International Politics Debate

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:52 pm

I hate to bring this up but Israeli policy makes anything Arafat did look rather cute in comparison.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:18 pm

How about the phone call between Obama and the Iranian President? Five years too late but it is historic.

User avatar
Robert Nason
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:50 am
Location: New York City

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby Robert Nason » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:29 pm

FrankChurch wrote:I hate to bring this up but Israeli policy makes anything Arafat did look rather cute in comparison.

Yes, like when members of Arafat's PLO took control of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in 1985 and shot 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer in the forehead and chest and then threw him overboard, still seated in his wheelchair. Because he was an American Jew. A PLO spokesman later said that Klinghoffer's wife had committed the murder herself "for his insurance money."

Real cute.
"Thought is a strenuous art -- few practice it, and then only at rare times." - David Ben-Gurion

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FinderDoug » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:16 pm

You know my stance on journalism schools


Yes. And I know my experience obtaining a degree from one, which does not in any way resemble what you think happens in a journalism school.

Assumption is not fact. Experience is.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby Moderator » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

FrankChurch wrote:You know my stance on journalism schools, but I don't want to ire Barber. lol


LOL all you like,

Please elucidate, since I come from the USC School of Journalism.

Please, Frank, feed me with your knowledge of j-schools.

Tell me. In all seriousness. Edumacate me.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby Moderator » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:27 pm

FinderDoug wrote:
You know my stance on journalism schools


Assumption is not fact. Experience is.



Quite.

Frank...I'm waiting. Bestow your brilliance upon my soul.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:59 pm

My stance and the stance of the radical left is that journalism schools tend to train people how to think, not to be independent of power. Not saying you guys are like that but your disdain for the left is kind of odd. Aren't journalists supposed to be objective about all sides, especially sides you disagree with.

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FinderDoug » Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:28 pm

Where to begin...
1) I don't care what the radical left stance allegedly is; if you have an informed opinion, you don't need to cite who you agree with in an effort to lend gravitas. So own your stance.
2) what evidence informs your opinion?
3) if you are going to allege I have some far-reaching disdain for "the left" then you need to back up your claim with facts - not your interpretation of what I say or your inference based on my statements, but actual statements of fact.
4) that you believe there's any side of a story journalists should be "especially" objective towards is reflective of your opinion that journalists begin from a position of bias, which remains your opinion, and runs contrary to my experience.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:05 pm

I will give you one: how many journalists made the point that Israel funneled money to apartheid South Africa?

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FinderDoug » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:32 pm

You cannot give evidence in the form of a question. You tell me, Frank. Then cite who did so I can look at their work.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby Moderator » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:33 pm

Frank, two things in addition to what Doug notes above:

1 - What I post here is not how I would write an article. My disdain for the far (as you put it "radical") Left is the same as I have for the far ("radical") Right: they do not pay attention to the actual truth of a matter, they only pay attention to what will further their agenda. A decent journalist will report the facts and situation while leaving their personal politics out of it. This does not mean this is what always happens, but is, I think, how Doug and I would report on a thing if this were a news source. But it isn't.

We're every bit as biased as you are, and say so with as much frequency as you do. The difference is, I think, that we're coming from a much more centric point of view and insist that the story is not as black and white as you often paint it.

Which brings me to part 2:

2 - "how many journalists made the point that Israel funneled money to apartheid South Africa?" -- This is a very closed and specific question. I might also ask "how many journalists paid attention to our Pavilion friend Cindy's battle with her notorious boss a few years back. How many journalists paid attention to the jailing of dissidents in Venezuela during last years' "free" elections? Since apartheid collapsed in the mid-90s one can only glean you're pulling very old news stories to help demonstrate that "once upon a time, twenty years ago".

The simple point is that we could all come up with very specific examples of what we consider uncovered major news stories.

Your example is one of the broadsides I refer to when I say "provide details and evidence", not -- as Doug also notes -- asking vague and unrelated questions which have little relevance to the topic at hand.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Robert Nason
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:50 am
Location: New York City

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby Robert Nason » Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:47 pm

how many journalists made the point that Israel funneled money to apartheid South Africa?


I love the dark insinuation of the word "funneled."
"Thought is a strenuous art -- few practice it, and then only at rare times." - David Ben-Gurion

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:36 am

Dark insinuation is a good word, since giving money to a rather evil state subsets the term dark rather aptly.

-----------

Barber, it should have been all over the media you say reports important stories on a regular basis. It should be easy to find. Notice how it actually isn't easy to find.

As to a source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/f ... ica.israel

Israel is our leading friend in the world and South Africa was all over the news back in the day because of the world wide protests so that story would have or should have been bigger than Cindy's situation or some other such smaller issue.

What Venezuela did is minor in comparison, especially since the country that supported the illegal coup of Chavez has no room to grunt about corruption. A leading criminal state should never mention a think about a minor crime. Pot calling international kettle black indeed.

We could talk about Angola as well, but I meandered enough.

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FinderDoug » Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:41 pm

Frank -

Let me see if I've got this straight:

- An event happens, out of the public eye, in secret.
- At-the-time reportage covers aspects of the story as they develop.
- Twenty or more years later, an investigative reporter takes an interest and researches, interviews, and brings it into greater focus a detailed research piece on a subject.
- Your argument is that the media should then crawl all over the story that one reporter has extensively researched and broken, and that they too should report it and use resources to do more interviews and re-report what happened two decades or more prior.

How would that kind of "follow-the-leader" demonstrate any kind of journalistic independence?

You seem incensed that no one apparently talked about Israel and South Africa at the time things were happening real-time; take a look through the archive of the New York Times and tell me how often the discussion of Israel's relationship with South Africa came up back when it was ongoing news. (Here's a hint: I've already done that. It was fairly common knowledge that South Africa was the only nation that would trade with Israel in the mid-seventies; that they got to be cozy arms partners by 1981; and that Israel reassessed that arms relationship in 1987. In fact, that relationship got a lot of press in 1987, including discussion of the disagreement over what to do about it within Israel, the nature of their relationship in terms of what South Africa got and what the industry meant to Israel's economy, and so on. Hell, South Africa admitted in 1993 it had built 6 atom bombs in a nuclear program going back to 1974 (with not one of the over 1,000 people that worked in secret on their program ever leaking the news it existed) with the hint that they were assisted in doing so.)

So Chris McGreal didn't wake up one morning with the knowledge planted in his head by God that there might have been an atomic connection between Israel and South Africa. He had existing journalism to build upon. So he did. As did Sasha Polakow-Suransky for his 2010 book THE UNSPOKEN ALLIANCE.

This all sounds more like (once again) you're upset that "the media" hasn't given the weight or importance or outright indignation TODAY to a 20+ year old story that you think is appropriate. I suspect they haven't because it hasn't been news since, well, it was originally news. It's become history - which is more often than not something journalists leave to historians. McGreal's piece made news in part because Alon Liel finally went on-record from the Israeli side about the nuclear element that EVERYONE HAD SUSPECTED SINCE 1979, and that Pakistan suggested in 1993.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: International Politics Debate

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:33 pm

If Iran sent nuclear secrets to Hizbollah trust me it would be front page news.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest