Have you ever noticed how vastly much more attention is paid in the America press to Israel, a country of 6 million an ocean away, than to Mexico, a country of 109 million that shares a 1,952 mile border with us?
I'm not talking here about press bias for or against
For example, last year a leftist uprising that started among school teachers seized control of the big Mexican city of Oaxaca, a common destination for American tourists, and held it against federale attacks for quite a long time, but this seemingly interesting news created barely a ripple in the American media compared to the tsunami of reporting and commentating on Israel.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
45 comments:
Vick v. Stevens in the media
Have you ever noticed how vastly much more attention is paid in the American press to Michael Vick, a mediocre quarterback for a mediocre franchise, than to Ted Stevens, one of the most powerful men in the most powerful legislative body in the United States government?
I’m not talking here about press bias for or against Vick or Stevens, just about the amount of coverage of the two individuals in America.
For example, this year the FBI and IRS raided the home of Senator Stevens, who has been under investigation for corruption for many years, and brought evidence to a federal grand jury, but this seemingly interesting news created barely a ripple in the American media compared to the tsunami of reporting and commentating on Vick.
Re. Stevens vs Vick. That only shows how popular dogs are vs. taxes.
Israel matters on the world stage, Oaxaca does not. I did not really care for the tone of the VDare article. We love to point out how we fought for our freedom, and how the Mexican government is corrupt and they should stay and do something about it instead of fleeing for the USA, but when they actually do it they get trashed by us. I don't even care if they are leftist, that may seem to be a rational choice compared to what they have now.
I have friends who do charity work in the state of Oaxaca, and it is a pit. Yet if anyone tries to take any meaningful action, the Mexican government cracks down violently. Armed rebellion, looting, these are the Mexican government reaping what they sow.
Jedster -- that's because most Americans care more about football as a release from the drudgery of politics than they do about well, politics. Nor is Ted Stevens "powerful" merely just another corrupt hack like Teddy Kennedy. It's distasteful and most Americans know the closed shop of politicos, media types, and so forth watch each other's back so there's not much you can do other than stop watching.
Steve -- it's because of who and what the Media people are. Wealthy white upper class people who are profoundly ignorant of Mexico and see the place as some sort of black box that provides "colorful" vacations and compliant servants. They certainly don't want to point out to the populace their ignorance.
Steve,
I just did a Google news search.
First, ~israel location:usa
Then, mexico -"new -mexico" location:usa
Both are sorted by dated, excluding duplicates, and both are restricted to U.S. publications. The Mexico search excludes New Mexico, which probably penalizes the Mexico result since certainly some articles mentioning New Mexico mention Mexico.
The results:
Roughly 17k stories on Israel.
Roughly 18k stories on Mexico (probably more if the stories mentioning "New Mexico" and "Mexico" could be included).
(Note that these numbers change by the minute, so when you do the search you may get a different result. But it will likely be close to the above.)
How is this "vastly much more attention" to Israel? I guess on a per capita basis that's true. Is that what you meant? Because on the face of it, your assertion is false.
What was that quote you like about noses and things?
Blogs that get things wrong are just so interesting!!!! :)
Have a good weekend!
p.s.: The tilda (~) is a google search term to catch similar phrases like israeli, mexican, etc.
Mexico was a stable if corrupt monolith for 70 years under the PRI. I think the big dailies and wire services kept their best talent in flashpoints like the Middle East and have never built good bureaus in Mexico. It's institutional, not ideological.
Most homes, and almost all hotel rooms in America have a book in them, called 'The Bible' which is an ongoing cornerstone of American culture. It was written for the most part, by Jews (Israelis) based in and around Jerusalem, and it is a simple historical fact that it informs the outlook of most Americans and captures their imagination in a way that the sacred inscriptions of Mayans and Aztecs do not.
Just sayin' that might be a reason why we hear and think so much about the middle east, rather than the putative Jewish control of the media. Just compare the box office receipts of 'The Passion of Christ' versus 'Apocalypto'. Ockhams razor and all.
Here's a question: What other religion with 15 million adherents gets as much attention as Jews?
Here's a pie chart showing the breakdown of people by religion:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Notice that Judaism is a tiny tiny sliver. There are a lot more Sikhs than Jews. Who gets more attention?
Next question: What other ethnicity with 15 million members gets as much attention as Jews?
Here's a comparison: There are 80 million ethnic Koreans in the world. 20 million ethnic Romanians.
The fact is people are obsessed with Jews. So it's not a surprise that Israel gets a lot of attention.
Actually, very little is reported about Israel per se; the Palestinian Israeli conflict yes, but that's largely because of its effect (overblown,though significant)on the Middle East, which affects our foreign policy unlike anything that is happening between Mexico and our borders. Incidently, illegal immigration and possible solutions gets considerable play in the press.
Epi
I did a CNN news archive search on Google, and I got 19300 for Isreal and 12600 for Mexico, which would include New Mexico.
Well if you are watching the news on MSM other than Univision or Telemundo, the only time Mexico gets coverage is when it has an earthquake or hurricane...
Mexico is like a third world country (I'm not exactly sure if it qualifies). Messed up stuff happens there all the time, no one cares except Mexicans. Certainly no one in Europe or the Anglosphere outside the US. Israel was founded by Europeans and is classified as first world. It also has nukes. What happens there is news.
Jedster,
I know you won't believe me, but you're an idiot.
You're forgetting that most news stories in the US that reference Mexico or Mexicans are talking about Mexicans in the United States (a region that Americans have always taken a keen interest in). Articles about Israelis tend to be about, well, Israel.
For example, using your location:usa filter, compare "Mexican restaurant" to "Israeli restaurant" and then compare "Mexican Army" to "Israeli Army"
Restaurants are 481 to 5 in favor of Mexico, while Army references are 454 to 38 in favor of Israel.
This question is one of those that brings up far more additional questions than answers.
How is Israel covered on Telemundo (hardly at all I bet)? Which then brings up the question of why is Israel so singularly important to Americans?
I have some perspective on this, having lived in a non-western country for some time. Israel was covered in the news on a regular basis, but only as a component of the same kind of foreign coverage that brings us images of Bangladeshis floating out to sea on planks of wood. No value judgments, just good old death and destruction.
Here, on the other hand, people actually care. If it were only because America is so concerned about Israel due to the religious, Christian nature of this country, then why don't people in the Philippines care so much?
One could say it's only about excessive Jewish influence, but I don't entirely buy that. I'm starting to think the Muslims are actually on to something when they call Israel a "crusader state". Not crusader in the traditional sense, mind you, but a sort of Reformation crusade. I think it is the culmination of the Anglo-Protestant/Jewish alliance that has been in effect since at least the days of Cromwell. If this is the case, Israel is the result of the first Protestant Crusade, and is a spiritual descendant of Calvinist theology.
How could Anglo civilization fail to be obsessed with the same ideology that drove its own expansion?
The Israeli / Arab conflict gets too much attention today. Israel and her bordering countries don't have have oil and the conflit only effects those involved.
Some of this is journalistic inertia - during the cold war many serious proxy wars were fought and the cosequences were huge. We in the west owe the Israelis a debt of gratitude for consistantly making the Soviets look like bitches.
Another aspect is just PC. Israel is seen as a first world country that is keeping the Pals from being the Swiss. Meanwhile, a right thinking journalist can't help getting depressed reporting on countries like Mexico and those in Africa. Any serious thought about these countries and their failure to succssed leads to serious thought crime. Best to stick with the stories about colonial oppression.
Journalists also get to wear the vest and helmet to look like cool "war corespondents" without taking any real risks (BBC Pal loving twits excepted).
It has nothing to do with the fact that the American MSM is disproportionally owned, staffed and operated by Jews? Just asking.
You are all overlooking the obvious explanation. It's because of Israel's huge oil reserves.
The NYT readship is interested in Israel. The NYT drives the tone of the national news for historical reasons.
I remember reading "FLAME" ads in the national weeklies (Time, Newsweek, etc.) for years. This group was called "facts and logic about the middle east". They put out stories like the Arab's told their people to leave their homes during the early years of Israel - a story now known to be false.
The second or third most powerful lobbying organization is focused on Israel.
All these factors point to overcoverage of Israel.
Mexico has lots of oil and it is closer to us and its population poors into our country every day. Logically, we should have much more interest in the events in Mexico, but the political "leaders" don't have the same interests as the general population.
That is the bottom line.
Good grief we all know the answer.
It's the same reason why hundreds of churhes are burned every year, but if one synagouge is vandalized its nation-wide news.
It's why we hear about the Holocaust and we still get stories on Nazis, constantly in the MSM, even though WW II ended 62 years ago.
It's why everytime Abe Foxman opens his mouth, its treated as the voice of God.
If the National press was centered in Salt Lake City and dominated by Mormans our coverage would be different.
Not only is there far more coverage of Israel, it's far more deodorised.
The president recently had to resign under accusations of rape. Several senior ministers are embroiled in financial scandals. How well was this covered?
The American MSM keep crying up Israel as a model of secular democracy for the region, without mentioning the restrictions on land ownership, marriage and Sabbath travel, the mounting popularity of a deputy prime minister who wants Arab citizens to be disenfranchised and ethnically cleansed out of the country, the exemptions for Orthodox yeshiva students which are denuding the IDF of recruits... and the demographic time bomb which looms over the Judenstaat.
If Israel were to be regarded through the same prism of reportorial cynicism as Mexico, it would not be a pretty sight.
But look at who owns the USA's big newspapers and who manages the TV news departments. Clue: not many are called "Fulgencio" or "Montezuma".
1. “There are a lot more Sikhs than Jews. Who gets more attention?”
The entire Indian continent has 4 scientific noble prices, 5 if you include Pakistan. Jewish scholars have approximately 150 noble prices.
Who deserves more attention?
2. I agree that Mexico is underexposed, due to the large indirect impact it has on the US. But you can’t compare internal events in Mexico with external events in Israel. Internal developments in Israel are not overexposed.
Take the extreme example of the NYT.
Israel 30 900
Hamas 23 700
“Israel and economy” 980.
“Finland and economy” give 3000 for similar size.
“Mexico and Economy” 2700,
“Mexico and immigration“ 11400,
“Mexico and Drugs 3 000”.
To the extent Israel is overexposed in the US it’s the war, not anything else. For what it matters Israel-Palestine is one of only 3 wars western countries are involved in, and the two other get ample coverage. Haditha gets more than 50% more hits Washington Post as does Haifa, Israels third largest city.
3. Whatever explanation you give it has to take account into the pattern that the Palestina/Israel conflict is globally a huge story, not something that can be contributed to particular preferences of the American elite.
Here are google results from Swedens largest paper (translated):
Russia 46.000
Darfur 40.000
Israel 39.000
Hizbollah 20.000
Hamas 10.000
As someone already pointed out the attention is neither in Europe or US given to Israel per se, but to the war with the Arabs. Internal Israeli issues unrelated to the war are not covered much (which is completely logical, why should they?
Ps. Just for curiosity: Hillary Clinton gives 6000 hits, Rudy Guiliani 1000, Barak Obama 600 and Fred Thomson 0 hits in our largest paper.
Yes, Israel is important, but Mexico and its problems have more potential for creating long lasting, mostly negative consequences for us.
Newspapers almost always describe neighborhoods that are full of Latino immigrants as "vibrant," when in fact the more correct adjectives would be "noisy," "chaotic," and "disorganized." Accordingly, an expectation of accurate reportage on Mexico is unrealistic. The MSM figures it's best to mostly ignore what's going on in Mexico, because a regular, truthful accounting of what happens there would consist mostly of stories about corruption, poverty, drug crime, peasant uprisings, student "strikes" and the like. That would not fit the template (i.e. Mexicans are just humble, impoverished people who love their children and want to work) and would cause everyday, middle class Americans to become even more hardened in their attitudes towards illegal immigration. Since the media and political elites are on the opposite side of the American public on this, they probably feel it's best to just ignore Mexico, to the extent they can.
I'm an atheist of Indian origin, so no ties to Israel.
Honestly, I just don't care much about what happens in Mexico. It's largely internal affairs that will affect the US through immigration, and we can control that if we had more assertive politicians on our side.
Israel, however, is an important issue. For one thing, just compare the number of internationally ranked universities in Israel v. Mexico. Or the number of terrorist attacks.
Most homes, and almost all hotel rooms in America have a book in them, called 'The Bible' which is an ongoing cornerstone of American culture. It was written for the most part, by Jews (Israelis) based in and around Jerusalem, and it is a simple historical fact that it informs the outlook of most Americans and captures their imagination in a way that the sacred inscriptions of Mayans and Aztecs do not.
It was written ENTIRELY by Jews.
And other than a handful of non-Jewish actors & actresses [a Pharaoh here or there, a Babylonian prince, a Roman potentate, the Canaanite Woman], almost every word spoken in the bible is spoken by a Jew [or Jewess].
The entire Indian continent has 4 scientific noble prices, 5 if you include Pakistan. Jewish scholars have approximately 150 noble prices.
Nobel Prizes or Noble Princes?
I'd like to say it's the underdog, Least Bad Guy surrounded by Even Worse Guys factor, but we all know how many elites leapt to Rhodesia's defense.
I'd like to say it's because civil strife in Oaxaca isn't on al-Qaeda's grievance list, while they go on and on about the Palestinians. But even in the carefree '90s, Arafat, Rabin and co. were often in the news.
But there's another factor to consider - the MSM is between a rock and a hard place with respect to Mexico coverage. Big-city editors are as gung-ho as anyone I've ever seen about falling in line with the affirmative action program. And just about any kind of non-boring coverage of Mexico makes NCLR types nervous.
Reporting on problems will bring accusations of perpetuating negative stereotypes of the Sacred Race of Bronze. But highlighting Mexico's booming economy will undercut sob stories about "desperate" illegals and make people wonder why Mexico isn't taking care of its own.
The fact is, both Mexican-Americans and Jewish Americans have the newsroom clout to get the coverage that best suits them.
Mexican-Americans believe time is on their side, so they hope for anodyne, rah-rah stories on "Hispanic buying power" and civil-rights-style "first" stories about this or that elected official. Nothing to really stir the pot. Better to wait for the fait accompli.
Jewish Americans believe that time is not on Israel's side (without some major help), so they want to continually call Americans' attention to the Palestinian conflict.
And if you think Fox News is too nice to Israel, just immerse yourself in Reuters.
It was written ENTIRELY by Jews.
I would think that the Jews involved with the New Testament could be said to have rejected the Talmud, which is important.
"I think it is the culmination of the Anglo-Protestant/Jewish alliance that has been in effect since at least the days of Cromwell. If this is the case, Israel is the result of the first Protestant Crusade, and is a spiritual descendant of Calvinist theology."
Are you familiar with President Bush's ancestor George Bush, 19th Century Hebrew professor? According to Wikipedia:
"His 1847 "The Valley of Vision," which became an antebellum best seller, called on the U.S. government to militarily wrench Palestine from the Turks and return it to the Jews."
I suspect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets more attention during its most uneventful years than the Irish conflict got during its worst years.
Is there a lot of coverage of Israel? I'm not talking here about the Middle East, the Palestinian territories, or Isreal's other neighbors but specifically of Israel itself.
The actual stories of Israel largely focus on religion (of which Israel is possibly the world's most important country), weird events (ditto), and weird politics.
Dave
"I would think that the Jews involved with the New Testament could be said to have rejected the Talmud, which is important."
The New Testament predates the Talmud. Perhaps you meant to write "Torah" (i.e., the Hebrew Bible)?
"Is there a lot of coverage of Israel? I'm not talking here about the Middle East, the Palestinian territories, or Isreal's other neighbors but specifically of Israel itself."
"A lot," probably not, but Israel does get some coverage in the business press unrelated to the Palestinians, etc., since Israel is home to an increasing number of tech and pharma companies. For example, I happened to watching CNBC last week a segment about an Israeli solar company's deal with a California utility came on (there's a link to the TV segment here).
It was written ENTIRELY by Jews.
Well, no not exactly. Saul became Paul and quite explicitly left his Jewish origins behind. Moreover, in the old testament, the Jews don't appear until the covenant - all the early actors are non - Jews, including Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and all those begats in between.
If the National press was centered in Salt Lake City and dominated by Mormans our coverage would be different.
Well, no it wouldn't be. You exactly miss the point. The Mormon imagination is quite explicitly based on, interested in and excited by news about the Jews, Jerusalem and the middle east. No more or no less than any of the other Christian sects that see a harbinger of end times in the news from the middle east. That's the point. Israel, and the Jews are a deeply rooted part of our culture in ways that Mexico is not and (probably) never will be.
I don't think Israel is covered more in US Media since Bible is nothing but a bunch of Jewish stories.
If this had worked, by the same token, a 95% Buddhist Country like Thailand should be covering Indian news more than the news of any of their neighbors since most Buddhist scriptures are nothing but a bunch of stories about Indians and a few Indo Greek Kings.
I think Thailand media has more news about China, Myanmar etc. than India.
Something I forgot to mention: Two British periodicals I read occasionally, The Financial Times and The Economist, cover Mexico (and lots of other countries) more than American papers do. For example, yesterday's Financial Times had an article about this Sunday's election for governor in the Mexican state of Baja California ("PRI populist threatens to turn back the clock in Mexican vote"). The article includes some nice local color:
"Accompanied by a caged parrot, the candidate for the Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) in Sunday's election for governor in Mexico's north-western state of Baja California sits at his desk beneath a stand at Tijuana's Palenque cock-fighting ring and pours himself a large tequila."
"It is a special kind, he insists - one that a Chinese friend spiced up by throwing in some scorpions, rattlesnakes, bear's bile and the penises of three animals: lion, tiger and dog. "It makes you sweat," he says, emptying the glass with a gulp."
"Are you familiar with President Bush's ancestor George Bush, 19th Century Hebrew professor? According to Wikipedia:
"His 1847 "The Valley of Vision," which became an antebellum best seller, called on the U.S. government to militarily wrench Palestine from the Turks and return it to the Jews."
-fred
Very interesting. Sounds like a 19th century Chuck Hagee of sorts. There were all sorts of dusky religious and political intrigues going on in the US during the 1840s. There was Joseph Smith's involvement with one Abraham Jonas, master mason and founding member of B'nai B'rith.
Fascinating quote here, from the link above:
"Mormonism was born in the throes of the holocaust provoked by the Anti-Masonic Morgan affair of 1826."
One must keep in mind that Mormonism is the most successful of all British Israelite cults, and the only one I can think of that is a popular religion today.
I've actually been delving into this stuff lately because some time ago I saw a PBS documentary about Mormons and was very curious about what angle PBS was trying to play. This led me along a twisted path back into the Reformation and currently I'm reading a book by William Thomas Walsh (brilliant Catholic historian).
Steve's postings on the Donmeh have also been food for thought. I have known for some time that the largely Turkish Muslim group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which wants to re-establish the Caliphate, considers Ataturk a mason and a crypto-Jew, but I didn't pay it that much attention, because they were saying the same thing about Islam Karimov, and that hardly seemed likely.
However, I am starting to reconsider. The history of the Islamic world is no simpler than our own convoluted history, so who am I to reject Islamic scholars' authority, when they obviously know far more than I do about these things?
I am starting to suspect that there really is an alliance between a masonic Turkish military and the Anglo-American/Zionist establishment that goes deeper than mere convenience. It looks as though the Turkish secular elite may actually rely on us for its very survival, which would explain why we can treat the Turkish army in such a humiliating way and get away with it. Also, consider that the bombing of the British HSBC bank and British consulate in Turkey a few years ago certainly suggests a target carefully chosen by the enemies of the Turkish establishment.
The power of Anglo expansion is finally waning, and other players are making moves to assert their old influence and territorial hegemony. This bodes ill for Israel, which was really a bad idea from the start IMO. Unfortunately, Zionism is such an integral part of the philosophy that underlies Anglo civilization's global power that Israel's misfortunes will inevitably be our own.
If there is anything at all to this stuff, then it is no wonder that the US pays so much attention to Israel.
Read the comments on this thread and it emphasizes how ethnic/religous concerns trump reality.
The fact is that what happens in Israel, a small country, 5,000 miles away, with no oil or important natural resources, is no REAL importance to this country. If tommorrow, the Jews decided that Israel was a mistake, handed back to the arabs and all emigrated to their countries of origin, it would no difference to the security or material well being of this country.
OTOH, what happens to 100 millions Mexican, with vast amounts of Oil on our southern border, IS VITALLY important to our material well-being and any disaster in Mexico will effect us.
Too bad we have a lot us Religious fanatics (both Jewish and Gentile) who ignore reality.
I suspect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets more attention during its most uneventful years than the Irish conflict got during its worst years.
If you mean the post-1969 era, I seem to recall quite a bit of coverage, but probably not as much overall as the Middle East conflict. That's not surprising at all. The IRA vs. the Brits caused severe psychological discomfort for the American public. On the one hand, many Irish-Catholic Americans were vociferously pro-IRA and embittered to the point of condemning anyone who disagreed with them. On the other hand, the IRA were terrorists and the UK is old, close friend of the US. Many Americans just didn't know how to react and preferred not to have to think too much about the issue.
Jews are interested in reading about Israel.
Mexicans, who far outnumber Jews in America, are NOT interested in reading about Mexico.
Gee, Steve, can you think of any reasons why Israel is featured in the news more than Mexico?
Could it have to do with Israel's hyper-educated population, its tremendous output of scientific papers (more per capita than any other country), patents, start-ups, venture capitalists, a per capita income higher than the United Kingdom's, its hefty production of new books (second in the world, per capita), its many technological and medical innovations, and its $100 billion dollar economy?
Nah. It's probably just those Jewish newspaper editors in America chucking their business plans out the window and forcing the reluctant populace to read stuff about random boring Jewish people.
Could it have to do with Israel's hyper-educated population, its tremendous output of scientific papers (more per capita than any other country), patents, start-ups, venture capitalists, a per capita income higher than the United Kingdom's, its hefty production of new books (second in the world, per capita), its many technological and medical innovations, and its $100 billion dollar economy?
The problem is that we never hear about those sort of things in the news except when Israelis are making a case that they are better than the neighborhood Arabs. We hear so little, in fact, that I don't think many Americans know much at all about the things you just mentioned. We hear a lot about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the sort of Israeli issues that concern the Jewish lobby in the United States.
Bill,
The 19th Century Professor George Bush was part of a group that doesn't really exist anymore: devout New England Protestant proto-Zionists. The old line WASP elites have long since become secular, and their mainline churches, the Presbytarians and the Episcopalians, tend to adhere to generally leftish political positions, including neutral-to-negative views on Israel. G.W. Bush probably is a Christian Zionist, but that's because he has been born again as an Evangelical.
Also, most of the proto-Zionist from the mid 19th Century until about 1920 -- both non-Jews and Jews alike -- were admirers of Islam and had romantic views of the Ottoman Empire and the Muslim Caliphate*. Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish secularists he led didn't, and he ended the Caliphate, sending the last Caliph into exile. Thus he toppled an institution that had been a core part of Muslim identity for 1300 years, and had been in Ottoman Turkish hands for the previous 400 years. The repercussions of this are still being felt in the Muslim world.
*This Caliphate is probably not what Al Qaeda has in mind to re-establish. Today we often think of the violent Wahabi/Salafist Muslims when we think of Islam, but 80 years ago, Wahabism was essentially a minor strain of Islam practiced by poor Bedouin tribe called the Saudis. The Turkish Caliphate was far less puritanical and more open to the West. The story goes that when Ataturk's men informed the last Caliph that he had to pack his bags and get out of dodge, the Caliph had been reading the essays of Montaigne.
"The problem is that we never hear about those sort of things in the news except when Israelis are making a case that they are better than the neighborhood Arabs"
When I have heard that case made, it has been by zealous American Jewish Israel supporters arguing with Israel opponents on the Internet, not by Israelis. As I wrote before though, you do hear about Israeli companies in the American business press.
You don't hear about those companies because of the size of Israel's economy (which is actually about $180 billion -- large on a per capita basis, but not on an absolute basis). You hear about the companies occasionally (if you read periodicals like the WSJ or Business 2.0, or watch CNBC) because 1) they often have technologically innovative products; and, more importantly, 2) they are often listed on Nasdaq after they go public, so interested Americans can easily invest in them.
One exception to that second point was Iscar, a privately-held Israel company in the fairly boring metal-working industry, that made the business press here last year when Warren Buffett bought 80% of it for Berkshire Hathaway, making it the first non-U.S. operating company BRK acquired.
"Jedster,
I know you won't believe me, but you're an idiot."
He's not an idiot; judging from his tone, he's just desperate.
Americans have been trained to think the fate of the world hinges on the outcome of the Mideast conflict. In fact, that's not remotely so. Israel could cease to exist tomorrow (violently or through peaceful dissolution) without any major impact on non-Jewish life (well, apart from a few million newly arrived American "citizens").
While ostensibly reporting on the "conflict", the real aim of such "news" is to establish the legitimacy of the Israeli state itself. Any eventual "peace"--or whatever is perceived as leading to it--is sure to be portrayed as some historic "compromise" by Israel; the reality, on the other hand, is that any acceptance of a Jewish state by Arabs there is surely a compromise orders of magnitude greater. Without such breathless reporting, the casual American may just be tempted to conclude that the establishment of Israel, the manner in which it was established and the manner in which it has subsequently behaved can in no way be squared with the liberal, democratic and humanitarian concerns that the both the average American and the government that represents him would claim to uphold.
"While ostensibly reporting on the "conflict", the real aim of such "news" is to establish the legitimacy of the Israeli state itself."
By your logic, the best way to "establish the legitimacy" of the Israeli state itself would be to ignore it, not to report on it "breathlessly". After all, how many people sit around worrying that Panama is illegitimate because of the way it was established? Not many, I'm guessing, because that country is hardly ever in our news.
How many, for that matter, wonder if our country is "legitimate" because of the way it was established?
These "legitimacy" issues are the result of a post-colonial left-wing academic ideology that sought to make normative statements about the establishment of countries -- a process that was always an amoral result of migration, wars, conquest, deals between larger powers, etc.
"Nah. It's probably just those Jewish newspaper editors in America chucking their business plans out the window and forcing the reluctant populace to read stuff about random boring Jewish people."
Why does the NYT have a story related to the Holocaust in every edition?
Why did Jewish Hollywood execs leave a billion dollars on the table and not make Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"?
There are easier ways to make money, and much more of it, than creating propaganda - er, I mean reporting all the news that's fit to print. Do you mean there is no agenda back of "news" in general, or just that Jews in media are the exception (angels)?
Post a Comment