Okay, I suppose the manly thing to do would be to pit this, but I lack the rhetorical skills and real outrage to give that a good punch. Maybe IMHO is better? Mods feel free to move it to anywhere you feel more appropriate (I know you don’t need my permission :p).
Anyway, Israel, here in Sweden we have tabloids just as everywhere else, and their record of fact checking and truthfulness is just as poor as everywhere else too. But for the same reason that Denmark didn’t do anything about the Muhammed caricatures, there’s not much to be done about this. So stop crying over what a tabloid that nobody takes seriously says, and please stop holding our government responsible for their speech.
It seems like our ambassador to Israel went out with a condemnation of the article earlier, but it seems to have been removed from the embassy webpage. I think she has no business apologizing for any information or misinformation in our media. Thankfully our foreign minister refused to do so, which seems to have resulted in Israel starting to consider some kind of diplomatic retaliation.
That said, I even have no clue whether or not the tabloid’s allegations have any truth in them, but on the surface the article does seem like sensational and usual tabloid crap. At least that’s what I’ve come to expect from them.
So what do you all think about this story? I don’t think our government should waste time on apologizing for anything our media puts out, they would surely not have any time left for anything else then. I know Israelis think they are special in all kinds of ways, but don’t think we’ll yield our freedom of expression just because you feel insulted by a tabloid article.
If anyone, it is the tabloid that should be asked by the Israeli government, to recant and apologize or if the Israeli government feels so strongly about the matter, they are free to litigate in the appopriate forum, the Swedish court or the International court.
I agree, the government should have nothing to do with what newspapers publish.
That said, I think the publishers of the tabloid should think twice before making such allegations, especially against a country like Israel.
I don’t know much about the Swedish media, so please clue us in: is the “tabloid” in question a mainstream Swedish newspaper, or the kind of rag that usually writes about UFOs and celebrity gossip?
It makes a difference, in terms of how seriously such stories should be taken.
It’s one of our larger newspapers, possibly the largest. I don’t keep track of their sales figures. They have plenty of celebrity gossip though, not sure about UFO’s, but I’m sure they’ve covered that at some point as well :).
Yes, in a way it is, though the response by the people will be more of interest. Personally I would never think of supporting any tabloid by buying them, and I even stay away from their websites. Sadly, many people do buy them and let the shitty journalism live on. Surely you have the same problem over there.
To be honest though, I haven’t followed the development here very closely and haven’t been bothered to read the entire article either. So I won’t take a stand for or against the validity of its content, though my presumptions are that they are false. For example, there might have been a similar reaction if a paper released information about Abu Ghraib before the photos came out. Most people wouldn’t believe it, but then it turns out to have happened.
Furthermore, the article is in the “culture” section of the paper, where they cover these allegations as they are brought up by an author in his book, so it’s not even part of the news reporting, which does have better standards.
My reaction is mostly about Israel jumping on our government like they are responsible for what a private newspaper pulls out of their ass. I don’t care if it said that Avigdor Lieberman eats Palestinian children for breakfast, it’s not our government’s job to apologize for such statements.
“Tabloid” technically refers to the size of the pages in the newspaper. Just being a “tabloid” doesn’t automatically mean it’s full of dodgy lies and scurrilous gossip.
So when someone asks for clarification on what kind of newspaper it is, calling it a “tabloid” doesn’t necessarily explain anything beyond how well it fits on the coffee table.
Aftonbladet is a high-circulation paper, but it’s certainly not what I think would be considered a “paper of record”. (Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet would better fill that particular bill.) Aftonbladet’s daily headline advertisements in the shops are usually scandalous or sensationalist - the latest teenager murdered, a celebrity doing something stupid, or a new revolutionary weight-loss technique. Earlier in the summer they had a short series on the best places to have sex outdoors. I’d put it on the same level as the Washington Times and the New York Post - I wouldn’t put much stock in their journalistic integrity, but at least they’re not writing about Bat Boy.
Henrichek, if I posted that you were a child molester, that you ass-raped 8 year old boys, that that’s what got you hot, and that the rest of the world should know this and treat you like the scum you are, would you say “Ok that’s his freedom of speech?” Or might you not get a little peeved at this baseless slander.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be called out for your bullshit.
Now, let me ask you this - if the paper had accused the current Swedish government of running a child sex slavery ring, do you think they would have issued a condemnation? Of course they would have. So long as the government doesn’t actually shut the paper down, they’re free to condemn whoever they want. Freedom of speech applies to government officials, too.
Or are you saying that governments should not be allowed to condemn whoever they want?
The more relevant question, since no one has said Israel shouldn’t get annoyed about this, is: who shouold Henrichek demand an apology from, you or your government?
A few years back, some Muslim groups (and possibly some governments, I don’t remember any at the moment but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen) demanded that the Danish and Norwegian governments apologize for some cartoons that had been published in a Danish newspaper and reprinted in a Norwegian magazine. That was wrong. That was wrong because democratic governments do not dictate what newspapers and magazines in their country should and should not print. They needed to take it up with the editors of the publications, not with the governments. (Of course, some of them did take it up with the editors, too… in the form of death threats :rolleyes:)
In this case, a Swedish newspaper wrote a review of a book that makes claims about the behavior of Israeli soldiers. Yes, I understand them being offended, but they’re demanding an apology from the wrong party. In this case I’m not even sure how much the blame can be pinned on the newspaper - their complaint is primarily about what was said in the book, so they need to take it up with the author, not with the government of the country of a newspaper that reviewed the book…
From what I understand, the newspaper actually endorsed the article’s claims. It isn’t a mere book review.
They key difference between the current incident the Mohamed cartoons is that the latter were opinion, while the current blood libel is being presented as fact. I agree that it would be wrong to expect a government to apologize for what its citizens think; but libel? That’s a crime.
I apologize for not being clear. I have often seen it used kind of like a slur so I assumed it to be. Olentzero’s explanation is good though. I did fill in a little bit about the paper’s market position and the nature of their content.
Sorry, I forgot to do that.
You are of course right that I might get peeved, but again flodnak got here first with pretty much what I was about to say. What does our government have to do with it? Take it to the courts if you wish, against the newspaper. How would our government even determine the guilt in advance? What if it’s true and not baseless slander?
Let’s say that they actually did run such a slavery ring, and the newspaper in question was [insert prominent Israeli junk paper]. I think Israel’s government would end up looking bad if they had to apologize and condemn that if it then turns out to be a true allegation. I think the government should stay out of it.
I think there’s a difference between condemning something you are accused of, and demanding others to condemn it too. Our government is a third party to this and isn’t related to the paper. If this turns into a matter for the courts, which I am not sure has happened or not, then our administration actually aren’t free to condemn as much as they want, as it might be seen as interfering and setting the tone for the trial, as I understand it. My legal experience isn’t the best, but that’s how I understand it.
I am not sure if that’s clear. It’s presented in the paper’s culture section and it tells about the author and his allegations. The article is actually written by himself, presented as the author of a book. Here’s the ingress: “Palestinians accuse Israels army of stealing body parts from its victims. Donald Boström tells about the international transplant scandal - and how he became a witness of the abuse of a 19 year old boy.”. I for one wouldn’t swallow that as fact, but I don’t know what a court would say.