You’re being absurd, they were penalized and removed for setting up a secret group to systematically alter wikipedia entries. These are not trustworthy people. These are absurd people. This is not the kind of thing honest scholars or reporters or academics do. They are a guerrilla advocacy group like Freedomworks, or the clean coal people ect.
This was my post. I discussed three major factual errors and pointed out that whatever Carter’s cause for making them - malice, incompetence or complete lack of give-a-fuck, the results were the same in that all of his errors demonize Israel. I then pointed out that, as a result, Carter is stubbornly refusing to change his anti-Israel prejudices and that he’s unreliable as a source on the history of the region. That is, he’s a bigot and a narrator who nobody who values the truth should listen to. You changed the subject to how Malthus and I had described one of Carter’s errors, then you asked about CAMERA’s list. You changed the subject.
Yet again, as I summed up:
And here’s Chomsky’s take on the book. I have never become aware of him being factually incorrect about anything, he’s a scholar machine, beyond equal in that regard. You may disagree with what he thinks is important or the conclusions he draws but not his facts.
http://www.alternet.org/story/50654/chomsky_and_zinn_on_patriotism_in_america
"By now it’s much easier to talk about this. Actually, Carter’s book is quite interesting. Carter’s book was essentially repeating what is known around the world.
Goodman: “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”
Chomsky: Yeah. He – there were a couple of errors in the book. They were ignored. The only serious error in the book, which a fact checker should have picked up, is that Carter accepted a kind of party line on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Israel invaded Lebanon and killed maybe 15,000-20,000 people and destroyed much of southern Lebanon. They were able to do it because the Reagan administration vetoed Security Council resolutions and supported them and so on.
The claim here, you know, you read Thomas Friedman or someone, is that Israel invaded in response to shelling of the Galilee from – by Palestinians, Palestinian terror attacks. And Carter repeats that; it is not true. There was the border, there was a cease-fire. The Palestinians observed it despite regular Israeli attempts, something as heavy bombing and others to elicit some response that would be a pretext to the planned invasion. When there was no pretext, they invaded anyway. That’s the only serious error in the book, ignored. There are some very valuable things in the book, also ignored. One of them, perhaps the most important is that Carter is the first, I think, in the mainstream in the United States to report what was known in dissident circles and talked about, namely that the famous road map, which the quartet suggested as steps towards settlement of the problem – the road map was instantly rejected by Israel."
Actually, what I was originally talking about in my first post in this thread was exactly CAMERA’s list and the claim of Carter’s that Malthus brought up.
You were the one who changed the subject and are now complaining because I continued talking about what I was originally talking about.
How would you know? You really haven’t addressed any facts, you’re just engaging in ad hominem character assassination. Care to actually discuss the facts? Your dodge that we ‘just don’t know’ because the negotiations were behind closed doors is laughable considering that in most cases we have the actual signed agreements between nations and in others, Carter agreed that he was wrong before going on to lie again.
Carter went on to publish the same claim which he’d admitted was false. This shows he is a liar.
I assume you’d like to attack CAMERA some more?
Ooooh, a secret group. Spooky!
Of course, as I said, they attempted to correct factual errors.
Would you prefer to go back to elaborating on the anti-Semitic beliefs you hold and how the burden of proof is on other people to prove that Jews aren’t clannish nepotistic bastards?
And this is what the Israel lobby does. Anyone who gets into the details of Israeli conflicts without their bias is demonized and called a bigot (an antisemite). It’s why you are not allowed to talk about it in the US in public or as a politician because unless you’re completely in the bag for Israel or only talk in vague generalities about how it’s “too bad”, or “A tough situation.” you are made into a bigot/ antisemite.
Ya no you’re right, CAMERA is not at all absurd and I’m an antisemite and you would never engage in ad-hominem attacks. You’re not getting completely rabid about simple disagreements at all.
Your post was most certainly not just about “CAMERA’s list” but its implications and the judgments we could make from Carter’s pattern of errors.
You claimed that…
I addressed why you were wrong. I know you’ve seen it, because you responded to the original post I made to you and I just cited it for you, again. You changed the subject. Would you care to return to the subject and defend your claims? Or will you try to argue that by challenging your claims that it’s wrong to say that Carter wasn’t “reliable and true to history”, I somehow wasn’t addressing your claim that it’s wrong to say that Carter wasn’t “reliable and true to history”? And so on…
If you refuse to stay on topic and insist on changing the subject, I think that the strength of your argument should be fairly apparent, Kim.
I think its likelier that their portrayal in lore and the media has created prejudices that just get passed down from generation.
I’ve noticed a prejudice against blacks in Asia among a population that has for the most part never seen a live black person in their lives. And yet a lot of them have very strong opinions about black people. There is a strong stereotype of Jews in Asia but it is not exactly negative.
I never said it was just about CAMERA’s list. But just because I continued talking about CAMERA’s list doesn’t mean that I was getting off-topic or “changing the subject”.
Well, you disagreed with me. That’s fine.
Hmm.
I see that you’ve opted to change the subject and won’t return to your claims.
So noted.
Some organizations CAMERA seem to think are antisemitic or at least untrustworthy sources: CNN, the Christian Science Monitor, NPR, 60 Minutes, The New York Times, PBS, C-Span book review, Time magazine, The Washington Post, the LA Times, The Wall Street Journal and the BBC.
This is just on their front page. I’m guessing this might have something to do with their Orwellian sense of “balance” and “facts”.
“- CPB’s ombudsman says CAMERA believes “that every single story that involves the Middle East should be objective and balanced. So if an NPR correspondent in Gaza is reporting a story about a family that was killed because of a bombing of their house, CAMERA would expect that same story to discuss an atrocity in Israel. Not only is that not possible, it is not good journalism. What is possible is that an NPR correspondent in Tel Aviv could report on what happened there. That report might come a day later or a week later, but over time, the coverage would be balanced.””
http://www.cpb.org/ombudsman/display.php?id=69
Some more ad-hominem attacks for you.
The issue is factual claims, your desire to launch ad hominem fallacies at CAMERA notwithstanding. Of course, I challenge you to find one of the above sources which CAMERA has called “anti-Semitic”. Something tells me that you can not. Of course, you also did not address CAMERA’s factual criticisms of any of the above named news outlets. Evidently the fact that CAMERA has challenged them all on factual issues at one point or another is meant to do, well, something. But it’s got to do with allegations of anti-Semitism (maybe) you (kinda) assure us!
Obviously, without actually addressing a single criticism CAMERA made, we can conclude that their claims must be “Orwellian”. I mean, who wants to do the work of actually looking at what they said to see if their argument had factual merit? Why would we do that?!?
And here’s Source Watch’s take.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA
“CAMERA is widely regarded as a pro-Israeli lobby group that as put by Journalist and author Robert I. Friedman - “CAMERA, the A.D.L., AIPAC and the rest of the lobby don’t want fairness, but bias in their favor. And they are prepared to use McCarthyite tactics, as well as the power and money of pro-Israel PACs, to get whatever Israel wants.”[1]”
And a fairly strange statement by CAMEREA’s exec director here from the same source.
“In an interview, CAMERA’s executive director Andrea Levin was asked about her view of NPR. “We do not track them closely on any subject except ours. I can only reply in an impressionistic way. It seems that their consistent thematic line is one that represents a very politically correct view of the world. This means being highly critical of the United States and U.S. intervention in Iraq. They put a very heavy emphasis on all politically fashionable subjects such as gay and feminine rights as well as Palestinian rights,” she said.”
I am not going to factcheck 23 or 2 claims an organization makes when they are so little respected by journalists and academics. Find me a neutral or at least respected source for your “facts” about Carter’s book and I will look at it.
Just because I’m curious, will you discuss the facts, at all, ever?
Or are you just going to launch more ad hominems at CAMERA and avoid even attempting to show how a single thing cited was wrong?
Seeing as how many of them are cited, your refusal is somewhat laughable.
Seeing as how it would be trivially easy to debunk them if they were actually false, and you can’t debunk even one?
Well, it sure seems that you can’t, because they’re true. But you can offer ad hominems.
‘That cite is so wrong that I’m totally unable to prove how they’re wrong on even one single particular!’ is not, perhaps, the winning gambit you believe it to be.
If you quote the entire part of that paragraph:
Carter’s book says:
There’s nothing contradictory here. Assad says that he is agreeable to an international force or semi-demilitarization provided that it is on “equal footing” with what is done on the Israeli side. I’m not really sure what Stein thinks the issue is here. His own notes show that Assad was willing to make a deal.
Admittedly I only scanned Stein’s piece, but I didn’t see any factual inaccuracies. I only saw that Stein disagreed with Carter’s general argument, and some specific conclusions.
I do not own Carter’s book, and I do not trust CAMERA’s quotes from it to be accurate or in context, nor do I trust their representation of the “facts” that prove him to be misleading. In order to ck their claims I would have to get a copy of the book and independently doublecheck each of their claims.
Carter is not anti-semitic, just stop, you sound more ridiculous every time you post.
If you’re so invested in a tainted source of information you do the work and prove to me that it’s accurate.
The more objective a news source is reputed to be the more this organization dislikes them. The facts have a decidedly anti-CAMERA bias.