web analytics
July 29, 2014 / 2 Av, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 

Posts Tagged ‘the media’

No Country for Old Incumbents

Monday, June 4th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/no-country-for-old-incumbents.html

A storm is not a good time to be at the wheel of a ship and a worldwide economic disaster is not a good time to be at the wheel of the ship of state. Hard times are supposed to bring great men to the fore, but instead we have some of the sorriest men in history trying to find the wheel, sleeping off a bender in their cabins or debating whether a wheel even exists.

Obama is bad, but he’s not exactly up against rival statesmen. After parading around with a one-man cult of personality, launching international projects with no purpose, and displaying all the symptoms of a Napoleon complex, without a world famous conqueror in sight, Sarkozy’s only reelection platform was that the alternative to him would be worse. He was right. But you can hardly blame quite a few Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who stayed home, rather than hold their noses and vote for him.

In the UK, Cameron cut the military and launched a war. Labour’s career idiot, Ed Milband, now has a higher approval rating than the Prime Minister. Cameron has the same reelection platform as Sarkozy and he’s also right, but that won’t help him when the public gets the chance to cast their vote. And the vote will be the international refrain, translated many ways in many languages, but that always means, “Throw out the bums.”

Russia has become a virtual armed camp for the sole purpose of keeping Putin in power. The man who successfully set up his own Stalinesque cult of personality, now has to use extraordinary measures to protect himself from his own people, who don’t care so much that he stole the election, but who are sick and tired of the spectacle of Vladimir and his ten-thousand good friends from the Committee for State Security, better known by three ominous letters, gorging themselves on the best things in life while everyone else suffers.

China’s rulers should be paying careful attention to Moscow. If the express train of Western exports ever falters, what they will face will make Tiananmen Square look like a fond memory. The Princes of the PRC won’t be up against a bunch of idealistic students, but the farmers whose land they stole, the workers whose children they killed and that rising middle-class which tasted prosperity only to have it snatched away. If that day comes, they won’t be stopped by tanks, and the army may just take their side.

The American media has become virtually indistinguishable from the Russian and Chinese media in its hysterical support for the regime and vindictive smears of opponents. The only difference between Newsweek, Pravda and Xinhua is their level of sophistication. Pravda and Xinhua have never been anything more than vulgar organs of the regime, but the American media is descending into savagery while leaving behind a legacy of civilization. Like a citizen turned cannibal, it still has some of the cultural trappings of its past, but it’s discarding them as quickly as Newsweek can photoshop new covers. Like the Russian media, the favorite topic of its American counterparts is the inscrutable divinity of its leader, who has not so much failed, as succeeded on a higher level that mere mortals – concerned with paying their bills and having a job – are not privy to. If he has failed, it’s only because of the obstructionism of the running dog Republican capitalists who would rather see the country burn than concede his unearthly genius.

The problem with propagandists is that they get so taken in by their own illusion of power, that they stop noticing when no one is paying attention to them. Barely a quarter of the country digested and accepted the swill that the media had poured out over it in ’07 and ’08. What the public noticed was that there seemed to be a consensus that the One was the one. They didn’t notice it by reading every screed that the American heirs to Goebbels were scribbling up at Time and the New York Times. Like a television that is on in the room, while you’re vacuuming or doing laundry, they noticed it mainly as background noise in their lives.

Back In The Tank For Obama

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

A good portion of the reliably liberal mainstream media had soured on Barack Obama once his historic 2008 ascension to the presidency gave way to a mostly lackluster performance when he actually moved into the White House.

But with the 2012 presidential election just over five months away, liberal journalists are showing every sign of awakening from their three-year stupor, going all out to discredit Mitt Romney – even to the point of dredging up a nearly 50-year-old high school incident – while loudly decrying a proposed ad campaign by conservative operatives to remind citizens of Obama’s longtime ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

If it seems like you’ve seen this movie before it’s because the media ran similar interference for Obama in 2008 when Wright’s invective-laden anti-U.S. and anti-Israel sermons became public knowledge and candidate Obama cast about for a credible explanation as to why he was Wright’s longtime parishioner and why he apparently held the cleric in such high esteem that the Obamas had him preside at their wedding and baptize their children.

Once the mainstream media – finally, belatedly, after stories of Wright’s racist, anti-American worldview had been circulating for at least a year and only when videos showing Wright in all his vicious glory began to surface on the Internet – were forced to confront the possibility that the Illinois messiah might have some serious explaining to do, Obama realized his disclaimers and rationalizations concerning Wright weren’t enough.

Obama now desperately needed to convincingly distance himself from the Afrocentric radical who’d bestowed an award on Louis Farrakhan and whom Obama had, only weeks earlier, likened to a beloved “old uncle.”

As the liberal writer Gerald Posner acknowledged, Obama’s prevarications just didn’t ring true and were rife with internal contradictions.

