely different mind-set and see it as no big deal. They are not making a political statement, they are fine-tuning their work to enhance their portfolio.

There has often been conflict between the two sides. Back in the 1980s a colleague used to say, "I'll start calling them photojournalists when they start being journalists." As newspapers and magazines have become more graphics-oriented over the past 25 years, we've seen more visual people being hired out of art schools, and often they lack the background and interest in things like journalism ethics. In 1989 and 1990 I worked on one of the nation's best newspapers, which had a policy of not hiring design specialists but rather hiring journalists and training them to be designers. That isn't the case anymore.

So you can leap to a conclusion that manipulating a photo is done with political motives, but usually you'd be wrong. The people who do this kind of thing are more like athletes who use steroids believing they can cheat to enhance their performance and not get caught. In my experience the motive is career advancement rather than a statement of any kind.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> People read too much into the motives of those who engage in photo manipulation. Top editors, who usually come up through the word ranks rather than the visual ranks (although there are exceptions), are of course horrified when a photographer, graphic artist or page designer does anything to alter a photograph's reality and usually will fire someone who gets caught doing it. The younger visual people often have an entirely different mind-set and see it as no big deal. They are not making a political statement, they are fine-tuning their work to enhance their portfolio.
> 
> There has often been conflict between the two sides. Back in the 1980s a colleague used to say, "I'll start calling them photojournalists when they start being journalists." As newspapers and magazines have become more graphics-oriented over the past 25 years, we've seen more visual people being hired out of art schools, and often they lack the background and interest in things like journalism ethics. In 1989 and 1990 I worked on one of the nation's best newspapers, which had a policy of not hiring design specialists but rather hiring journalists and training them to be designers. That isn't the case anymore.
> 
> So you can leap to a conclusion that manipulating a photo is done with political motives, but usually you'd be wrong. The people who do this kind of thing are more like athletes who use steroids believing they can cheat to enhance their performance and not get caught. In my experience the motive is career advancement rather than a statement of any kind.


My point was manipulation in general. And just because the motive is career vs. politically motivated matters not. It is still manipulation of the news for personal interests. I must say however that the difference now vs. then is that bloggers are out there to instantly cast a skeptical eye on the news as it is reported. I will simply refer readers to the "Bush Texas ANG papers" and 60 Minutes as a prime example of this.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> My point was manipulation in general. And just because the motive is career vs. politically motivated matters not. It is still manipulation of the news for personal interests.


Certainly. But understand there are shades of gray, too. Severe hard-liners believe placing text within a photo or cutting away all of a photo except the one person (what we call a silhouette) is a distortion. I differ with these people because it is obvious to readers what was done, therefore the photo is an artistic device rather than news and there is no intent to deceive. And you can get into lengthy debates over how a photo is cropped, and deciding whether a crop alters the reality is a subjective judgment that differs from news organization to news organization and day to day. And toning a photo so it is not a mud blot when it comes off the press -- at what point does does this become manipulation? Good editors know when it just doesn't feel right and they say no. Adding smoke is obviously bad, but there are hundreds of smaller decisions made each day.



pt4u67 said:


> I must say however that the difference now vs. then is that bloggers are out there to instantly cast a skeptical eye on the news as it is reported. I will simply refer readers to the "Bush Texas ANG papers" and 60 Minutes as a prime example of this.


Oh the bloggers! They are credible? Please!


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

om Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?

THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.

**

KURTZ: Tom Ricks, "The New York Times" reported the other day, quote, "Israel is now fighting to win the battle of perceptions," which to me says the battle of headlines. And, in fact, an Israeli cabinet minister was quoted, not by name, as saying, "That the narrative at the end, is part of the problem." I'm starting to hear echoes of Iraq.

RICKS: Echoes of Iraq, yes. But also the Israelis are very sophisticated in their handling of the media. They consider it part of the battlefield, officially. The word "narrative" always comes up with conversations with Israeli national security officials. They consider shaping the narrative, the battle for the narrative, to be key as part of any war fighting. So they see the media as part of the battlefield. And, in fact, there's some belief from our reporters that they have occasionally targeted the media.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I could never figure out why the jews in America vote for the leftist party (Democrate). 

Can't they see they are voteing against themselves?


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> "The real cause of journalists cheating is that" -- they have a left-wing bias and are thus too ready to believe anything that agrees with their pre-conceived conclusions. . . .


Of course, people in the right-wing (conservative) camp never do that. They have no pre-conceived ideas, are open minded and judge everything, without prejudice, on the facts presented.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

WA said:


> I could never figure out why the jews in America vote for the leftist party (Democrate).
> 
> Can't they see they are voteing against themselves?


Because at one time this was not true.

M8


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

bengal-stripe said:


> Of course, people in the right-wing (conservative) camp never do that. They have no pre-conceived ideas, are open minded and judge everything, without prejudice, on the facts presented.


So. . . what's your point?


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

WA said:


> I could never figure out why the jews in America vote for the leftist party (Democrate).
> 
> Can't they see they are voting against themselves?


I've had the very same question. Hard to fathom, really. Will be interesting to see if the current conflict has any influence on future elections.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Jill said:


> I've had the very same question. Hard to fathom, really. Will be interesting to see if the current conflict has any influence on future elections.


It already has in a very big way from what I can tell among the Jewish community here in Canada. Most are life-long liberals who will be voting conservative in the next election for sure. One of the most prominent Liberal party member, fundraisers, ex-policy liberal policy committee chair and book chain owner Heather Reisman went public last week saying she was defecting to the conservatives given their pro-Israel stance in this war. Her husband, Gerry Schwartz, in addition to being one of Canada's richest men and most powerful business executives, is also very close to ex-liberal prime ministers, will surely follow his wife too.

Judging from these high-profile defections and the buzz at synagogues during saturday services, my sense is that a major shift in voting patterns among Jews will occur in the next Canadian federal election. All the uneasiness some Jews had about voting for a more right-wing, more traditional, family values, Christian candidate/party has evoparated since the recent conflict, which threatens Jews everywhere, has begun.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec and suburban Canada who will not take kindly to the massacre of canadian families by the IDF being described as a "measured response" by our prime minister.

Harper's dogmatic support of Israel, despite the mounting civillian death toll in Lebanon and the impossibility of destroying hezbollah, has cost him whatever small chance he had of holding on to power in the next general election, where the liberals will take at least a minority government. Harper wil be sent back to Alberta as the Joe Clark of the 21st century.



EL72 said:


> the recent conflict, which threatens Jews everywhere, has begun.


What, Montreal is on the frontline now is it? How exactly does Hezbollah threaten you?


----------



## marcus_halberstam (Aug 8, 2006)

whnay. said:


> om Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?
> 
> THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
> 
> ...


What are you getting at here? This simply seems to be intelligent, pragmatic strategy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec...


So then, you expect to see Quebec to stop sending a large contingent of Bloc MPs to Ottawa? I do believe about 51 seats out of Quebec's 68 are Bloc. Interesting to note the only change in party affiliation I can find too, since the election, was in Vancouver! Emerson went from Liberal to Conservative. I find that too funny for words.

Warmest regards


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

gmac said:


> Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec and suburban Canada who will not take kindly to the massacre of canadian families by the IDF being described as a "measured response" by our prime minister.


Israel's response may be far from lobbing a few shells into Lebanon but I believe it falls short of total war, so yes I think it is still a "measured response". Besides, wasn't this round of the fighting started by Hesbollah? And if they hide among the civilians that they are supposedly the protectors of then I have a problem telling the Israelis shame, shame for killing Lebanese.

By the way, welcome back.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, you expect to see Quebec to stop sending a large contingent of Bloc MPs to Ottawa?


Where did you read that? Oh, you just made it up, I forgot your usual tactics.

No, I expect conservative gains in quebec made in the last election to be reversed with the Bloc and the Liberals benefitting.

Get it?



Wayfarer said:


> Interesting to note the only change in party affiliation I can find too, since the election, was in Vancouver! Emerson went from Liberal to Conservative. I find that too funny for words.


Why am i not surprised that it makes you happy to see conservatives breaking their promises, double-crossing the electorate and abandoning any principles they claimed to have had?

Emerson is a joke and I pray that he stands again in Vancouver - he will be obliterated! But of course he won't.

And the conservatives will maintain their level of representation in canada's three major cities - zero.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

WA said:


> I could never figure out why the jews in America vote for the leftist party (Democrate).
> 
> Can't they see they are voteing against themselves?


American Jews != Israel, to express the facts mathematically. While the Republican Party is nominally more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party, its platform has a number of domestic planks that Jews might be concerned about, most particularly things that break down the separation of church and state.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

KenR said:


> Israel's response may be far from lobbing a few shells into Lebanon but I believe it falls short of total war, so yes I think it is still a "measured response". Besides, wasn't this round of the fighting started by Hesbollah? And if they hide among the civilians that they are supposedly the protectors of then I have a problem telling the Israelis shame, shame for killing Lebanese.
> 
> By the way, welcome back.


Enjoy it while it lasts, I don't think it will be long.

If Israel chooses to take the fight into Lebanon through a de facto invasion then they must take responsibility for at least some of the mayhem that ensues.

Nobody is arguing Israel's right to self defence but they cannot destroy Hezbollah, they can only downgrade hezbollah's ability to attack Israel and by doing so create an ever more implacable foe in lebanon by carelessly or deliberatley targetting civillians and occupying territory.

And by destroying Lebanese infrastructure and institutions the Israelis seem to be inviting Syria to return, and I don't see how that can aid Israel who desperately want speace with lebanon.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Where did you read that? Oh, you just made it up, I forgot your usual tactics.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons

Yes, I control the internet.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer, you seem unable to contol your thought, never mind the internet.

This is what you said.....


wayfarer said:


> So then, you expect to see Quebec to stop sending a large contingent of Bloc MPs to Ottawa?


I didn't say that and why you would think posting a random link to wikipedia would show that i did is beyond comprehension.

As is typical for you, you ignore facts and respond to comments that no-one has made (other than in the windmills of your mind). I can only presume you do this due to the utter poverty of your arguments when you actually attempt to engage.

But, I'll give you another shot. Please point to where I said I "expect to see Quebec to stop sending a large contingent of Bloc MPs to Ottawa?"

Here's a clue - you won't find it in Wikipedia or anywhere else - because you simply made it up!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

gmac said:


> Enjoy it while it lasts, I don't think it will be long.


Then do not flame out on the vitriol. Keep it cool. ic12337:

Regards,

Ken


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

KenR said:


> Then do not flame out on the vitriol. Keep it cool. ic12337:
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ken


Vitriol? Me?

Ken, as you know, I am no worse than a number of other posters and a lot better than a couple.

Doesn't seem to matter.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Srynerson said:


> American Jews != Israel, to express the facts mathematically. While the Republican Party is nominally more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party, its platform has a number of domestic planks that Jews might be concerned about, most particularly things that break down the separation of church and state.


How do you think even that would be an issue for them? Proponents of keeping the "church" involved in "state" always refer to the founding of our country on *JUDEO*-Christian values. What else, related to their Judaism, could possibly be threatened by conservatives or conservative political philosophy? I'm not challenging you. I'm sincerely asking because I'm not Jewish, and I simply don't know.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Wayfarer, you seem unable to contol your thought, never mind the internet.


You are quite correct in one conclusion of your's, you will not be around for very long again.



gmac said:


> But, I'll give you another shot. Please point to where I said I "expect to see Quebec to stop sending a large contingent of Bloc MPs to Ottawa?"
> 
> Here's a clue - you won't find it in Wikipedia or anywhere else - because you simply made it up!


I shall explain, not that I expect it to help.

You said:



gmac said:


> Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec...


Now, if approximately 75% of MPs sent to Ottawa from Quebec are Bloc members, and 9% are already Liberal MPs, you are expecting this "massive shift" to come from the remaining 16% of the ridings?

Lastly, I posed it in a question: "So then, you expect to see...." All you had to say was "No I do not" and you would have had the question answered in a polite fashion. The math of course shows this unlikely, but still that would have been a proper answer. However, why do that when totally uncalled for insults could be used?

Warmest regards


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec and suburban Canada who will not take kindly to the massacre of canadian families by the IDF being described as a "measured response" by our prime minister.


Nothing like a good Israel-bashing opportunity to bring you back to the forum eh gmac.

I only addressed the issue of Jewish voters. As far as Quebec is concerned, if elections were held now, Harper's support would in fact drop. You are wrong about suburban Canada though; most agree with Harper's stance. At any rate, this issue will not be as salient when election time comes.



gmac said:


> Harper's dogmatic support of Israel, despite the mounting civillian death toll in Lebanon and the impossibility of destroying hezbollah, has cost him whatever small chance he had of holding on to power in the next general election, where the liberals will take at least a minority government. Harper wil be sent back to Alberta as the Joe Clark of the 21st century.


_Dreamer, nothing but a dreamer.... _

I know it's hard for you to accept but the conservatives are here to stay. There is no point in arguing about this now, let's talk after the next federal election. I hope you won't be suspended for that long next time.



gmac said:


> What, Montreal is on the frontline now is it? How exactly does Hezbollah threaten you?


I live in Toronto now, not Montreal.

If there is one thing that has been made overwhelmingly clear in this conflict, for those that refused to face reality before, it is that Hezbollah and the like are not after some piece of land. This is not a geographic border dispute. This is about killing Jews plain and simple. Case in point: when Hezbollah rockets kill Israeli Arabs, Nasrallah apologizes profusely claiming they only mean to kill Jews, not muslims. The guy is anything if not clear, how much more evidence do you want?

Anyone with half a brain cell understands that this is not about a military occupation or disputed land, this is about killing Jews (and other infidels) and destroying the State of Israel. As a Jew, any action that threatens the State of Israel, threatens me directly. I have said this before (read my posts on another thread here if you like) and have no need or desire to debate you on this. I don't need, nor do I expect, you to understand.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

What i actually said was this:



gmac said:


> massive shift _*back*_ to the liberals in Quebec and _*suburban Canada*_


Note the use of the word "_*back*_" thereby clearly implying that liberal voters would return from their brief foray into conservatism. Nothing to do with the Bloc.

Of course, your selective editing of my statement by removing _*"suburban canada"*_ does not require any comment from me, it speaks volumes to your ethics and integrity.......

No random wikipedia pages for us this time?


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> So. . . what's your point?


Maybe: Pot.....Kettle.....Black.....
Just a thought!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer and EL72, I stand on the same side of this issue as you, but the attacks on gmac are not called for. Yes, I consider myself a friend of his. There, I said it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> What i actually said was this:
> 
> Note the use of the word "_*back*_" thereby clearly implying that liberal voters would return from their brief foray into conservatism. Nothing to do with the Bloc.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, I see now. The word *back*, used in this context, clearly means only Conservative voters in Quebec shall shift (or re-shift) to Liberal voting. What was I thinking when 75% of the ridings are controlled by the Bloc? I am sure that 16% of "other" votes will make a *"massive shift"* occur.

Again gmac, it all could have been handled without the hate and insults.

Warmest (temporary) regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Wayfarer and EL72, I stand on the same side of this issue as you, but the attacks on gmac are not called for. Yes, I consider myself a friend of his. There, I said it.


Ken, in this thread, where have I attacked gmac? I have questioned his ideas, made an observation along the lines of your's, that if his behavior continues to escalate he might well be suspended again, but please Ken, where did I personally attack him in this thread?

Warmest regards


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

KenR said:


> Wayfarer and EL72, I stand on the same side of this issue as you, but the attacks on gmac are not called for. Yes, I consider myself a friend of his. There, I said it.


That's great but I did not attack him in any way.


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

bengal-stripe said:


> Maybe: Pot.....Kettle.....Black.....
> Just a thought!


So. . . you agree -- mainstream press -- left wing. . . .


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

"You are quite correct in one conclusion of your's, you will not be around for very long again."

"I shall explain, not that I expect it to help."

"I hope you won't be suspended for that long next time."

Look guys, I've heard worse but I've heard better. I guess I'll get out of this thread now. I'm in over my head. :icon_peaceplease:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> "You are quite correct in one conclusion of your's, you will not be around for very long again."
> 
> "I shall explain, not that I expect it to help."


Ken, these two are mine. In the top one, I agreed with gmac's own assertion and provided his uncalled for insult to myself as proof he was most likely indeed correct. Was it nice to make that observation? Maybe baiting? Sure. But personal attack? No way.

The second one, again, no way a pesonal attack. I honestly do not expect any explanation of mine to suffice for gmac. History bears me out on this. Again, maybe that was a little snippy, but a personal attack? No way.

Here is a good example of personal attacks:



gmac said:


> Wayfarer, you seem unable to contol your thought...As is typical for you, you ignore facts and respond to comments that no-one has made."


There's a personal attack. Ken, I have made friendly inclications to gmac more than once. I have even started threads with the acknowledged intent of bringing up a topic we would be in agreement on. What I am met with, and this is your word, is merely vitriol.

Warmest regard


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

OK, OK. My choice of the phrase personal attack is not a correct one. My bad. I just find it unfortunate when debates go dowwwwwwnhill.

Somehow I've hijacked this thread. Please return to your normally scheduled program.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Jill said:


> How do you think even that would be an issue for them? Proponents of keeping the "church" involved in "state" always refer to the founding of our country on *JUDEO*-Christian values. What else, related to their Judaism, could possibly be threatened by conservatives or conservative political philosophy? I'm not challenging you. I'm sincerely asking because I'm not Jewish, and I simply don't know.


The answer lies in that you've placed the emphasis on the wrong part of the relevant word. American culture is more accurately described as "Judeo-*CHRISTIAN*" because, except for New York state and a handful of major metropolitan areas, Jews have never formed a meaningful percentage of the electorate in the US (only about 2% of the overall US population is Jewish today, and IIRC, it never exceeded 10% in the past). Furthermore, Judaism is not a proselytizing faith, Christianity is. As a result, when the separation of church and state is eroded, it is overwhelmingly to the favor of Christians, not Jews -- for example, one does not hear about public schools broadcasting Torah readings on their PA systems, or having graduation prayers in Hebrew, or Jewish teachers telling Christian students that they need to convert to Judaism to save their souls. The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and other Jewish organizations thus have long opposed both government regulation of religion and the interjection of religion into government:

ADL: http:

AJC:

Pew Forum Symposium on American Judaism and separation of church and state (long, but detailed):

Setting aside the above, there are also reasons why many American Jews may not be impressed by Republicans' professed support for Israel. (See, e.g., ; https://washingtontimes.com/national/20040316-102301-7749r.htm)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> OK, OK. My choice of the phrase personal attack is not a correct one. My bad. I just find it unfortunate when debates go dowwwwwwnhill.


Ken:

You're a better man than me and I agree with your sentiments 

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, I see now. The word *back*, used in this context, clearly means only Conservative voters in Quebec shall shift (or re-shift) to Liberal voting. What was I thinking when 75% of the ridings are controlled by the Bloc? I am sure that 16% of "other" votes will make a *"massive shift"* occur.


When you can't deal with the argument made then just ignore it?

Yup, sounds about right for you.



Wayfarer said:


> Again gmac, it all could have been handled without the hate and insults.


No insults or hate from me. I have simply pointed out some salient facts about the way you post on this board. Either get on with it and quit complaining or clean up your act. You've got your side scolding you now about the manner of your posts, perhaps that will have some effect.


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

the massacre of canadian families by the IDF being described as a "measured response" by our prime minister.


I take issue with your terms. Keep in mind the obvious. This current problem would not have occured had the hezbollah animals not have kidnapped the soldiers, fired rockets and iran having nuclear issues with the un.

Harper has gained a lot of support. Instead of the Joe Clark or typical liberal bs about for Israel and then stabbing it in the back at the UN, he took a position. If you fire rockets and kidnap then you are evil. The civialians were killed becuase hezbollah hides amongst them. Once again, their own views of the worth of their families is suspect. Why hide amongst civilians unless you want them to be killed. This is a simple fact of war in the middle east. The palestinians have perfected it.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wait a second, I'm not scolding anybody. I'm just trying to find the actual debate here.


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> Enjoy it while it lasts, I don't think it will be long.
> 
> If Israel chooses to take the fight into Lebanon through a de facto invasion then they must take responsibility for at least some of the mayhem that ensues.
> 
> ...


Really, maybe they should keep the roads open to allow more syrian rockets in! Sounds like a plan, keep fighting your enemy and always allow them to rebuild their rocket and ammo supply, oh now I see your plan.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

_*Yell*_man.......

An appropriate handle it would appear.

I'd direct you to the forum rules regarding swearing. #1 I believe.


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

gmac said:


> _*Yell*_man.......
> 
> An appropriate handle it would appear.
> 
> I'd direct you to the forum rules regarding swearing. #1 I believe.


Great response,


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Wait a second, I'm not scolding anybody. I'm just trying to find the actual debate here.


Hehe, see what happens when the olive branch is extended to gmac?

Warmest regards


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I give up.

_Hey how about those Mets?_


----------



## Yellman (Aug 25, 2005)

Well done


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Shooting Fish in a....*



gmac said:


> No insults or hate from me. I have simply pointed out some salient facts about the way you post on this board. Either get on with it and quit complaining or clean up your act. *You've got your side scolding you now about the manner of your posts,* perhaps that will have some effect.





KenR said:


> Wait a second, I'm not scolding anybody.


Yes, and it is _me_ that makes things up.

So back to the math....16% of "other" votes shall make a "massive shift"? You never did answer that unless I missed it.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Hehe, see what happens when the olive branch is extended to gmac?
> 
> Warmest regards


Olive branch? Ken had no need to extend an olive branch to me, we have never had any kind of problem.

You might notice that he doesn't misquote and selectively edit other people's posts, unlike certain others we could mention. Maybe that is why we remain on good terms despite our differing positions on the issues.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Let's Test Something....*

Gmac:

The sky is blue.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

gmac said:


> Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec _*and*_ _*suburban Canada*_


Shooting fish in a barrel - and missing every time it would appear!!! :icon_cheers:

Yup, it's _you_ who makes things up. Plain for all to see.

NEXT!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

*See ya!*



Wayfarer said:


> The sky is blue.


Gun metal grey here today.

And, on that note, I will take ken's advice and take the high ground. I'll leave you to your childish selective editing games and complete inability/refusal to discuss the issues I brought up.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

If only women fought over me like this.......


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

gmac said:


> Whatever small gains the conservatives see from jewish voters switching from the liberals will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the massive shift back to the liberals in Quebec *and* suburban Canada


Break it down:

"massive shift" to the liberals (sic) in Quebec *and* suburban Canada.

The "and" or "^" in symbolic logic, links the two clauses so each clause must independently be true for the statement to be true. It has been years, but I believe this might come under DeMorgan's laws. Ergo, if there is not a massive shift to the Liberals in Quebec, the statement is untrue. Please now, define "massive shift" from 16% of the possible ridings.

Does that deal with it in an exhaustive enough fashion for you? I hate to have to parse like that, but so be it.



gmac said:


> Shooting fish in a barrel - and missing every time it would appear!!! :icon_cheers:
> 
> Yup, it's _you_ who makes things up. Plain for all to see.
> 
> NEXT!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Srynerson- Your certainly right to a certain extent that every, or most, or in the past most Christians really believe in certain parts of their belief as do Jews in there own beliefs. On the other hand I don't see God in the Old Testament saying to the Jews not to proselytizing, because that would mean God could care less about the human race including Jews, because He is not a respecter of persons. It seems to me that the Jews were to live a certain life that showed better that would draw non-Jews toward God. Before Abraham there were no Jews. If Abraham had lived different there still would be no Jews. God certainly wants a personal relationship with each person. God is not interested in dead rituals but with relationships with people, as you can see that with David and everybody else of importance in the Old Testament. You can't tell me that God made all the non-Jews for nothing! It would be a waste of His time.

The first legal docment of this country (USA) the Declaration of Independence includes the Christian-Jewish God. The seperation between State and Church does not mean seperation between God and State. I believe one of the first taxes was to buy Bibles to give to an Indian tribe. 

Some Christians and "Christians" believe they have the right to force people to become Christians, but that can be found no where in the New testament which explains what Christianity is and is not. 

And then there are people who are greedy for power and will step into any organization to abuse there power, which has given Christianity a bad name sometimes.

I see no connection of Islam to the Jews or Christianity. Neither Jews or Christians send people on suicide "missions", nor does a person get away with rape and the raped gets killed. Sex slaves are not at all part of Jews or Christianity beliefs, whereas, Islam it is. The list of seperation is enormous, so Islam has it's own God which is completely different than Jewish/Christian God- the difference is compariable to Jewish/Christian God and Budda.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

DADDY! Your home from PERU! Kises GMAC and spins down my rabbit hole.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Am never comfortable with exclusionary religious views. Mrs. Dobrich is quite correct in requesting something more generic. And anyone who suggests I'm going to hell because I haven't been "saved" gets a beating (from my wife).


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/09/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Subtle changes indeed. I could hardly notice them. LOL.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Given the history of the Jewish people and the persecution they have been subjected to over the past few millenia I don't think its a far stretch to make such a claim!


Innumerable groups and peoples have suffered and been persecuted over human history, including the time frame you quote, but because survivors are no longer living (nor had access to modern public relations techinques), they are mostly forgotten.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> Innumerable groups and peoples have suffered and been persecuted over human history, including the time frame you quote, but because survivors are no longer living (nor had access to modern public relations techinques), they are mostly forgotten.


My mother is Armenian so I was always reminded of the slaughter of Armenians by the Turks earlier in the last century. I have to say I don't hold a grudge however. I've always just viewed it as a part of history. Things are sometimes ugly. I think more groups should try to keep the memories of such horrors alive. Either in literature, song, days of rememberance or holidays. We should never forget that monsters live amongst us and must and be able to recognize them before its too late.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

WA said:


> I could never figure out why the jews in America vote for the leftist party (Democrate).
> 
> Can't they see they are voteing against themselves?


"The Jews" in America don't vote for any one in particular. Some Jews vote for conservatives, some vote for moderates and some vote for liberals. There is probably a correlation, as there is with Christians, between religious observance and conservatism, though it is not entirely deterministic and voting choices are much more complex, I am sure, than just a check on observance level. As with Christians, some denominations are probably more or less conservative or liberal than others.

That aside, I understand the reason for WA's misperception. Famous Jews, many of whom are rich and live in California, are very liberal, like many rich non-Jewish Californians. Jews are also heavily represented in Academia, and like their fellow [travelers] are likely to be doctrinaire lefties.

On the other hand, religious chassidic sects are likely to vote their conservative principles nationally and for whoever delivers the pork locally.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

dopey said:


> On the other hand, religious chassidic sects are likely to vote their conservative principles nationally and for whoever delivers the *pork* locally.


 Treif! I am sure you meant brisket or corned beef.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

LOL. 

Actually, I believe the US Jewish vote is something closely akin to the American black vote - approx 90%. Both are apparently the result of a long, long memory - not today's reality, IMHO.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*Journalistic fraud now running rampant*

The extra smoke episode is turning out to be only a minor incident. People taking a look at all these photos are finding rampant journalistic fraud. Photos are being photoshopped, people are being posed as casualties, and photos are being used to describe multiple incidents that never occurred.

Check out Malkin's site for a good introduction of how much this is going on and how bad it is. To open your eyes wider, check out all the links.

"It's Not Just Reuters"

The bottom line is that the coverage we are getting from our media is a total fabricated crock and not to be trusted.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Beresford said:


> The extra smoke episode is turning out to be only a minor incident. People taking a look at all these photos are finding rampant journalistic fraud. Photos are being photoshopped, people are being posed as casualties, and photos are being used to describe multiple incidents that never occurred.
> 
> Check out Malkin's site for a good introduction of how much this is going on and how bad it is. To open your eyes wider, check out all the links.
> 
> ...


For Malkin to blow this out of proportion like this, all I can say is she needs to get on some meds quickly. She obviously is clueless about how things work (or fail to work) and comes off like a nut.

The Times posted a correction on a caption, which happens all the time. I can tell you that I personally call AP at least a half-dozen times a year when I notice a misidentification or other factual error in captions they send, which is really not a bad batting average by AP considering they send between 800 and 1,200 photos per day on the main wire, not including those that go out on each of the 50 state wires. Sometimes AP or Reuters or whatever notice the screwup themselves and quickly correct it but the client misses the correction; sometimes a client notices the error and forgets to call the wire service and other clients let it through. Stuff happens.

We routinely call AP when we notice errors in captions, stories, graphics and even statistical matter. Conversely, my newspaper is among those who send some of our content to a supplemental wire services that sends it to client newspapers that reprint it. We sometimes receive calls from the wire service or its subscribers who notice a mistake in content we've sent. Point is, Malkin is taking an honest mistake and trying to develop some kind of conspiracy theory. What a kook. I don't know why anyone would take her seriously.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Well dopey- Haveing worked in the Kosher business the majority of Jews live in the Boston area. During Bushes first voting conflict for the Presidenty in FL there were many Jews who had voted for the Democrats, apparently most of them in FL are Democrats. And a smaller number in CA. I don't think it is a secret that most Jews are Democrats.

Jill- I agree that Most Democrats do live in the past and not the present. Most Democrats are brainwashed, because they have no idea what Republicians believe, they have no idea of the corruptions the Democrats are involved in, they just gullibly believe whatever the Democrats tell them. Talk about the wool being pulled over their eyes, so when they vote it is treason.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

WA said:


> I agree that Most Democrats do live in the past and not the present. Most Democrats are brainwashed, because they have no idea what Republicians believe, they have no idea of the corruptions the Democrats are involved in, they just gullibly believe whatever the Democrats tell them. Talk about the wool being pulled over their eyes, so when they vote it is treason.


The Interchange seems to be even more ridiculously right wing than usual today and I don't feel I have the energy to deal with all the moronic statements (see voting democrat is treason) that are flying.

God bless you you guys.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

WA said:


> Well dopey- Haveing worked in the Kosher business the majority of Jews live in the Boston area. During Bushes first voting conflict for the Presidenty in FL there were many Jews who had voted for the Democrats, apparently most of them in FL are Democrats. And a smaller number in CA. I don't think it is a secret that most Jews are Democrats.
> 
> Jill- I agree that Most Democrats do live in the past and not the present. Most Democrats are brainwashed, because they have no idea what Republicians believe, they have no idea of the corruptions the Democrats are involved in, they just gullibly believe whatever the Democrats tell them. Talk about the wool being pulled over their eyes, so when they vote it is treason.


WA:
I was making a different point. First, "the Jews" do not vote as a block (except in small chassidic towns and some neighborhoods in Brooklyn - this is irrelevant nationally, but very powerful locally). Second, different Jews vote for a variety of different reasons and much of it is affected by factors other than their being nominally Jews. It is true that many Jews in Boston and Florida are likely to be Demecorats, but so are most affluent white people in a college town and most elderly retirees. Who did the Jewish Russian immigrants living in Brighton Beach vote for in the last two Presidential elections? How about the Modern Orthodox communities of Teaneck or Englewood New Jersey. How about in the Five Towns on Long Island. Not all Jews are like the ones in Brookline.

All that said, it is true, as you and Jill both noted, that Jews in America have historically voted Democratic, and certainly done so in large numbers since Truman. But they are not a monolith and the degree to which the Democratic party has cozied up to the Loony Left and Thirld-World and academic anti-semitism is doing a lot to make them less afraid of the Right Wing Evangelical Christians in the Republican Party. I suspect the Jewish vote, meaning the vote of Jews, will be considerably more diffuse.

Despite what I said above, I should tell you at the last two meetings of the local chapter of the Elders of Zion (I snuck in by hiding in a barrel of baby blood), everyone was told to vote for Lenora Fulani.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> For Malkin to blow this out of proportion like this, all I can say is she needs to get on some meds quickly. She obviously is clueless about how things work (or fail to work) and comes off like a nut.
> 
> The Times posted a correction on a caption, which happens all the time. I can tell you that I personally call AP at least a half-dozen times a year when I notice a misidentification or other factual error in captions they send, which is really not a bad batting average by AP considering they send between 800 and 1,200 photos per day on the main wire, not including those that go out on each of the 50 state wires. Sometimes AP or Reuters or whatever notice the screwup themselves and quickly correct it but the client misses the correction; sometimes a client notices the error and forgets to call the wire service and other clients let it through. Stuff happens.
> 
> We routinely call AP when we notice errors in captions, stories, graphics and even statistical matter. Conversely, my newspaper is among those who send some of our content to a supplemental wire services that sends it to client newspapers that reprint it. We sometimes receive calls from the wire service or its subscribers who notice a mistake in content we've sent. Point is, Malkin is taking an honest mistake and trying to develop some kind of conspiracy theory. What a kook. I don't know why anyone would take her seriously.


She's citing examples of doctored and staged photos (the dead guy sitting up) - go back and look. If that's just par for the course from "journalists" and news sources we're in a lot of trouble. Mis-captioning is one thing, doctoring/staging is quite another. I think it's very serious and I'm glad people like Malkin are out there pointing these things out.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> She's citing examples of doctored and staged photos (the dead guy sitting up) - go back and look. If that's just par for the course from "journalists" and news sources we're in a lot of trouble. Mis-captioning is one thing, doctoring/staging is quite another. I think it's very serious and I'm glad people like Malkin are out there pointing these things out.


No way. The one New York Times situation she referred to was a simple mistake, the other she even says she doesn't believe the photo was doctored, either. YOU go back and look.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

More photo fraud

https://www.aish.com/movies/JP/PhotoFraud.asp


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> No way. The one New York Times situation she referred to was a simple mistake, the other she even says she doesn't believe the photo was doctored, either. YOU go back and look.


There were lots of other referneces to fake/doctored photos on her site than just with the NY Times - like the cover of newsweek, and others (as I mentioned - the picture of the "corpse" sitting up) - go back and look. And if she's willing to concede that her initial analysis may have neem wrong - how does that make her "come of as a nut" (as you ststaed) And but for people on-line scoping out these pictures, would the Times ever had issued a correction?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> And but for people on-line scoping out these pictures, would the Times ever had issued a correction?


If you read the newspaper, you'd know that the NYT runs more corrections than anyone else and that they do so ungrudgingly. That's because they are serious about their role as a "paper of record" and as a source material for historians, and because mistakes must be corrected so reporters don't refer to a previous report and repeat the error. I interviewed there for jobs in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s (spending a week there) and I can tell you that no one takes accuracy more seriously than they do, and no one spends more money on quality control than they do.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

EL72 said:


> More photo fraud
> 
> https://www.aish.com/movies/JP/PhotoFraud.asp


Except for the Reuters smoke thing, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those were altered or staged.

On the example of the Lebanese woman, your Israeli propaganda Web site conveniently overlooks the fact that the similar photos were taken by two different photographers for two different news agencies, and there are plenty of explanations for the difference in dates. The woman could have been wailing at two different bombings, the AP photographer may have not transmitted all of his photos on July 22 and then mistakenly sent old photos on Aug. 5, resulting in an assumption at the bureau that all the photos were new and an editor captioned the photo with an incorrect date. At my newspaper yesterday, we nearly ran a day-old photo until a copy editor noticed that the editor choosing photos had made a mistake.

On the example of the U.S. News cover photo, there could well be a downed jet in that fire, we just can't see it amid the smoke and fire. I'll trust U.S. News over your Web site, run by an organization that says it was founded "to combat alarming assimilation rates."

Your Web site offers no proof that photos were staged, only assertions. We could cast doubt on anything in that manner. That photo of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon was obviously staged on a Hollywood stage!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I will add, too, that when traditional media make an accusation, they give the accused a chance to explain/rebut. I don't see that kind of intellectual honesty on the sites you people link to. It is easy to make assertions, but it is harder to make them stand up if you have to allow the other side to be heard -- something I don't see Malkin or AISH allowing. It is intellectually dishonest of them to be so one-sided.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

crs said:


> Except for the Reuters smoke thing, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those were altered or staged.
> 
> On the example of the Lebanese woman, your Israeli propaganda Web site conveniently overlooks the fact that the similar photos were taken by two different photographers for two different news agencies, and there are plenty of explanations for the difference in dates. The woman could have been wailing at two different bombings, the AP photographer may have not transmitted all of his photos on July 22 and then mistakenly sent old photos on Aug. 5, resulting in an assumption at the bureau that all the photos were new and an editor captioned the photo with an incorrect date. At my newspaper yesterday, we nearly ran a day-old photo until a copy editor noticed that the editor choosing photos had made a mistake.
> 
> ...


So you really believe stuffed toys will remain immaculate in a blown-up building with rubble and dusty debris everywhere. Yeah, sure....


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

EL72 said:


> So you really believe stuffed toys will remain immaculate in a blown-up building with rubble and dusty debris everywhere. Yeah, sure....


Well, we really don't know whether the photos were taken immediately after an explosion or after people had begun sifting through wreckage, thus altering the scene. That's likely the case. It is rare that a photographer is going to happen upon the explosion in progress, usually they photograph the aftermath. Be reasonable. You are a photographer in a war zone. Your life is in danger, and it probably enhances your survival possibilities to travel light. There is heavy photographic equipment you need to carry. Are you really going to slow yourself down with a bunch of props? Geez.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> On the example of the U.S. News cover photo, there could well be a downed jet in that fire, we just can't see it amid the smoke and fire.


Occam's Razor. Unless the plane is seen, then it is not there. That is photojournalism.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Maybe Reuters learned from the Palestinians. . . 

https://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> If you read the newspaper, you'd know that the NYT runs more corrections than anyone else and that they do so ungrudgingly. That's because they are serious about their role as a "paper of record" and as a source material for historians, and because mistakes must be corrected so reporters don't refer to a previous report and repeat the error. I interviewed there for jobs in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s (spending a week there) and I can tell you that no one takes accuracy more seriously than they do, and no one spends more money on quality control than they do.


That's lovely - but the point is - someone must point out the error. Obviously, the Times didn't catch it when they printed it.

Perhaps they run "more corrections than anyone else" becasue they make more mistakes. And we won't even go into the case of publishing articles made out of whole cloth. In a profession (i.e., law, medicine, public accounting) making repetitive mistakes gets one sued for malpractice. But, "journalism," whatever that is nowadays, is just a trade - used to be done better by guys with a high school diploma.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> I will add, too, that when traditional media make an accusation, they give the accused a chance to explain/rebut. I don't see that kind of intellectual honesty on the sites you people link to. It is easy to make assertions, but it is harder to make them stand up if you have to allow the other side to be heard -- something I don't see Malkin or AISH allowing. It is intellectually dishonest of them to be so one-sided.


Malkin is a pundit - not a reporter. She has no more obigation to be unbiased than the NY Times Editorial Page. And the fact remains - where she thinks she made a mistake she says so (as you pointed out in an earlier post ) she presented both interpreatations and left it each individual to decide.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

fenway said:


> Maybe Reuters learned from the Palestinians. . .
> 
> https://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html


If the consequences of all this weren't so tragic it would be grade A comedy!! Western media are such suckers for all this. I always think its funny that when it comes to the U.S. the media are incredibly skeptical and adversarial however in the Middle East they just accept what they see (or sometimes don't see) without any further inquiry. They just throw it up on the evening news and that's it. I recall a few weeks ago when CNN's Nick Robertson was taken on a guided tour of destroyed homes in Beirut by a Hezbollah "media spokesperson."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Perhaps they run "more corrections than anyone else" becasue they make more mistakes.


If you truly believe this, I feel sorry for you because no newspaper spends more money getting it right than the Times does. The number of corrections and the willingness to make them are usually in inverse proportion to a newspaper's professionalism. It sounds crazy, but it's true. Pick up a copy of your nearest big-city daily newspaper and your nearest cruddy weekly that resembles a ransom note and you'll see more corrections in the larger newspaper. Reason being they care more about getting it right.



Rocker said:


> Malkin is a pundit - not a reporter. She has no more obigation to be unbiased than the NY Times Editorial Page.


But that means we should not take her rants as factually based.



Rocker said:


> where she thinks she made a mistake she says so (as you pointed out in an earlier post )


She did in this instance. My understanding is that isn't her usual behavior.



Rocker said:


> she presented both interpreatations and left it each individual to decide.


That's irresponsible. That would be like your local newspaper writing: "Someone on the Internet believes Rocker commited a horrible crime. We don't necessarily agree. You decide." If she believes the allegation to be false, why pass it along? Responsible writers do not publish wild accusations; they do more reporting and seek more sources.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I always think its funny that when it comes to the U.S. the media are incredibly skeptical and adversarial however in the Middle East they just accept what they see (or sometimes don't see) without any further inquiry.


I think you can understand that reporters face certain access problems in foreign countries that make their jobs more difficult.

Cuba invited some U.S. sports writers to come over in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I forget. While we understood sending a reporter would probably wind up a waste of money, we did anyway. The reporter we sent told me later that he was "managed" the entire time, saw only what the Cuban government wanted him to see. The stories were mostly a waste, not propaganda but not offering much insight, either.

So U.S. news organizations often have this choice in a foreign land: don't send a reporter and get nothing, or send one knowing that getting at the whole truth is going to be very difficult. You are not knowingly publishing lies, but neither is your expectation that the completeness of the reporting is going to be of the same standards you have here.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

crs,

Keep fighting the good fight.

I've noticed an interesting trend among some conservatives of my acquaintance: a sort of weird inversion where otherwise classically Modern thinkers embrace the "semiotic instability" of post-structuralism, a worldview they otherwise abhor for its being the gateway to all things horrid, such as cultural relativism. One instance turns up an error or oversight, or indeed deliberately misleading information, and suddenly the entire epistemological foundations of the universe come crashing down. Logos? We don't have no stinkin' Logos!

Used to be only the so-called lefties bought into that French lit-crit jive. Guess it can be useful when one wants to be able to erect knowledge on one's own flimsy edifice.

When we can dismiss ("paternistic") institutions like the NYT with a jaded wave and set up shop with our own assembly of faded wares in the marketplace there's no limit to the gibberish one can credibly disseminate.



crs said:


> Except for the Reuters smoke thing, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those were altered or staged.
> 
> On the example of the Lebanese woman, your Israeli propaganda Web site conveniently overlooks the fact that the similar photos were taken by two different photographers for two different news agencies, and there are plenty of explanations for the difference in dates. The woman could have been wailing at two different bombings, the AP photographer may have not transmitted all of his photos on July 22 and then mistakenly sent old photos on Aug. 5, resulting in an assumption at the bureau that all the photos were new and an editor captioned the photo with an incorrect date. At my newspaper yesterday, we nearly ran a day-old photo until a copy editor noticed that the editor choosing photos had made a mistake.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Logos? We don't have no stinkin' Logos!


Ever read "Snow Crash"? If not, you might enjoy it. Logos becomes loglow. Quaint post-modern concept.



BertieW said:


> Used to be only the so-called lefties bought into that French lit-crit jive. Guess it can be useful when one wants to be able to erect knowledge on one's own flimsy edifice.


Dood, do not knock it. I cannot count the number of papers back in Gen Ed's for undergrad where dropping a little allusion to Derrida or a Faucault quote could ensure an A+. Toss in a nod to Ecco, a wink to Chomsky, and really, the worse tripe would score you top marks.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I think you can understand that reporters face certain access problems in foreign countries that make their jobs more difficult.
> 
> Cuba invited some U.S. sports writers to come over in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I forget. While we understood sending a reporter would probably wind up a waste of money, we did anyway. The reporter we sent told me later that he was "managed" the entire time, saw only what the Cuban government wanted him to see. The stories were mostly a waste, not propaganda but not offering much insight, either.
> 
> So U.S. news organizations often have this choice in a foreign land: don't send a reporter and get nothing, or send one knowing that getting at the whole truth is going to be very difficult. You are not knowingly publishing lies, but neither is your expectation that the completeness of the reporting is going to be of the same standards you have here.


Far be it from me to comment on the profession of journalism as I am not one, however I am a professional and all professions are guided by objective principles. An objective principle of journalism I am sure is to be as accurate as possible, honest and always qualify reports of the type you describe. Now I ask you what is better: getting nothing and remaining an honest and viable organization or send a reporter, get fed a bogus story and report it.

Foreign countries with controlled media do a fine job of spreading their propoganda through their own media. The often use western media as a way of enhancing the credibility of a story as their own media's credibility is nil.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Now I ask you what is better: getting nothing and remaining an honest and viable organization or send a reporter, get fed a bogus story and report it.


First, if you are a major news organization, you cannot ignore the Middle East. You do the best you can with it.

The stories are not bogus, at least not intentionally. In the example I gave of the reporters sent to Cuba, the reporters and their editors were well aware of what Cuba was trying to do. What was obviously propaganda never made it into print. We printed only what we knew to be true, but obviously we would have reported in greater depth had the access to normal Cubans not been so restricted.

I think it's a little silly to believe that people at the very top of their profession are unaware that newsmakers of every kind are trying to feed them a load of poop. I think there is a tendency these days for people to dismiss reporting that conflicts with their preconceptions rather than to think, "This reporter has a better vantage point than Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, who are sitting on their fat asses and pontificating rather than dodging bullets themselves to gather facts." The reporting may sometimes contain errors, which are corrected when proved to be a mistake, but it seems illogical to place your trust instead with a blogger or pundit who has never actually covered a war as a news story and has no firsthand knowledge of anything, really.


----------



## passingtime (Jun 23, 2005)

Journalists on foreign assignments get killed, injured, kidnapped, or arrested yet still they keep doing their job. They do this because they want to get the story out and sometimes the story is one those in power would rather not be told. Under these circumstances it is difficult to get the other side of the story when simply knowing an event happened can get you summarily shot or 'disappeared'. Even in our democratic West you can risk being locked up.

I have a huge amount of respect for journalists who put themselves in harms way to shine a light into the darker corners of the world. I don't expect it to be perfect, nothing ever is.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I have actually read that book, and interviewed the author. Gloomy sort.

Not sure I'd brag about producing academic tripe, mon frer. ;-)



Wayfarer said:


> Ever read "Snow Crash"? If not, you might enjoy it. Logos becomes loglow. Quaint post-modern concept.
> 
> Dood, do not knock it. I cannot count the number of papers back in Gen Ed's for undergrad where dropping a little allusion to Derrida or a Faucault quote could ensure an A+. Toss in a nod to Ecco, a wink to Chomsky, and really, the worse tripe would score you top marks.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I have actually read that book, and interviewed the author. Gloomy sort.
> 
> Not sure I'd brag about producing academic tripe, mon frer. ;-)


Sorry, I always found it funny I could say the same thing, but tossing in a few buzz words, concepts, and authors and the grade went up substantially. I think the shame lays with the trendy PC profs, not me. But really, is that not the nature of undergrad Gen Ed courses? Feed the prof what he/she wants to hear.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Sorry, I always found it funny I could say the same thing, but tossing in a few buzz words, concepts, and authors and the grade went up substantially. I think the shame lays with the trendy PC profs, not me. But really, is that not the nature of undergrad Gen Ed courses? Feed the prof what he/she wants to hear.


My experience was somewhat different. We actually had to demonstrate facility with the concepts before earning any credit. But perhaps this is because I studied poststructuralism in grad school rather than during my undergraduate curriculum. Read a lot of philosophy, physics and literature while earning my BA.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*LA Times Now Conceding Large Amts. of Jounalistic Fraud*

Thank God the bloggers are finally calling the media on all this. The German independent media, for example, has now done a video revealing that "Green Helmet Guy" is actually a Hizbollah TV crew director who orchestrated the coverage of the "Qana Massacre," although AP continues to insist he is a legitimate rescue worker.

Tim Rutten:
Regarding Media
Lebanon photos: Take a closer look
August 12, 2006

THE controversy this week over Reuters' distribution of digitally manipulated, falsely labeled and - probably - staged photos of the fighting in Lebanon hasn't been nearly as large as it should have been.

Credit for bringing the sordid business to light goes to Charles Johnson, a musician and Los Angeles-based blogger, who operates a hard-edged right wing website unfathomably called Little Green Footballs. Last Saturday, Reuters, which is headquartered in London, transmitted two photographs by one of its regular Lebanese freelance photographers, Adnan Hajj, whose work for the agency has appeared in many American newspapers since 1993. An anonymous tipster reportedly drew Johnson's attention to the photos, and he immediately recognized that one purporting to show the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on Beirut had been digitally enhanced. It subsequently emerged that another image allegedly showing an Israeli fighter launching multiple air-to-ground missiles also had been altered using the common Photoshop computer program.

...

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten12aug12,1,640725.column?coll=la-news-columns

*Edited by jcusey. DO NOT post copyrighted articles in their entirety if you do not hold the copyright.*


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rutten makes some stupid assertions, and someone with his experience certainly ought to know better and probably does.



> It's worth noting in this context that there is no similar flow of propagandistic images coming from the Israeli side of the border.


There is not a government in existence -- including the United States -- that doesn't engage in propaganda.

Someone else on the second page of this thread posted an interview that quoted a New York Times reporter as saying, "But also the Israelis are very sophisticated in their handling of the media. They consider it part of the battlefield, officially. The word "narrative" always comes up with conversations with Israeli national security officials. They consider shaping the narrative, the battle for the narrative, to be key as part of any war fighting. So they see the media as part of the battlefield. And, in fact, there's some belief from our reporters that they have occasionally targeted the media."


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Question for CRS...

OK, preamble to question to CRS - we probably disagree on nearly everything political but general manage to do so without spitting at each other 

Do you believe the media has a responsibility to consider whether a story should go out? An example would be the NYT's willingness to report a story that can interfere with efforts to stop people from blowing up the NYT and surrounding area.???

See, that's one that I think some folks have a problem with. I do. I figure there are things I don't NEED to know. I get a ton of overseas phonecalls. If someone listens for a few moments before deciding that I'm merely a boring tiemaker who cares way too much about silly silken matters I am OK with that.

Why? Well, I draw a distinction.... If those listening in (and let's clear that up, nobody has time to listen in randomly... data mining is entirely different) are attempting to ID terror threats I figure they are protecting me. Now if someone listened in and discovered some completely different violation of the law and turned me in to another agency I see a BIG line there.

...but on the anti-terror front? No.

Rather than engage in generalities let me give you a specific case and ask your view.

You find out from an informant in the government that the NSA has ID'd a terror plot through one of the various data mining projects and are racing to track down the details of the plot. Your PERSONAL interpretation is that privacy laws have been violated. You ask an attorney - one you know is probably more of a privacy advocate than an objective party and he agrees with your interpretation.

You go to the NSA with what you know and ask for comment - they tell you they are in the midst of an important investigation and ask you to be quiet, they tell you that reporting what you know puts lives in danger.

Simple question: Do you report on it?

Second question: All of the above is true and you are 100% certain that your source has violated their security agreement and is passing on information that is unquestionably classified and you are certain that your source is breaking the law. You are asked who your source is and you:
A. Give up the source
B. Protect the source with full knowledge that your source is breaking the law and violating an oath.


Just curious how you would handle that.


In my mind, the media should enjoy certain protections and I do believe that the framers of our Constitution basically thought that governments needed watching and weren't terribly trustworthy. I also think there is a line - if a story jeopardizes an investigation such as the one the Brits just pulled off I think the media's has a responsibility as a citizen too and should sit on it.

When we learn the details (if we do) of the network the Brits just took down I am willing to bet that American law would not have allowed it.

Good? Bad? Right? Wrong?

Questions worthy of serious discussion and reflection from both sides.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck, your questions are moot in the real world because those kinds of decisions ultimately are not made by journalists but by lawyers, either one already on retainer, or in the case of my newspaper an in-house counsel. While lawyers have political beliefs like anyone else, we assume in situations like this that their agenda is to ensure the newspaper is on secure legal ground when we print something sensitive.

To be lazy, I'll say that I agree with this piece co-bylined by the editors of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times:

https://www.latimes.com/news/opinio...jul01,0,4783385.story?coll=la-home-commentary


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

gmac

I live in Washington, which is mostly Democrat, and have asked democrats that vote about a number of things through out about 25 years, such as what Republician want and beleive and try to do, about bills that democrats have put up and voted for that the republicans get blamed for- and these voteing democrats simple don't know what is going on- these people have no right to vote- because they don't know what they are voteing for. So, if it is not treason, then there IQ must be below 1. Responsiblity is a word the democrats in this state don't take responsibly.

How many ex-democrats have I heard, who after watching C-Span, say "I didn't know the democrats were doing that" "They didn't tell me they were doing that" "They said the republicans were doing that, but there doing it, and not the republicans" "I'm not voting for them, because they are doing things I don't want them to do, and they never told us about it" (the last one sounds like treason to me from the law makers, because they are keeping from the voters that vote for them what they are doing), and so on.

I lean to Libertarian and Republican, because it means less government than Democrats. Although, about half the Republicans are big government, nowadays, which is not good.

Whereas, the Democrats, they want to be so big and into every part of your life in control, which is not Liberty. So the money you earn is not your money, but the allowance they let you keep. If these people (lawmakers) are no more intelligent than you - then, why would you give them so much control over your life? A smaller government clearly means you have more control over your life.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> While lawyers have political beliefs like anyone else, we assume in situations like this that their agenda is to ensure the newspaper is on secure legal ground when we print something sensitive.


And one must never confuse the legal with the moral. Or the legal with what is actually good for the population or the security of the nation. I do believe that is Legal Philosophy 101, Day One, Hour One, Page One, Paragrah One, Sentence One.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> And one must never confuse the legal with the moral. Or the legal with what is actually good for the population or the security of the nation. I do believe that is Legal Philosophy 101, Day One, Hour One, Page One, Paragrah One, Sentence One.


Well, the moral is much more subjective than the legal. Certainly not all people, indeed not all editors, are going to agree about what is the moral choice. But you'd be safe in assuming that is discussed among editors when deciding whether to publish.

You might be surprised how heated those discussions can become. I once was on the losing end of an argument about identifying a woman who claimed she had been raped and who had been identified by another medium. The paper I worked for at the time had a policy of not identifying rape victims. The winners of this argument believed that since she already had been identified, her name was in the public arena. My feeling was that we shouldn't allow competing media to decide our policy for us, that our longstanding policy had been decided with some degree of thought and that we ought not be so quick to discard it without considerable deliberation. Understand that in debates like this, neither side is going to be entirely comfortable. Few journalists wish to serve as censor, few wish to recklessly endanger others. What we wish the public to know is that these decisions are not made lightly. People are going to disagree no matter what we do, but both sides are considered before that decision is made.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

dopey-

No way to know how many Jews vote Democrat or Republican. The Orthodox Union group, it seems like, would certainly vote toward Republicans, and they're not fond of Christians, either, it seems, but have lighten up some toward Evangelical Christians, which have donated millions upon millions of dollars to Isreal. I think most of the Evangelical Christians believe the Old Testament saying where it says something like 'Do good unto the Jews (or Isreal) and you shall be blessed'. There is a small percentage of Evangelical Christians that believe the end of the Old Testament is the end of the Jews and Isreal. "Main Line Churches" and other groups I have know idea what they believe about Jews and Isreal.

Anyway, it comes across from the news-media that a huge amount of Jews vote Democrat. Perhaps it is just the liberal media that is pushing that image.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Years ago I became fascinated with the Ruby Ridge Shootout starring Randy Weaver, The F.B.I. and a support cast worthy of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Something didn't seem right, and having been harassed for my own political involvments I wanted to learn more. My gunsmith, a active Libertarian provided a cassette of a talk show interview with Col Bo Gritz. I collected a few mainstream magazines and newspaper articles, including some by Jan's peer Col Jeff Cooper. My good Mormon boy, Idaho born farrier provided of all things a Topo map of the area showing how incredibly remote the place is. So I'm sitting in my workplace breakroom and hear an audible gasp. It was Pat, our insecure store security. Pat drove a 4wd with a SAHARAH CLUB medallion and I had my 240 Volvo with EARTH FIRST! and a FREE TIBET! flag on the back. Pat had also started collecting Ruby Ridge resources. We pooled our collection, and to the utter shock of the entire store became fast friends seeking out more material and discussing the event and ramifications on american society as a whole. Not one of our two box collection was near definative on the subject: not the WSJ or the ARYAN TIMES. Collectively, we sorted out 'what really happened' about as well as anyone then or since. News is a CONSUMER item, and we have to read labels , ingredients and place of manufacture. Only problem is this product has a short shelf life, and the next drunk celebrity, bear in swimming pool or image of the Blessed Mother in a McDonalds Fish Filet are on the shelves all to soon.


----------



## LARon (Jun 19, 2006)

"The bottom line is that the coverage we are getting from our media is a total fabricated crock and not to be trusted."

Totally agree with this, but from a different perspective than probably intended.

It has always concerned me, even when our nation was not at war, how often events and occurences relating to Israel become/became the lead story/ies of the day. Now that our nation _is _at war, I'm even more concerned about this, namely, what justifies around-the-clock coverage of the affairs of another state when after three years Americans are still dying by the hour in Iraq, with no end in sight?

I believe the priority of Americans, and the American media, should be matters that affect _America_, not Israel -- or any other state. In this regard, I want to hear first about what is occurring in Iraq and affecting other aspects of my country's life, i.e., our political, social and economic concerns, before I hear about the conflict in the Middle East. While events occurring elsewhere may definitely merit priority coverage on occasion, perhaps the first or second day after a significant event, they should promptly be returned to their place in our priority ranking, which is after the business and affairs of America have been addressed. Affairs of other states are just that -- the affairs of other states.

I'm also concerned that there is little quality coverage of the Arab perspective, such as suffering of the Lebanese, or the Palestinians before them. And not only that, I'm also curious to know how others in the Arab world, leaving aside Syria and Iran, such as the people of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia feel about the current conflict, particularly their view of America's role and responsibility.

Most, if not all, television news outlets tend to base their journalists in Israel (necessarily causing the viewer to "side" with Israel because their side of the conflict is being told on an intimate level -- whether this is Israel's way of coddling the media in order to gain favor, and in that way using the media as an extension of the battlefield, or the media's own bias in favor of Israel by continually giving the Israeli perspective, I don't know). Similarly, most media outlets use language that tends to color or shade stories in a way that makes Israel seem somehow deserving of greater sympathy. These are just two examples of many tactics that cause me to distrust many mainstream sources, particularly broadcast.

For that reason, and because I believe that when one side's story is put forward more consistently or more subtly than another's I'm being spun, I've concluded that the broadcast media is not a reliable source for understanding what's really happening because, in my judgment, it is decidedly pro-Israel, which impairs citizens like me who have no dog in the fight (I am neither Arab nor Jew) but who want to truly understand each side's motivation before casting judgment on where fault and morality outght to lie, from getting the truth.

Because of that, I have to draw inferences from current presentations I believe to be true and history I know to be true. Drawing from these sources, until I'm presented with unfettered (or as near as possible) information from both sides, it appears to me that Israel acted on this occasion as it has on many others, as a bully. And as matter of personal constitution, from my days in the schoolyard, I don't like bullies. And I think it appalling for people to try to marginalize this bullying and the killing of innocents by attacking a purportedly doctored photo _because of the amount of smoke_ appearing in one version versus another and the _implication_ of what the volume of smoke meant about the size of the attack and number of dead. This is simply shameful. And if that is the level on which the defense of Israel is to occur, my inference is probably right.

A final note, as an example of how language can be used to shade stories, I recently saw a CNN report that gave a body count for both sides. It began with the number of Israelis killed (again, putting the Israeli position first), most of whom were military. It cited a number (say 132 for argument's sake), then noted the number of those who were military (say 94). It then gave the number of Lebanese killed (say 850), then noted the number of those who were civilian (say 700). I found it puzzling that they didn't just offer side-by-side comparisons: the number of civilians killed on each side and the number of fighters on each side. A subtle distinction, to be sure, but one that accumulates with others over time.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

LARon- A final note, as an example of how language can be used to shade stories, I recently saw a CNN report that gave a body count for both sides. It began with the number of Israelis killed (again, putting the Israeli position first), most of whom were military. It cited a number (say 132 for argument's sake), then noted the number of those who were military (say 94). It then gave the number of Lebanese killed (say 850), then noted the number of those who were civilian (say 700). I found it puzzling that they didn't just offer side-by-side comparisons: the number of civilians killed on each side and the number of fighters on each side. A subtle distinction, to be sure, but one that accumulates with others over time.

Some people are really really stupid. Lets say the numbers above are correct. Now lets think of why. Terrorist throwing bombs at another nation from on top of your roof and you and your family stay there? You really expect no bombs to come and destroy your home with that rocket launcher throwing bombs at somebody else? Anybody with half a brain is going to take the family and leave- even if they have to walk 100 miles or more, if they like themselves and their family. The fact that bombs are being sent from your roof probably means that you would approve of it. So, in this case, what is more important? Throwing bombs at your make believe enemies? Or, Personally protecting your family? By keeping terrorist away from your home, or if you can't do that, then at least move yourself and family to safety.

One thing that seems rather clear in this war is that Islamic people have no value in human life, not even there own, nor family, whereas, Isreal does value human life. Israelies are smart, they don't sit around for bombs to hit them, where as Islamic people don't seem to care. It seems to me the Islamic faith is being proven wrong over and over again.

The news-media is a bunch of bunk. They want there day of fame or money. And with that there is no morality. Sure there are a few honest reporter, but not many, and sometimes there reports gets changed by the editor into a lie.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> They want there day of fame or money. And with that there is no morality. Sure there are a few honest reporter, but not many, and sometimes there reports gets changed by the editor into a lie.


A good bunch of the staff of the Santa Barbara daily quit their jobs a few weeks ago rather than work under an owner who, they felt, had compromised the newspaper's ethics. And they quit during an awful job market for journalists. Most journalists are idealists. If you truly believe the BS you just spouted, I invite you to join reality.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Rush Limbaugh show, brought to you by the makers of Oxycontin.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs- Most journalists are idealists.

Your right! They write there idealistic ideas instead of what happened! When you start writing your ideas instead of what happened, with news reporting, then you have lied.

Rush Limbaugh- I haven't listened to him in years and almost never had time when I was interested. He never shaped my way of thinking. What has shaped your way of thinking? If the Democrats have shaped your way of thinking about Republicans, then you've really got problems. I believe in doing my own thinking, which is listen to this side and listen to that side and then spending a couple of years or more of research, such as looking for the facts, such as who wrote the bills and how they voted on the bills and compare the bills with other bills of the same nature. If the bill is good for the poor, the middle and the rich, and I like to think of all angles, then it is a good bill, if it is not good for all of them, then it has no right to become law. Morale laws are a personal belief system, which is another reason why I don't like some Republicans and a lot of Democrats. If you have looked at and listened to each side about themselves and did your research to see where there lying and how often there lying, then I may have a lot more respect for you than those that let one side or the other side pull the wool over there eyes. You can not let other people tell you what is going on, you have to check things out yourself. NO party is immune to corruption, they all do it from time to time, some just do it more often. They both head down the wrong road from time to time, some more often. Democrats have had, in the past, some great ideas, but I do not like how they try to turn it into a law.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> They write there idealistic ideas instead of what happened! When you start writing your ideas instead of what happened, with news reporting, then you have lied.


I've been in far too many news meetings over the past 30 years to agree with that. The difference between us is that you have an abstract idea of how journalism works, and I have actually sat in rooms and participated while fairness is being argued among professionals.

You attacked the integrity of most journalists. I don't think you can find another occupation in which people resign en masse on principle. Some physicians have stopped taking HMO in protest of not being able to doctor as they see fit, but I can't think of too many other examples.

To clarify the Santa Barbara situation, the newspaper was sold to a billionaire who had no experiece in journalism. (This is not the norm, although we shall see what happens in Philadelphia under the inexperienced new owners.) But I think that what happened in Santa Barbara illustrates that journalists take their ethics more seriously than many other professionals take theirs. This is not what you wish to believe, but it is the truth.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

If it is a myth that journalists are in general left leaning, tend to be at least skeptical of capitalism, and somewhat anti-American, it seems to be a myth with some real legs. I just watched Barcelona (nice clothes!). It was made in 1994. One of the characters compares the US to an ant farm and states how Europeans do not get to directly observe the farm, they have to rely on reports from journalists. To quote the character making the analogy, "And the thing is, people here (Spain) don't know journalists do not like ants."

I found that interesting and fitting to the current conversation.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> If it is a myth that journalists are in general left leaning, tend to be at least skeptical of capitalism, and somewhat anti-American, it seems to be a myth with some real legs. I just watched Barcelona (nice clothes!). It was made in 1994. One of the characters compares the US to an ant farm and states how Europeans do not get to directly observe the farm, they have to rely on reports from journalists. To quote the character making the analogy, "And the thing is, people here (Spain) don't know journalists do not like ants."
> 
> I found that interesting and fitting to the current conversation.


You quote a film as an example of reality????


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> You quote a film as an example of reality????


crs, you are much too invested in the concept your profession is fair and balanced, or at least of course, the people that work with you, not those nasty folks at FNC and the Limbaugh show of course.

crs, my post was, what I thought anyways, an interesting anecdote related to where this thread has wandered. I seriously doubt if anyone else reading it felt I was saying, "SEE!!? This film repeats the myth and I shall use this as an example of reality!" No, it was merely a topical observation about a 12 year old movie.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

It only you had something more than, um, three decades of professional journalism experience to back up your claims, crs.



crs said:


> You quote a film as an example of reality????


----------



## LARon (Jun 19, 2006)

"One thing that seems rather clear in this war is that Islamic people have no value in human life, not even there own, nor family, whereas, Isreal does value human life. Israelies are smart, they don't sit around for bombs to hit them, where as Islamic people don't seem to care. It seems to me the Islamic faith is being proven wrong over and over again."

WA -- while I appreciate your views, and trust they are sincere, I simply cannot accept the contention that "Islamic people have no value in human life," nor the claim that "Israelies are smart . . . ." It just goes against my deep rooted belief that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, two of which are the preternatural instinct to survive (hence the adage "self preservation is the first law of nature") and the desire to understand the relationship between cause and effect (hence the call to exploration and experimentation heeded by human beings from all corners since the beginning of time). 

The sort of absolutism found in your comments -- Israelis smart, muslims dumb -- is not only arrogant and demeaning, but it is just not the product of objective reason; nor can it be something you genuinely believe deep down, because it would imply that one group is always right, because they're smart, while the other is always wrong, because they're not smart. Surely, you cannot believe this. 

Truth is, you sound too personally/emotionally invested in the Israeli cause to add much to an objective discussion. And, again, while I can appreciate that, for my purposes -- i.e., to gain clarity and genuine understanding -- it is not helpful.

Another example of how language subtly shades perception, tonight's NBC newscast referrred to Israel's "pounding of Hezbollah militants." First, the term "pounding" is a manly term that suggests a legitimate act of aggression. Whenever we hear of one guy/team pounding another, we infer that the guy/team doing the pounding is doing what he/it is required to do, is acting justly, and is winning; and, as we all know, the whole world loves a winner. Consequently, our support and allegiance slowly drift toward the pounder, consistent with our belief in Darwin's
survival of the fittest. 

Second, the term "militants" has always been used as a negative connotation to condition the populace to accept violence against the militant group. (The terms "guerillas" and "insurgents" have the same purpose.) Thus, NBC's newscast clearly telegraphed a pro-Israel good-guy bad-guy dynamic in that short summary. Not helpful, and gets in the way of truth.

A more objective presentation would have been "Israel continued to bomb Lebanon today." That's all I need on this story, and leaves up to me to determine whether I think that was a good or bad thing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs, your the one that wrote "Most journalists are idealists." Look at Reagan- he gave the newsmedia an opportunity to be honest and they blew it. Look at Jerry Falwell and what the newsmedia did to him 20-25 years ago - Jerry Falwell wouldn't even know how to think like what the newsmedia said about him, much more say or write what they said he said and wrote. One lie after another. Some quotes are totally false or taken so far out of context. They even attacked Clinton. So it is fame for the writer and money for the media owners, too often. Somethings that Journalist have written are wilder than Alice in Wonderland- they just totally made things up. Like Danny Rather, he thought he could get away with it- there is no end in sight. If engineers wrote the news and the people didn't fall asleep reading or listening they would probably get what really happened.

In the paper today one of the headlines was anti-America- Why? I don't want to be like the Europeans nor anywhere else. Millions of people come to America, because we are unique. People become citizens of Europe and Canada just hopeing that it will make it easier to become an American citizen. So why was the headline written as though we ought to be like Europeans, Canadians, or somewhere else. That writer of that headline does not belong in the USA, nor a citizen of the USA, and he is a AP writer- the person is an embrassment to this country- that person is also a leftist person.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> They even attacked Clinton.


This is the only thing in your rant that I can agree with. Of course we did. It's our job to question the decisions and actions of the people in power, and of course they and their most rabid supporters aren't going to like it. And I know that we are equally hard on liberals and conservatives.

About a year ago, conservatives were complaining about my newspaper's "liberal slant" on the opinion pages. Our editorial page editor tallied all of the paper's endorsements over the past 10 years -- this in a decidedly and traditionally blue state -- and found we had endorsed almost as many Republicans as Democrats. Did this make the complaining conservatives shut up? Of course not. Because unless everything is exactly the way they want, all the time, they are going to cry "bias." This is why it's hard to take them seriously -- they cry wolf far too often.

People like you who offer only generalities, be they liberal or conservative, are simply white noise. We learn to tune you out because you offer nothing of substance, only your opinion. When people offer specifics, then we are more inclined to listen. It's like if I walked into a clothing store in a rage and said their products sucked. Well, unless I have a specific complaint and enough proof that the store manager can't disagree, they're going to say I'm welcome to shop elsewhere. There are plenty of rational people who are good customers, they need not cater to every person who just wants to make a fuss over nothing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Just my $.02 but I think this thread is winding down. CRS tells us through his 30 years as a journalists that they are constantly wrestling late into the night on fairness and ethics, that they are in fact more principled than any other profession he can think of, and that there is no political favoritism....except by those nasty people at FNC and talk radio. Except for a few left wingers, all here seem to at least question the unbiased nature of these observations.

We thank you for your insights as a journalist of 30 years or more crs, but I must respectfully tell you I feel you might be too close to the issue as evidenced by your over reaction to any comment that is even remotely challenging to your position on journalists. No, I have never been a journalist, nor do I know any professional journalists. I will however stipulate you are correct concerning all your points on journalists though, if you will stipulate that forever what I have to say about my line of work is true. Deal?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> if you will stipulate that forever what I have to say about my line of work is true.


As a human I'd be inclined to believe you about your line of work. However, in my business it's considered shoddy to have a "one-source story" -- that is, no matter how credible the source might be, we seek others of the same level of expertise to agree or dispute.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> As a human I'd be inclined to believe you about your line of work. However, in my business it's considered shoddy to have a "one-source story" -- that is, no matter how credible the source might be, we seek others of the same level of expertise to agree or dispute.


So then, we would be committing shoddy thinking if we did indeed accept your word as our sole basis? According to the above, even though you continually ask people if they have worked in journalism, implying "who are we to question?" you would yourself not accept this in another person regarding their line of work. Yet you fail to apply this standard to yourself and your field? I think I must again, respectfully, suggest you might be too close to this topic. In fact, one would almost say you seem biased....

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, we would be committing shoddy thinking if we did indeed accept your word as our sole basis? According to the above, even though you continually ask people if they have worked in journalism, implying "who are we to question?" you would yourself not accept this in another person regarding their line of work. Yet you fail to apply this standard to yourself and your field? I think I must again, respectfully, suggest you might be too close to this topic. In fact, one would almost say you seem biased....
> 
> Warmest regards


I wrote that "we seek others of same level of expertise"
-- which is something you admit you have not done. Thus, mine is the only qualified opinion you have heard and you have no reason at this point to dismiss it. Now if you found three or four experienced, working newspaper journalists -- not pundits -- who contradict me, then you might have cause to doubt me. Otherwise, you are operating only on your own preconceptions and layman observations if you dismiss what I have to say about my line of work.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I wrote that "we seek others of same level of expertise"
> -- which is something you admit you have not done. Thus, mine is the only qualified opinion you have heard and you have no reason at this point to dismiss it. Now if you found three or four experienced, working newspaper journalists -- not pundits -- who contradict me, then you might have cause to doubt me. Otherwise, you are operating only on your own preconceptions and layman observations if you dismiss what I have to say about my line of work.


Now you are splitting hairs. Step one would be to not accept blindly. Step two would be to seek other sources. So since this is an internet web-board that I really just waste time on a diversion, I am just going to go as far as step one and not accept you in an unquestioning manner. If other professional journalists should happen along, that would be fine. However, I think I have made my point, with some help from you albiet, rather well 

Warmest regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Now you are splitting hairs. Step one would be to not accept blindly. Step two would be to seek other sources. So since this is an internet web-board that I really just waste time on a diversion, I am just going to go as far as step one and not accept you in an unquestioning manner. If other professional journalists should happen along, that would be fine. However, I think I have made my point, with some help from you albiet, rather well
> 
> Warmest regards


Well, actually there is only one other poster on this thread who says he has done work for news organizations and he seems to agree with me.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

crs- "People like you who offer only generalities, be they liberal or conservative, are simply white noise. We learn to tune you out because you offer nothing of substance, only your opinion. When people offer specifics, then we are more inclined to listen. It's like if I walked into a clothing store in a rage and said their products sucked. Well, unless I have a specific complaint and enough proof that the store manager can't disagree, they're going to say I'm welcome to shop elsewhere. There are plenty of rational people who are good customers, they need not cater to every person who just wants to make a fuss over nothing."

Judge not, for you do the same thing. In fact, sometimes what you judge others to do what they don't, but you do.

I don't want to take the time to write out the details, which would take a large book, so it wouldn't be generalities. People on the right have legitimate complaints and you made it very clear that you are not going to budge. And that lying is a good thing, because if your honest then you have to write what you don't want and it looks like your not willing to do that. I dont' like scams. The truth may hurt, but it hurts a whole lot less than a lie. There is no way to reason with a liar is there? Because lying is a vice, and they will never tell the truth about that, will they? If they can't admit there weekness, then how can they get strong? A good reporter loves to the truth.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I've worked as a journalist for 15 years and can second what crs has said about those editorial meetings. Personally, I've had to cover some people and events that went against my own political or spiritual beliefs. But I'm proud to say I was able to get the story done professionally and fairly, and have had others (or different political stripe) conclude as much.



crs said:


> Well, actually there is only one other poster on this thread who says he has done work for news organizations and he seems to agree with me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I've worked as a journalist for 15 years and can second what crs has said about those editorial meetings. Personally, I've had to cover some people and events that went against my own political or spiritual beliefs. But I'm proud to say I was able to get the story done professionally and fairly, and have had others (or different political stripe) conclude as much.


And you are both most assuredly liberal...and it seems to me it has been stated by those in journalism on this thread that the media is not made up mainly of liberals. While two data points is very small, the data we have says the media is 100% liberal. And the professional journalists here trash FNC and talk radio folk such as Limbaugh but we are told, "Oh, our guys though...and me...well we keep our bias out."

I freely admit I do not personally know any professional journalists other than a channel manager for CBC in Canada and that I might well be wrong in thinking the mainstream media has a liberal bias. However, given all the opinions posted by our two professional journalists here, I will say it stretches my credulity to believe that

a) FNC biased 
b) Limbaugh biased 
c) surveys showing MSM is populated largely by liberals is wrong 
d) that our guys (and myself) get things done unbiasedly
e) journalists are one of the most ethical groups of people around (except for those in a and b above of course!)

Alll those points were made in this thread by our two professional journalists. Sorry Bertie and crs, I maintain my stance you two are too close to the issue for me to accept you as unbiased.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Just for you, Wayfarer, I would ask some of my conservative colleagues to post here. Unfortunately, they do not dress well enough.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

LARon said:


> WA -- while I appreciate your views, and trust they are sincere, I simply cannot accept the contention that "Islamic people have no value in human life," nor the claim that "Israelies are smart . . . ." It just goes against my deep rooted belief that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, two of which are the preternatural instinct to survive (hence the adage "self preservation is the first law of nature") and the desire to understand the relationship between cause and effect (hence the call to exploration and experimentation heeded by human beings from all corners since the beginning of time).


We are all created equal however how we are created and how we live our lives are two different things. We are equal in the eyes of God however we are unequal in our talents, abilities, fortunes and other aspects of life. I'm pretty sure I'm on firm footing here because this is what Aquinas would have said. As for Islamic people not valuing life.......just examine the evidence. Suicide bombers, using human shields, sentencing people to death for converting from Islam to another religion. In 2002 Saudi religious police allowed 15 girls to die in a burning schoolhouse. Why? They would not allow the students to leave because they were improperly dressed (no head scarves and robes). The police actually beat the girls back with sticks. They perished in the fire for want of a few dollars worth of fabric. The Taliban was well known for publicly hanging people in a soccer stadium if they listened to music, danced, flew kites and a host of other "mortal sins."

The typical liberal response to this (not implying you are one) is that, "well their culture is different from ours and we have to respect that." Poppycock!! That is absolute nonsense and implies a degree of moral laziness on the part of those who believe that. Just because something is considered a cultural norm somewhere else does not imply any legitimacy. It is simply a reflection of backwardness. We must be steadfast in the belief that as imperfect as our society can be at times that the above behaviors are not part of civilized society and must have the courage to press that upon people.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Alll those points were made in this thread by our two professional journalists. Sorry Bertie and crs, I maintain my stance you two are too close to the issue for me to accept you as unbiased.[/QUOTE]

I just don't know what I'm going to do then.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > Alll those points were made in this thread by our two professional journalists. Sorry Bertie and crs, I maintain my stance you two are too close to the issue for me to accept you as unbiased.
> ...


Maybe just take the high road and admit I rhetorically nailed yer hide to a wall?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

So if we're too close to the subject (read: experienced professionals working in the field each day), who would be in a better position to assess the media marketplace in your view?

Who evaluates your personal physician's abilities? A sous chef? Or other medical professionals?



Wayfarer said:


> Maybe just take the high road and admit I rhetorically nailed yer hide to a wall?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> So if we're too close to the subject (read: experienced professionals working in the field each day), who would be in a better position to assess the media marketplace in your view?


I am trying to politely say that I find it highly specious that I am to believe every outlet not liked by our professional journalists here are right wing biased and/or hacks but that every outlet they endorse are fair, balanced, professional and highly ethical. IRL, I usually find that when someone presents the members of one group, that they dislike or oppose, as having all negative attributes but the group they belong to has all positive attributes, that a little selectivity might be occurring. However, I am just that cynical.



BertieW said:


> Who evaluates your personal physician's abilities? A sous chef? Or other medical professionals?


I evaluate that person's abilities myself.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I am trying to politely say that I find it highly specious that I am to believe every outlet not liked by our professional journalists here are right wing biased and/or hacks but that every outlet they endorse are fair, balanced, professional and highly ethical. IRL, I usually find that when someone presents the members of one group, that they dislike or oppose, as having all negative attributes but the group they belong to has all positive attributes, that a little selectivity might be occurring. However, I am just that cynical.


How do you know what outlets I personally don't like? I don't believe I've stated this with any detail? I read several conservative periodicals regularly as well as several progressive (not far-left) publications. I admit I don't listen to much talk radio...of any stripe. I don't think you have any frame of reference to truly assess the media I would endorse. Certainly not the diversity of media I routinely consider.



Wayfarer said:


> I evaluate that person's abilities myself.


So you're a doctor yourself, affording you a professional frame of reference? Or is the test simply warming the stethoscope before using it?

I can understand how any of us could determine whether we found a doctor friendly (stunning bedside manner, etc.), but it doesn't follow that this alone could allow us to assess that person's medical abilities.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> So you're a doctor yourself, affording you a professional frame of reference? Or is the test simply warming the stethoscope before using it?
> 
> I can understand how any of us could determine whether we found a doctor friendly (stunning bedside manner, etc.), but it doesn't follow that this alone could allow us to assess that person's medical abilities.


One needs to be a doctor to have an intelligent assessment of whether or not they are a good practitioner? One needs MD behind their name? Incoming _ad hoc_ I am sure. I will assume your snide remarks were said in attempts at humour.

Also, this is veering well away from the point at hand, but veer away, it is bound to be amusing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:
 

> How do you know what outlets I personally don't like? I don't believe I've stated this with any detail? I read several conservative periodicals regularly as well as several progressive (not far-left) publications. I admit I don't listen to much talk radio...of any stripe. I don't think you have any frame of reference to truly assess the media I would endorse. Certainly not the diversity of media I routinely consider.


CRS has given us such insight. I am finding you two interchangable and backing what the other says unconditionally, so sorry if I erred.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm interchangeable with no one, man!

;-)

Now stop sucking up those fumes from Speedway Blvd.

j/k



Wayfarer said:


> CRS has given us such insight. I am finding you two interchangable and backing what the other says unconditionally, so sorry if I erred.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes, imo, professional credentials, experience and insights matter a great deal in such assessments.

But I'm in a PPO.



Wayfarer said:


> One needs to be a doctor to have an intelligent assessment of whether or not they are a good practitioner? One needs MD behind their name? Incoming _ad hoc_ I am sure. I will assume your snide remarks were said in attempts at humour.
> 
> Also, this is veering well away from the point at hand, but veer away, it is bound to be amusing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So then advance practice nurses with graduate degrees could not intelligently assess? PTs, OTs, PAs? People with graduate degrees in biology, public health? Just plain smart people that read alot?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

All these classes of people you cite would have some professional perspective. Me, I'd prefer assessment by an organization of MDs or nurses.

But then I read a lot.

The point is, I respect (not worship) the opinions of those trained in a particular field. Yes, "experts" can get things wrong too, but I'll take those odds most days.



Wayfarer said:


> So then advance practice nurses with graduate degrees could not intelligently assess? PTs, OTs, PAs? People with graduate degrees in biology, public health? Just plain smart people that read alot?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> All these classes of people you cite would have some professional perspective. Me, I'd prefer assessment by an organization of MDs or nurses.
> 
> But then I read a lot.


You have expanded the class now from just MDs, your original class. Ad hoc rescue as predicted.

Anyways, I think we are probably boring people by now, I know I am boring myself. I will just end this and declare you correct Bertie and crs, I was totally off base.

Warmest regards


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Aw hell, there's more that unites us than divides us.

But for the record, my response stipulated "professional credentials, experience and insights" so I dispute the ad hoc rescue contention.

Anyway, this raving leftist is running late for...a hedge fund conference. Yup.

Cheers.



Wayfarer said:



> You have expanded the class now from just MDs, your original class. Ad hoc rescue as predicted.
> 
> Anyways, I think we are probably boring people by now, I know I am boring myself. I will just end this and declare you correct Bertie and crs, I was totally off base.
> 
> Warmest regards


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

I have not read all the posts here,
nor will I.
I try to stay out of the interchange as much as possible!

That being said,

The facts around much of this debate are:

1)

Reuters' biggest fault was being so desperate to hire local freelancers on the ground they did not scrutinize these hires close enough, nor did they scrutinize their work enough given their loose relationship to the agency.

This policy has played against them (and others in other conflicts too) on both sides of the dispute. Too much, too fast.

Any decent media organization will fire, on the spot, for any such actions.


2)

The vast majority of the public have NO IDEA how a newsroom works,
and that includes much of what I read here!

3)

The vast majority of the public get upset when the media does not publish
"what they were told to publish" by the public or the spin doctors! 
Most expect their views to be taken as the holy grail and published without scrutiny or opposing view points and get abusively angry where their will is not granted or the opposing view is given any ink.

Balanced journalism requires both sides of the story.
And as the old lawyer's divorce saying goes:

There are three side to every story,
His
Her's
and the truth

4)

Too many news outlets have allowed public opinion to shape the news.
This is a very slippery slope that has contributed greatly to the demise of respectable news.

5)

Profit hungry owners have stripped most shops of the man power needed to deliver truly great journalism day after day. 
This is a very expensive project if done well.
A pathetic state of affairs.

This has helped lead us to a state where there are too many young journalist who did not mentor with great journalist and have close to no clue!

Opinions of the writers have no place in journalism outside the op-ed or editorial pages and yet, at times, one can feel that they woven them into the story.
With more staff and better copy editors, this would happen far less.

Quite frankly,
I think a terrible job was done by just about all sides of this story,
I saw far too much from both sides of the border that looked to be 
"spoon fed photo opportunities" and too many who were too quick to lap it up.

The whole idea behind "imbedded journalists" has been taken way too far!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Aw hell, there's more that unites us than divides us.


For the record, I actually believe this. I think most people, no matter their political spectrum, want basically the same thing for society, i.e. a healthy, happy, prosperous society. It is just there is great divergence on how to achieve those goals.



BertieW said:


> But for the record, my response stipulated "professional credentials, experience and insights" so I dispute the ad hoc rescue contention.


Sorry to quibble, but your initial class assignment went something like this, "So you are a doctor....?" So I will grant you expanding from MD to also include DO


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

BertieW said:


> I've worked as a journalist for 15 years and can second what crs has said about those editorial meetings. Personally, I've had to cover some people and events that went against my own political or spiritual beliefs. But I'm proud to say I was able to get the story done professionally and fairly, and have had others (or different political stripe) conclude as much.


I'm sure you did. I was also a journalist for many years (not working in this field at the moment) and of course people have personal points of view which may differ from those we cover. (As probably the only American at the BBC who voted Republican, I can attest that not a single person in my newsroom the day after the 2004 election was pleased. I'm surprised they weren't jumping out of windows.) You wouldn't know that from reading the coverage on the website, however.

The challenge is to present an issue or event fairly and to give both sides equal standing. It's not actually rocket science to report things fairly. You just report what both sides say and let the audience make up their own minds. The stakes are quite high for journalists, because if there is no trust from the public, there is nothing.

I think the problem is that different cultures have different ideas of what is an obvious truth and what is an opinion.

For example, in Europe, there is a long-established social welfare state which most people seem to be pretty happy with. So those who promote a US-style form of laissez-faire capitalism with less of a social umbrella are seen as "extreme", but the opposite is true in the US. So European domestic coverage, or coverage of a US domestic policy by people like Gary Younge at the Guardian, is filtered through the predilections of the people to whom they are presenting the news.

Something that is obviously objectively true to Michael Moore is the opposite to Rush Limbaugh. But they are not presenting news, they are presenting news through the filter of a certain viewpoint.

But back to news, to many people who support Israel, because they think the Palestinians are a bunch of uncivilized rock-throwers with no claim to any land, giving them equal time as players in coverage of the Palestinian/Israeli dispute is being biased. Ditto for people who support Palestinians, who think Israel is a US-financed state bully who kills civilians. To each audience, there is "truth" as they see it, so the exact same news piece with equal treatment of each side can be seen as biased, even when it is fair. ("How can you objectively report what those rock-throwing Palestinians think without mentioning that they blow up pizza joints?!!") and all that.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Good to see you back, VS. Always enjoy reading you!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Being at events from the beginning to end and see the reporter coming and then reading the fairytale the next day in the paper about the event doesn't make "I don't know what goes on in the "professional" backrooms of the media". Fairytale is not truth, nor intent of truth. Which brings up another question- Are the people who are drawn to write the media ever not in a fantasy land? There is another problem with the liberal media, they are so brainwashed by there own lies that there is no way they can even write no biased- if you don't know what the other side believes, then how can you write there side? All the back room "how it works" "profession doesn't work, because it couldn't be professional anymore.

"Michael Moore is the opposite to Rush Limbaugh" Not so. At lest it wasn't so. Long before I ever heard of Rush Limbaugh, which was before his voice became public wide scale I watch scam after scam after scam the democrates and there media, which was just about all media lie so that the general population had no idea what republicians believed. What Rush Limbaugh did was pull the wool away from the publics eyes. It was reinforced by people being able to watch the truth on C-Span and the liberals hate being showed out and they can't get away with what they did in the past. The liberals proved they can not be trusted.

Something about Europe- Have they ever had personal freedom? The peope over there were owned by the kingdoms, now there owned by each other. In the USA the republicians still believe in personal freedom. The democrates do not.

zegnamtl- you, a photographer, which are not cut from the same cloth as writers. A visual artist is way different than a word artist. It is like comparing oranges to elephants. Comparing a painter to a photographer would be like comparing apples to oranges. Working with writers as you do - you may not see much difference, but if you step back like a painter from his painting to see how things are going you would see the differences.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

WA,

I spent from the early hours until late today on a domestic situation turned gruesome murder then suicide attempt.

As I watch the journalists, the difference from writer to fotog to TV star talking head and TV cameraman are huge, you are very correct.
Journalism is in a sad state, but the public's comprehension (edit- and demands) of the workings of the media is too.

I was referring to the original question by Yellman, about the pictures.
I do not believe Reuters sent those local freelancers out with a mandate (edit-to be anti-Israel),
but those shooters who did what they did, should never work again,
they have violated the very corner stone of photojournalism.
Every decent fotog has to climb from the shadow of the hole these very very few put us in.

Israel micro managed what the media was given access to.
Hezbolllah macro managed what the media was given access to.
Most of the public will never know the real truth about much of what went on.

In the end,
let us just hope that peace, whether forced or desired, may last.
Life is too good, and too short,
to spend it in a bomb shelter,
a blown up home of rubble,
or in a grave!


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Isreal and the world...*



zegnamtl said:


> In the end, let us just hope that peace, whether forced or desired, may last.
> 
> *Life is too good, and too short,*
> *to spend it in a bomb shelter,*
> ...


This reminds me of where I was born!!!:devil:


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

My opinion of journalism changed when (1) the institutions I've been involved with began to offer classes such as "journalism as activism"; and (2) people I know became "newsworthy". What I read about them in the newspaper bore little connection with what I knew to be reality, but always served the purpose of the writer pretty well. 

If I KNOW that this is true when I know the situation, how can I possibly assume that they provide objective truth when I don't know the situation. 

Of course, I could add that universities don't actually believe in "objective truth" anymore except when they claim to provide it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

P Hudson said:


> If I KNOW that this is true when I know the situation, how can I possibly assume that they provide objective truth when I don't know the situation.


So very true! Many situations in my careers have been in the newspapers, and often reported by journalists unable to correctly interpret what they've been told by witnesses, resulting in a report similar but different in vital details to the actual event.

And as you say, knowing and having experienced that, makes one wary or at least more questionning of all news reporting regardless of media. In the early 90s I did a short journalism course at, of all places, the Met Police College in Hendon. The idea being to tune officers into how news reports are compiled, how they work, and what effect they can have, and of course how to interview witnesses in a way that allows them to provide details in the clearest manner.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Interesting news about the press...*

Helen Thomas under fire

https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/06/helen-thomas-under-fire-for-comments-on-israeli-jews/


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*More history of Israel and Middle East...*



Chuck Franke said:


> This one does not surprise me, what surprises me is that they thought nobody would notice. It wasn't a good fake.


Very Interesting!!!

TimeLine of Israeli-Palestinian History and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

https://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm


----------

