Some comparative reading

Remove all ads!

About a week ago Israel had accused Palestinians to abuse UN vehicles for arms trafficing, with UN consent -- evidence short of murky shot from a drone -- which could show about everything. I found two articles on that, which were strikingly different.
.
Article 1: THE U.N.'S TERROR PROBLEM
Article 2: Israel is undermining its credibility
.
Article 1 starts:

Article 2 starts:

One is surprised by the difference in tone - The American New York Post has absolute clarity that the IDF allegations are true, while the Israeli newspaper Haaretz is much more sceptic. How comes? Well, the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

You know: We report, you decide.

 

Nice to see you back in full form again, Ragusa. Four straight threads, that is quite an achievment.

 

I'm doing my very best -- conpensating for the lack of DSL since wednesday

 

Point taken. How about that one: ISRAEL SAYS HAMAS USING 'U.N.' TRUCKS

The Post article flatly states that the people in the video are a Palestinian terror squad. How can they know? Hamas, despite their bombings is known to have a substantial aid and relief element -- one of the reasons why it is so popular among Palestinians -- it cares for them. The UN claims that they hired, say, Hamas medics, could well be true.

The Post also flatly states that missiles are being loaded. The article is very specific about what's being loaded. According to Haaretz, however, the exact nature of what's being loaded into the vans is not visible, more like open to guesswork.

Leaving out that the Post can't really know that it have been missiles -- note the style -- it isn't just about 'homemade missiles', it is "deadly homemade missiles". Why the elaboration? When "missiles are being transported" brings over the information - why write "deadly missiles"? It's an appeal to emotion. *News* aren't meant to do that.

So where from comes the New York Post's certainty? It's agenda I repeat.

 

I am not quoting the NYP as a viable news source. To the contrary. I'm quoting a particularly bad example of not being a news source -- which happens to be owned by FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch.

And I claim that the particularly poor journalism in the NYP is intended, and not an accident. It only is more visible as on FOX-TV as you have more time to sit and ponder.

It's no secret that Murdoch sends around "topics of the day" memos to his news outlets to promote a certain point of view all over his news network -- and Murdoch is partisan. The founding director of FOX news was iirc Nixon's election campaign manager ... FOX News is GOP-TV.
When Clinton was in power they were rabid attack dogs preying for scandal, and with Bush taking office they became nice little puppies towards the new president.

The NYP, just like FOX, isn't news, but propaganda disguised as news, which makes it far more digestive.

The real scandal about Murdoch and the NYP and FOX is that he sells right PR muscle for political favour ... deregulation of markets comes to my mind ...

 

The airwaves in this country--legally--belong to the American people. When someone like Murdoch, not a citizen of this country--uses them to promote extremist and personal views, his license to broadcast should be revoked. This battle was not fought many years ago; perhaps it's time to do it.

 

Don't agree, dmc. When all you see is crap, you cannot reach an informed opinion. Honest news sources are difficult to find; the dishonest and cowardly ones are ready to hand. It's called the power of propaganda. The frequencies are not sold, they are licensed, and can be revoked after a hearing. As for "filling a need", you might as well say, "If Dillenger hadn't robbed that bank, someone else would have."

 

If you're lucky. In my case, there are two papers in Philadelphia but both are owned by the same organization. One is almost a tabloid anyway, and concentrates more on sports than anything else. Regional alternatives focus on local traffic accidents and school district happenings.

But the out-of-town papers and magazines, etc., are quite helpful, if you're willing to go to the effort of procuring and reading them.

 

The point about the Dillinger bit--"If Dillinger hadn't robbed that bank, someone else would have"--is that this argument is a classic cop-out from personal responsibility; the argument has been used, is used, and will be used to escape responsibility for any and every situation. Rupurt Murdoch owns the New York Post, and is well known to lay a heavy hand on both editorial and news content to support his own extreme views. It is naive to say that someone else would do the same. Someone else would be someone else, and would have his own views, which might or might not approximate Murdoch's views.

As for the argument about alternative news sources, I do have them and use them; that should be obvious. I was speaking of the people who rely, trustingly, on the mass media who swindle and shortchange them, and who are not encouraged, on the basis of what they know, to seek alternate sources. How many people know that The Nation and The Guardian are available online, not to mention the many other sources that exist? Of course you can say it's their own fault, and turn your back in contempt, You could also say that the mass media, which uses the public airwaves by permission, is pandering and trivializing rather than meeting an even minimal responsibility. Perhaps most people would rather be ignorant; that does not excuse the media for making them so.

One more point on alternative news sources. I work in a bookstore, and we sell a number of magazines. We cannot get The Nation, The Atlantic, or Harper's, none of which could be called wildly radical; the distributor declines to carry them. So please don't preach to me about the availability of alternative news sources; yes, they're there, but they should not be available just on your computer screen; they should be visible on the street as well. The fact that they're not is a measure of how deeply our sources of information have been corrupted.

[ October 28, 2004, 09:14: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

One more time. Broadcasting stations do not "purchase a lease"; i.e., pay x amount of dollars for the right to own a certain wavelength for a certain amount of time. They are "licensed", for a nominal fee, by the FCC to broadcast, subject to conditions laid down in the Federal Communications Act. The FCC, at any time, can convene a hearing to revoke the right to broadcast of any station it deems to be acting against the public interest. This is not normally done, of course.

 

@Cernak

You are correct in how the FCC works, but I do not think that is the point of BTA's post. What he is saying (and I heartily agree with him in this instance) is that any radio station or TV station broadcast has no obligation or responsibility to anyone to teach people, inform people, or be unbiased. Yes, there are rules for broadcasting. In the case of TV and radio, obscene language is generally prohobited, and on public TV nudity and even partial nudity is prohibited (see Janet Jackson's exposed breast as a fine example).

That having been said, there is no reason why Rupert Murdoch should have to offer an unbiased view, or attempt to inform the listeners about anything. As BTA points out, it is largely the consumers in this instance that contribute to the problem. All radio and television stations make money through selling advertising time. The amount they can charge for their advertising time is largely determined by how many listeners or viewers are tuned into the show. That's why it costs a heck of a lot more to purchase advertising time during, say Monday Night Football, as opposed to the Home and Garden Network at 4 AM - the audience for MNF is much greater.

Bottom line - If there was no interest in Murdoch's programming, he wouldn't be able to keep his shows on the air because the radio stations couldn't make any money from advertising. While I agree that many of his listeners may be ignorant to the availability to other news sources, Murdoch certainly is under no obligation to change this. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Informing listeners of other news outlets would be acting against his own self-interest.

 

I found this very interesting complaint filed with the FCC against FNN on MoveOn.