Two Violations in One Night
One more and my blogger's license will be suspended! As I mentioned in my post immediately below, I wrote two essays over on Jay Rosen's open thread that I am reprinting here. The second is in response to Jay's comment that he is not actually a member of the press, even though he is often called to account for perceived media bias. To which I wrote:
Jay --
I, for one, don't hold you accountable for the content of the media. However, I would like to hold your feet to the fire on the consequences of your ideas.
In the last two days (actually nights), I have spent a fair amount of time perusing your archives. And I think it is clear from my comments that I find your approach to the press "religion" quite insightful. But I find that some of your essays stop just short of drawing a full conclusion.
For example, your discussion of the contasting coverage of Abu Ghraib (wall-to-wall pictures) vs the Nick Berg video (self-censored) very skillfully demonstrates the logical inconsistency at play. But you then express a hope/expectation that the media might show the Berg video after a brief delay for "absorption," and then launch into a lengthy attack on the bias-hunters.
You conclude with a diagnosis with which I fully agree (quoted below), but I would like to hear your thoughts on possible prescriptions for the patient, Dr. Rosen:
More broadly, do you have any thoughts on the following observation?: Many core precepts of the press religion that you have identified are actually intellectual residua of the last two centuries of Leftist thought. Thus, is it possible that the bias-hunters, while perhaps focusing too much on the ephemera of specific "gotcha" moments, are actually pointing towards a deeper phenomenon?
Jay --
I, for one, don't hold you accountable for the content of the media. However, I would like to hold your feet to the fire on the consequences of your ideas.
In the last two days (actually nights), I have spent a fair amount of time perusing your archives. And I think it is clear from my comments that I find your approach to the press "religion" quite insightful. But I find that some of your essays stop just short of drawing a full conclusion.
For example, your discussion of the contasting coverage of Abu Ghraib (wall-to-wall pictures) vs the Nick Berg video (self-censored) very skillfully demonstrates the logical inconsistency at play. But you then express a hope/expectation that the media might show the Berg video after a brief delay for "absorption," and then launch into a lengthy attack on the bias-hunters.
You conclude with a diagnosis with which I fully agree (quoted below), but I would like to hear your thoughts on possible prescriptions for the patient, Dr. Rosen:
Way, way underneath these debates I find a disturbing fact. Even the smartest people in the major news media—and this is especially so in television news—have not really determined for themselves or explained to us exactly what their role should be in the worldwide fight againstI would argue that this problem goes far beyond the airing of a single gruesome video, into just about every decision that the political and international press must make everyday, including the conduct of White House press conferences. In this context I would like to ask you to respond to my comments about Vietnam and Tet, to which you refer in passing in the Nick Berg essay.
terrorism...Terrorism can be many things, but it is always an attempt at communication; and a free press in an open society “completes” the act.
More broadly, do you have any thoughts on the following observation?: Many core precepts of the press religion that you have identified are actually intellectual residua of the last two centuries of Leftist thought. Thus, is it possible that the bias-hunters, while perhaps focusing too much on the ephemera of specific "gotcha" moments, are actually pointing towards a deeper phenomenon?
posted by neuroconservative at 9:02 PM
3 Comments:
- holding feet to the fires, and it must be somewhat threatening to some Liberals to realize the number of strong intellects who present solid, differing views, who not only challenge but are being heard and read, and doing so in I might add a rather dignified, proper manner, without force of emotion, without castigating and baiting - long live the Bloggers!!
PS - keep up the good work!
Though out of sync and a few days late, I often 'shoot from the hip' and let my thouhgts flow as they come, having read your post on the Gaza pull-out (Operation Juden Raus).
If I were a hamas commander, I would be rubbing my hands in glee, ideologically and tactically. First off, what young potential hamas recruit wouldn't believe that I and my men drove the hated Jews out? Sharon had the few pali moderates that exist in mind when he endorsed this plan, not hamas, who continues to assert that Israel has no right to exist. Hamas has been handed a tremendous propoganda tool, absolutely tremendous! They now regard Gaza as their state/nation having driven the Jews out.
Secondly, any lag in the infrastructure and basic needs maintanence will only drive more people into the hamas camp, since they do have a social service type
program. They are very clever and better orgnaized in this respect than other pali factions.
Tactically, IDF is now physically removed from Gaza, which then requires mobilization and time when attacks occur. Previously forces were on hand for almost immediate deployment. IDF watchers and monitors will be gone from inside Gaza, and common sense tells even a non-military person that freedom of movement for hamas has now magnified 100%. This freedom of movement now allows them to focus more on rooting out spies and collaberators. If I don't have to spend X number of hours circumventing check points and patrols and watchers, I can do other things, like holding summary trials and executions and mutilations of Jew lovers.
Lastly, as a hamas commander existing in my own territory (state), I am guarenteed to have all the outside observors, monitors, journalists and supporters I want when IDF has to launch an incursion. I would disperse rockets all over in the heaviest concentration of civilians and launch them, knowing IDF will not respond with any airstrikes, and I would scream my head off for UN observors when IDF launched its inevitable incursion.
Post a Comment
<< Home