Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23026)	4/1/2002 3:20:52 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know, Nadine, but somehow, I get the impression that you never call the legions of bloviating pundits you love to quote on Israel's behalf on stuff like that. I guess it's all cool as long as it cuts the right way, eh?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23026)	4/1/2002 7:10:44 PM
From: LLLefty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>>No Terror in Reuterville<<<<< Reuters has tied itself in knots since banning "terror" and "terrrorism" from its file unless used as part of a quote. It considers "terror" as an emotive word. One could wonder if having described the WTC attack as the work of "Islamic activists," it might have lessened our anger. While I don't see much of Reuters, I do have some problems in general with the reporting of the NY Times and Wash Post from the ME, as well as a few other qualms. I might as well dump them on the Forum now. 1. Interpretation and analysis is now blended into reporting of an event. Often, in fact, rather than providing important detail or burying it deep in his story, the reporter uses it as a peg to give us the benefit of what it all means--in his view. The reason isn't hard to understand. With TV, radio and the internet, readers don't wait for the morning paper to know what happened the past 24 hours. The print media is in something of transition, trying to find relevancy--"news you can use'--with a generation that doesn't see much need to read a newsaper. 2. More important in your area of interest is the quality and fairness of reporting from the Middle East. It is difficult story to cover; there is an asymmetry, for example, in matters of access; language barriers and safety. --Israel is totally open society and no one, really, fears going to jail for popping off against the government, any government--and that includes Israel Arab members of the Knesset and, of course, the foreign press. Read a dozen Isreli columnists and you'll get a dozen opinions on why things are going badly (they always are) and what should be done. The Palestinian side is the opposite; whether by fear or conviction, it knows the drill. A reporter would have to dig hard to find someone willing to be quoted as opposing the line. Note the lynching of six "collaborators" yesterday. One would think there is a story in that beyond a paragraph of reporting since it happens periodically. Will there be a followup? Were there any photos? It's a risky one to dig into but might provide as significant an insight into the mindset at work as did a long Post piece, yet again, on the young girl suicide bomber quoting her proud parents and a Palestinian psychiatrist with the same boilerplate; just fill in the new name in the blank spaces. Some of the best work on suicide bombers is being done right here in the US--and I tend to think it's a bit more objective. --That leads me to the language barrier. I would venture that few, if any, Post for Times reporters speak enough Arabic to cover a story in the West Bank or Gaza without a Palestinian local hire at their side; that is, if they go at all unless it's with a group for safety. Moreover, in all probability, they depend on their local hires to cover the every-day stories that stem from the West Bank or Gaza. --In fairness to the press, it can be unhealty. Few reporters, remarkably, have been injured, even fewer photographers; they are really the fearless men of journalism. But I have a belif that most of the photographers are Palestinians who are not about to get into trouble with the home team. I may have noted this before, but one that underscored the danger was the quick escape and flight out of the area by an AFP photograher for a picture of Palestinians exposing his bloody hands after slitting the throats of two Israelis; mos of his film was confiscated. No wonder you don't see many pics of dancing Palestinians after suicide bombings anymore. Remember the fuss made last year over a dancing video made in the West Bank after the WTC calumny. No one wanted to take credit for it, just as the name of the AFP photogrpher was given as "anonymous" when submitted for a Pulitzer Prize. --Just one more note. I have yet to see a behind-the-scenes look at how the press covers the Middle East. There is little transparency--"word of the month"--and it might be helpful if, as with the Administration's energy policy, we knew more about how they go about their trade.