“If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright’s post-9/11 comments,” Posner wrote, “then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there…and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright’s views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright’s vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack – a sitting Illinois state senator – would have been one of the first to hear about it.”

So Obama gave a flowery speech on race relations in America, and did anyone doubt the media would swoon over whatever came out of his mouth? Liberals had too much invested in the storyline of a post-racial, biracial healer whose mission it was to set our national house in order after the unspeakable depredations of the George W. Bush years.

Hearts racing, pundits and editorial writers competed with each other in the prostration sweepstakes. (Lost in all the sticky-sweet commentary was the stark fact that Obama only gave the speech because his previous equivocations would wash no more. Obama’s ability to deliver a sweet speech was never in doubt; his judgment and honesty were, and on those counts he hardly acquitted himself with honor.)

“Profile in courage,” gushed The New York Times.

“Clear, nuanced and brilliantly honest,” trilled journalism professor James Klurfeld in Newsday.

“An extraordinary moment of truth-telling,” gasped the Washington Post. “One of the most impressive presidential candidates in years,” cheered political science professor Alan Wolfe in The New Republic.

“Perhaps the most thoughtful and sophisticated oration on race ever delivered by an American politician,” marveled New York Observer reporter Steve Kornacki.

“This searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime,” sobbed blogger and magazine writer Andrew Sullivan.

Well, it’s 2008 all over again. Look for much more of this over the next few months as liberal journalists and pundits do whatever they feel needs doing to grease Obama’s path to reelection.

Beware: Feiglinism Poised To Bring Peace

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

This is how it works: A minister or MK who steps out of line – opposing the destruction of the Ulpana neighborhood, for example – is immediately accused of “Feiglinism.” It makes no difference if the accuser is Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak. “This is simply terrible,” Kadima MK Nachman Shai explained on the afternoon news. “Feiglin determines the fate of the Likud MKs.”

Feiglin has become a code word for illegitimacy. When someone is accused of Feiglinism, the accuser no longer has to logically argue his point. “Beware,” said Defense Minister Barak to Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon, “if you continue to promote this view, you will be field-marshaled by the Politically Correct Patrol.”

Is the balloon that the media inflate around Manhigut Yehudit real? Do we really determine political fate? What is the real influence of Manhigut Yehudit and of other ideological factions in the Likud?

There is no doubt that all of these factions exert influence. But that influence is far less than what the media attribute to them. True, there will be borderline candidates whose fates will be determined by our votes. But essentially, we are no different than any other voter or voting group in the Likud.

Countless groups, large and small, organize and coordinate their votes. This is the situation in almost every Likud branch. Approximately half of the Likud voters are part of an organized group. According to the numbers, Manhigut Yehudit is certainly an important influence within the Likud, but not as great as portrayed by the media. A diligent and capable MK will be able to get himself elected with or without Manhigut Yehudit.

But, unlike essence, numbers are not the whole picture. Livni, Barak and all the other Feiglinism alarmists are painfully aware that there is a real alternative growing in the Likud. The Likud is in power today because it is an authentic popular party with higher quality leaders. No other party has a leader who even nears the talent and experience of Benjamin Netanyahu.

On issues of essence, though, there is no real difference between the various major parties, not in foreign affairs and practically not in economics. With a bit of political savvy (social unrest plus a few media spins) the political opposition may actually manage to unseat the Likud and make Shaul Mofaz the new prime minister.

The person who is an essential threat to the Shimon Peres agenda that has been forced upon Israeli society since Oslo is none other than me. It is much more difficult to spin essence away. That is why they keep yelling about the contagious Feiglinism.

“What is your peace plan?” I was asked this week at a Likud meeting in rocket-weary Ashkelon.

“It is very simple,” I answered. “The Arabs will hear that Feiglin is prime minister, and there will be peace.”

That is not bragging; it is simply the truth. Today, we do not have peace because the Arabs have nobody with whom to make peace. The Arabs have caught on to our “just passing through” mentality, reflected by Israel’s leaders from all the parties. To make peace, you need a partner. Only the landowner can be a peace partner – and only if he is convinced and convincing that he has no intention of giving up his land. But if we are only passing through here, there is nobody with whom to make peace. If there is a problem with a guest, everybody just tries to hasten his departure.

Those who are truly committed to peace should do all they can to ensure that Feiglinism spreads far and wide.

Fauxtography: UN Employee Wages Media War Against Israel

Monday, March 12th, 2012

Since Friday afternoon, Israel has been targeted by over 150 rockets from Gaza. The Iron Dome anti-rocket system has been working well at about a 90% hit-rate, which has kept serious rocket strikes to a minimum.

The Palestinians have been waging the war through their most effective weapon they have — lying, and using the media to spread their lies. Fake Imagery is one of their fortes.

So…Palestinians have been using this photo everywhere on facebook and twitter to accuse Israel of “war atrocities”

The photo is from 2006, and the girl died in an accident!

So who started the campaign to smear Israel? Honest Reporting has the scoop:

Our guest post from the IDF revealed how a photo, allegedly depicting the results of Israeli air strikes in Gaza in recent days, have been proven false.

The offending photo was originally tweeted by Khulood Badawi.

Khulood Badawi happens to work for the OCHA – the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs where, according to a UN Contact List, she works as an Information and Media Coordinator.

A Google search reveals that Badawi has a history of activism in a range of pro-Palestinian non-governmental organizations, some of them radical and politicized. While this background may not in itself disqualify her from a career with the UN, it is absolutely unacceptable that a UN employee working specifically on dissemination of information to the media and public tweets malicious and false information to libel Israel.

Read it all at Honest Reporting.

More examples of Palestinian Fauxtography at the IDF Spokesman’s Blog.

PS: Want full time war coverage? Let me know in the comments…

Ten Years Ago This Week: An Icon Exposed

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

It was one of those stories that forever change the way an important public figure is perceived. Ten years ago this week, among a newly released batch of Nixon-era White House tapes, came the disturbing revelation that the Reverend Billy Graham, while at the height of his fame and influence, had uttered anti-Semitic slurs and stereotypes during a Feb. 1, 1972 Oval Office meeting with an all-too-pleased Richard Nixon.

Though he claimed to “have no memory of the occasion,” an apology was immediately issued by an increasingly frail 83-year-old Graham (whose health has continued to decline over the past decade).

It was the Chicago Tribune’s James Warren who first reported Graham’s remarks in great detail, and the tone of the story made it clear Warren recognized this was a story with major historical implications.

Warren’s in-depth treatment of the story was something of an anomaly in the first few days after the tape’s release, perhaps because Nixon’s penchant for engaging in racist and anti-Semitic slurs in private conversation was old news by 2002, eight years after the former president’s death. (Longtime readers of this column know the Monitor has decried the media double standard under which Nixon’s bigotry is endlessly dissected and critiqued while the no less shocking anti-Semitism of a Harry Truman is downplayed or ignored, but there’s no getting around the fact that Nixon was a deeply prejudiced man.)

But Billy Graham? Graham had for decades been one of America’s most admired figures, a national icon, a man respected across the board for his seeming sincerity, rock-solid faith and openness to working with those whose beliefs differ from his own. He was also a staunch friend of Israel and his organization had funded and produced “The Hiding Place,” a moving film about Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch evangelical Christian whose family had hidden many Jews from the Nazis.

But a different side of Graham emerged during the 90-minute White House meeting with Nixon. Graham was particularly exercised by what he saw as the “stranglehold” Jews maintained on the American media.

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” Graham intoned.

“You believe that?” asked Nixon.

“Yes, sir,” said Graham.

“Oh, boy,” Nixon responded. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.” “No,” Graham agreed, “but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something about it.”

The Graham-Nixon conversation had been alluded to in the diaries of Nixon aide H.R. Haldeman, but the damning details weren’t known until the actual transcript was released to the public.

Haldeman wrote that Graham and Nixon voiced strong concern about Jewish control of the media, and that “Graham has the strong feeling that the Bible says there are Satanic Jews and there’s where our problem arises.”

On the tape, the subject of Jews and the media comes up when Graham mentions that he’d been invited to lunch with Time magazine editors.

“You meet with all their editors, you better take your Jewish beanie,” Haldeman joked.

“Is that right?” Graham said, laughing. “I don’t know any of them now.”

Nixon then told Graham that he had heard from the executive producer of “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” a popular television program in the late sixties and early seventies, that “eleven of the twelve writers are Jewish.” Nixon also described Life, Newsweek, The New York Times and other leading news publications as being “totally dominated by the Jews.”

And, Nixon added, while network news anchors Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite were mere “front men who may not be of that persuasion,” their writers were “95 percent Jewish.”

“A lot of the Jews are great friends of mine,” said Graham a little later in the conversation. “They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know I am friendly to Israel and so forth. They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

To which Nixon responded, “You must not let them know.”

UN Security Council Condemns Attacks on Israeli Diplomats

Friday, February 24th, 2012

The Security Council statement, read to the media, “condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in New Delhi, India, aimed at Israel’s diplomatic personnel, which resulted in injuries to diplomatic personnel and civilians, and the recent attempted terrorist attack in Tbilisi, Georgia.”

The Council also “reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed.”

Yair Lapid: Israel ‘Belongs to The People of Israel And Not to Anyone Else’

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Yair Lapid, the media celebrity who recently announced his plans to enter politics, signaled on Facebook that he supported a united Jerusalem last Thursday.

“As a citizen, I can tell you Jerusalem is not just a place to me, but it’s my history and national ethos as well, and I think it belongs to the people of Israel and not to anyone else,” Lapid wrote.

Last month, Lapid also used Facebook to blast Kadima and Labor and dispel any speculation that he would join either party.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/yair-lapid-israel-belongs-to-the-people-of-israel-and-not-to-anyone-else/2012/02/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: