On the contrary, your criticism is petty. And you have again misconstrued the argument. Earlier you argued I was shifting ground in summarising:
**" US media is commercial and can be leant on commerically. It has been and now commonly makes editorial choices that
embargo stories critical of Israel and
promote favourable ones. "**
as
**“US media commonly favor Israel” **
Now, without acknowledging that earlier error, you gallop headlong into the same:
At the outset I quoted 2 passages that are key to the Orthodox terrorist story. Omitting the substance of those passages makes for a different story - and the US publications do just that. Who said word-for-word? No-one. Now your argument differs as to whether emigration for the purpose of terrorism is key to the substance. I believe so. You disagree. That is probably as far as we can take it.
Now as to today’s Guardian story, it is always an eccentric publication. The story is of marginal interest. Yet after all that, it is taken for granted the story will not appear in the US media. There is no major US publication with anything like the disposition of the gRauniad, which is commonplace ex-US. We could start afresh and watch in the US I suppose. It could be a good idea, but dissappointment will follow.
Are you boldly stating that as an absolute, because I have counter-examples in mind of far worse atrocities that got far less attention from the U.S. government (and the U.S. media, incidentally). If I present one, will you modify your above statement, softening the clauses “far more” and “anywhere else”?
Well, let’s assume that this is actually happening, but Israel itself is not doing the “heavying” (since it doesn’t seem to matter to you who is doing the heavying, this should make no difference). American media outlets are indeed choosing which stories to run and how much attention each story gets, and perhaps they have indeed decided that stories that unsympathetic to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinians aren’t as interesting to viewers, leading to lower ratings and ad revenue. I can certainly picture that - stories about how suicide bombing is a necessary tool to fight evil aren’t going to play well in a nation still somewhat traumatized by the September 11 attacks. How is it Israel’s fault, though?
So it’s not control, but mere “chilling”. How wonderfully vague. I trust you know of some memoirs written by retired journalists and editors who describe this effect with specific examples.
I daresay stealing organs from a corpse is somewhat different from killing someone so you can steal organs from their corpse, regardless of the ethnicities involved.
In candour I cannot reliably understand what you are asking here. Perhaps you could rephrase?
Who ever said it was? Israel’s fault that is. As to the stories, I don’t believe it is ‘interest to reader’ that plays out. Rather, as commercial entities, the threats seem to be in the way of nuisance and vulnerable advertising revenue. Secondly there are rogue proprietor-editors such as Mr Murdoch, who ruthlessly enforce an editorial line .
In fact the ‘chilling effect’ is brought up earlier in the thread than me and stands as a term with an honorable pedigree. Sure, I’d be happy to look for some documentation.
In passing - compare the major publication’s opinion columnists who reliably support Israel, compare with those who don’t. A thought exercise.
My reading of your earlier statement is that you claim the U.S. government (the formers of “polity”, I assume) is “far more tolerant of Israeli atrocities [than] anywhere else.” I’m prepared to cite at least one atrocity that took place elsewhere that was far worse in terms of body count, that got far less attention from the U.S. government, who has a record of numerous statements about Israel and peace-seeking interventions going back decades. If I do, will you recognize the error in your statement?
If I have misconstrued your statement, I request a clarification.
Well, you’re presenting this “chilling effect” as a problem, so I assume that someone is at fault. Is Israel off the hook?
And I’d be happy to read it. I’m not sure how much advertising-revenue influence Israel has (or how much of a nuisance it is to American media), so I assume the Pro-Israel advertising-revenue influence (and nuisance) is coming from people who are sympathetic to Israel in some way. Can you name any such person or company?
Sure, but you’ll have to account for another potential element - the editorial influence isn’t so much about promoting Israel, but about hating Muslims. I can certainly imagine Murdoch’s Fox News stirring up fears about Islam, regardless of who’s on the other side of the particular issue, because doing so is profitable and resonates with their particular audience. Will you take this into account?
Heh, I’d say there is a teeny tiny difference between harvesting organs from those already dead (and note it was alleged to be from everyone - Israelis and Palestinians alike) without informed consent, and killing folks for their organs.
Sort of surprised that you, or indeed anyone, thinks that these are equivalent claims.