Suggestion box

Somebody whom I consider to be a media guru emailed me the other day with this advice.

Trying desperately hard not to throw kerosene upon passengers fleeing a downed aircraft, it seems to me that your commentary - and the comments thereby engendered - on the current war between Israel and Hezbollah is becoming a tad inflammatory. (Apologies for the odd metaphor and bad pun.) I understand and respect your point of view on the issue itself. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's beside the point.

It might be more useful in your unique position as media observer and commentator to attempt to understand your own cognitive environment, and through that understanding, construct an anti-environment that will enable you to better comment on the issues of the hot media war that parallels the shooting and bombing war. The Middle East conflicts (and now I'm including the wider region) are unique in contemporary history for being as much (or more) about the media war as they are about the actual military action. At the risk of being a scold (again, my apologies) that should be your beat, not the question of Israel's wrongness, rightness, or otherwiseness. (Besides, the back and forth between Jay/Steve on one side and Arthur/Jim/etc. on the other is getting tiresome, I think).

For example, this conflict might be seen as a turning point in the ongoing media war from Israel's perspective because it is the first in which Israel is on top of managing the U.S. mass media (European is another matter). In past conflicts, those opposing Israel (eg. Palestinian spokespeople, with a certain few exceptions - Aaron Brown getting the boot comes to mind) have typically been given sympathetic hearings. Now, my perception is that Israel is getting a lot better coverage than perhaps they deserve. Why this is, is an interesting question, perhaps relating to how the American media has been systematically softened up by the Bush Administration. Among those non- U.S., non-Middle-Eastern media outlets that have played heavily to the anti- terrorism theme, it would be interesting to see if they are following the same hymnal, so to speak.

And so forth. Much more interesting digging and thinking on these themes, I think.

My friend prefers to remain anonymous but said it was okay to post this advice.

I agree with most of it.

What do you think?

Comments

[Jay Currie]

Well your media guru may have missed the memo but, I hear, that there was a kufuffle on 9/11/01.

It is just possible that the slightly revised position of the media may have something to do with this event. In fact, and here I am drawing a long bow, it might have made it slightly more likely that Americans would have a mildly greater understanding about what it is like to be attacked by Islamic terrorists. One which could inform their reporting of other attacks by Islamic militants.

Call me crazy - or god forbid, tiresome - but there has been something of a sea change since 9/11 and that is bound to effect the perspective on these sorts of stories.

[stephen.reeves]

Israel is getting better or more converage than the other sides, is nothing new.I have witnessed (via the media) all the Wars since 1967, ( a bit young to remember Suez, although back then the media coverage may have been against Israel,considering the American position back then,),Of course now we have 24 hour coverage, very opiniated journalists out there on both sides.(meanwhile ignoring every other conflict in the world in which civilians,including children are being killed,remember Mumbai,Sri Lanka,Darfue, Kashmir and on and on).
There are numurous narratives being played out,the first is the actual establishment of Israel, the second the local conflict and resistance of Palestinians,and the third the wider conflict between Islamic extremists and Israel and the West,where Israel is a proxy of the U.S. The latter tends to put some on the left and the extreme right on the side of the extremists,subesquently causing a conflict within the left, as has been discussed.(that is probably the influence of Chomksy.).
Most people who have not had their brains wired either by the left or the right, try to see some sense on both sides.
It is easy on a blog to say things you would never say face to face,I have had discusstion regarding the war with some of my friends who view Israel as a permanent agressor.I do not call them Hez lovers, as I have called some of them here.
I don't know the backgrounds of the commentators, ages etc, many do not leave full names.I do, and do not hide.
As that guy in the Post said yesterday, we could have blogs where everyone agrees and pats each other on the back, or a reasonable debate, but it is hard.(ever see the comments on the Guardian's site ?).
We could discuss this as media only, but unless we have the time to watch all outlets on TV, or the internet, it would be hard to be objective. I read Israeli and Arab blogs daily ( I read Arabic and have a bit of Hebrew) and see so many diverse views, which are not reflected in the media. The media tends to look at those how shout the loudest, whether the CBC or Al Jazeera. I go to Egypt and talk to the locals, believe me, If I went with a camera and said I was a journalist, they would say what the think I would want them to say, instead of the truth,(plus of course many are afraid of saying anything that goes against the government line, in front of a camera.
Ok thats enough rambling, it is early,yes the back and forth is getting tiresome (it is Stephen not Steve).
It is a pity the poster chose to write anonymous,unless he/she is a well know personality in the media.

[NPS]

Yup, I agree. With the Jays/Steves et al squaring off against each other like a MSM/ICQ chat line forum; it did get a tad tiresome. Let the respondents to your particular post/theme have their say just once (on topic) no rebuttals against each with the exception of moderator response.

Just my two cents (and that is probably all it is worth)

Best
N
Riverview, NB

[Todd]

It's partly your blog, Antonia; do as you see fit (though you might have to wield the censor's delete button a tad more often to make sure the topic sticks to the straight-and-narrow).

Which parts of the missive do you agree with?

[johnnykap]

Anyone who apologizes twice and then hits "send" doesn't have much credibility or firm convictions. If you're so sorry, don't leave what you're sorry for in your post. She considers the back and forth between opposing viewpoints to be tiresome. Solution: go somewhere else if you don't like the commentary. Israel gets more favorable coverage than she deserves? Solution: continue reading this blog. The American media has been softened up by the Bush administration? Solution: turn on the tv, listen to the radio, peruse the information superhighway, pick up a paper. Or just read this blog. The press' sole desire is to glom onto any kook fringe group or individual who may be able to bring discredit to the Bush admin. Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, and countless others come to mind. Or simply take a look at Frank Rich's anti-Bush, anti-US screed that is available in AZ's blog for enjoyable reading over your morning coffee. Other than those minor disagreements, I, too, agree with much of her post.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

That was an intelligent and respectful comment...How refreshing!

As to the entire situation, I have taken the position of, after living almost my entire life hearing the 'reasons and justifications' for war between the Zionists and Muslims, go right ahead and do as you will. When they get tired of the pain, suffering, destruction and death maybe, just maybe, they will stop doing it to themselves.

I am not holding my breath, nor living my days watching it anymore. Neither am I hoping for the usual political hacks to accomplish anything. How many peace accords have there been? Right!

I will give Jay Currie credit for his point regarding a 'sea change after 9/11', more like a tsunami! Still, the Americans cannot bring themselves to ask 'Why did this happen? What have we done to piss of so many people?' Until those two questions are asked and answered I only expect more of the same.

As Pogo said 'We has found the enemy and they is us!' The WTC was the target, twice, because it is where the multinational corporate criminal terrorists reside. Consider it like the apartment tower in Lebanon, only a bigger target. Guess it was just 'collateral damage' to the perps, eh?

God help the perpetrators if it ever is revealed there was a conspiracy and certain special interests in the U.S. were behind it. No, not making a statement there were, but the evidence is still questionable to me!

I must admit, I was somewhat shocked, but then again not, that Nixon considered using nukes in 'Nam! Maybe that big nuclear capable Dragon a little north of there gave him and the whackos pause to think?

Oh, remember that Nixon had a peace plan a well, but it was never put into use because they got their asses kicked and bailed out...wisely I might add!

Now, if only there could be a cause that results in a pause to think about the current stupid crisis! One form is like another...both are wrong!

Oh, and Bush's BS speech last night was so nauseating I hit the mute button until Georgie, the talking doll, had finished!

[sooey]

he didn't say sooey was an irksome git, but i'll agree with him anyway. besides, even i'm bored with me. so you can imagine how i feel about everybody else...

[Rob]

Here's one example I'd like your opinion on. A few nights ago the CBC news ran a lengthy interview with Emil Lahoud, Lebanese president (or prime minister? not sure.) It was clearly a one-sided affair with Nalah Ayed lobbing nothing but softballs ("you are angry?") She asked a number of questions about the Lebanese victims of the war. And she never challenged Lahoud's declared support for Hezbollah or his assertion that he is "100% against Israel." (Viewers might have been interested in what exactly this phrase means.)

Immediately following, the anchor announced that a similar opportunity for an Israeli politician would be provided in the coming days. I couldn't help feeling the CBC was aware it's Lahoud interview was pure propaganda, and were trying to preempt criticism.

Last night, CBC presented Isaac Herzog, cabinet minister, in an interview with Adreinne Arsenault. Herzog faced much tougher questioning from a correspondent who is clearly more experienced. The interview had a far more adversarial tone than the Ayed interview. And there were no questions asked about the victims on the Israeli side of the border.

Antonia, I think this kind of analysis is what your blog is trying to achieve. So I'm curious if you saw both interviews, and if you think the CBC was balanced in this particular tandem of interviews?

[Antonia Z.]

Sorry Rob, but I did not see these interviews.

However, I think it's important not to judge a media organization by one or two segments but by its overall coverage in the longer run. This or that interview may seem unfair or unbalanced but what about the rest of the paper/program/newsday?

For example, I can't tell you how many times I have seen Israel's ambassador to Canada on CBC. Is that balanced out with equal representation from Hezbollah supporters? I kinda doubt it.

It's hard to judge by one or two interviews.

[Rim Rat]

My suggestion: Quit publishing comments. Most of them are same-old, same-old from a hidebound bunch who don't seem to have much else to do in their lives. If someone makes a comment you feel is worth passing on, do it in your blog, a la Paul Wells.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

Here are my observations to several of the comments.

'Israel gets more favorable coverage than she deserves?'

They certainly are NOT getting that treatment on Global National. GN has been primarily focusing on the death and destruction in Lebanon and that is as it should be whereas that is where the largest amount is occuring.

As to the CBC interviews. I did not see the one with the Hezbollah rep, but did watch the Israeli interview last night. What was interesting was the person is predominantly a 'peace advocate', but he has changed his position. He said what his beliefs are, and why, and CBC left the audience to form their own opinion. That is how I prefer interviews to be. Do not attack the interviewee, but ask them questions that reveal their true position, yet without confrontation. That takes an experienced and knowledgeable interviewer.

Compare such to what you did to Bill O'Reilly by turning his own questions back on him! Making him define his meanings, rather than playing along, or defending your's to them.

BTW, Peter Mansbridge is aboard a CCG icebreaker in the Arctic and reporting from there. His segment last night was simply EXCELLENT, and will be the featured topic all week long...Our Canadian Arctic and Global Warming's effect on our sovereignty and peoples.

It was one of the finest CBC has done.

[Reality Check]

AZ, you raise the interesting question of equivalence. Would today's media if reporting on WWII do a Crossfire style segment between Hitler and an Allied spokesperson as to whether Hitler's views really were correct? I think not. I think the view instead would be that Hitler is a demon and no more deserving of free air time that legitimizes his views than Paul Bernardo would be so entitled.

If you acept that terrorist organizations exist at all, Hezbollah clearly is a terrorist organziation. If that's the case, is it appropriate to present its views and the views of a legitimate State actor on an equal playing field?

I think you can have someone interview them, just like someone could interview Paul Bernardo, but not in a way that gives equal stature to the terrorists.

This is an honest question about how the media should report.

[Jim Trautman]

Sorry if I was tiresome I did not know that to rebut with the truth was so tiresome, but then again that is how the US/UK and now Canada appear to want it. Of course now that the US has wormed its way out of Southern Afganistan it would be tiresome to mention the utter bull that Canada will not be involved in the attempt (never happen)to destroy the poppy fields since the British patrol that was attacked and three Brits killed shares the region with Canada. Or the fact that now somehow the Taleban are tied in with the drug lords. Funny I remember a great picture in May 2001 of a Taleban leader and Colin Powell handing them a check for $90 million for assisting in the war on drugs. But, hey when those Brit and Canadian bodies begin to pile up it would be tiresome to mention the truth. The real truth is why would the drug lords need the Taleban since the Karzai government is controlled by drug lords and war lords.
No, you're are right the butchery will continue for that's the way the ruling class wants it. It would be tiresome to mention none of them ever pay the piper.
I guess what is going out in the Middle East is a lot like the settling of North America, take what you want and when anyone fights back kill them. Send out the cavalry. Of course for the British its to be able to believe that your nation is really important and the sun has not set on the empire.
But, he was right why bother North Americans and the Brits love to live in a delusion world, comsume and watch reality tv. Sort of like 1984. Tiresome to mention that your government spies on you and reads your bank statements. Oh, but if you have nothing to hide. I guess it was tiresome for people to speak out against Joe McCarthy as he destroyed people's lives in the 50's.
The only part I will admit I fell out of my seat from laughing was the part that Israel is getting more positive media attention today. Oh, please, one just has to look at the US/Uk and the campaign contributions to see that for what it is. Israel has always reveived positive media coverage. It's like the nonsense that the media is left wing. Boy, if the media is left wing I hate to see it when it was right wing.

I wonder would it be tiresome to continue to mention the dead civilians or how about the Holocaust?
He probably is right - I have a lot more important things to do. Someday in the future after it all goes so horribly wrong for the West in the Middle East and Latin America and Asia will it be tiresome. When not just military, but the entire economic house of cards emplouds on itself.

As Edward R. Morrow used to close his show "Good night and Good luck."

[Maz]

A new poll out today (see the Globe and Mail's frontpage) puts the Harper Conservatives in the political doghouse. As I said earlier on this blog, support for the Harper minority government
will crater in Quebec - which is precisely what's happening, with
the separatist BQ gathering up the spoils.. That Israel's response to Hezbollah provocations was a 'measured' one, as Mr Harper has insisted, was roundly contradicted, BTW, by none other than
Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman. At a
pro-Israel rally in New York, Gillerman thundered: "[T]o those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You're damn right we are." Comments," the Jerusalem Post reports, that "drew wild applause."

[Antonia Z.]

Rim Rat, your suggestion to not publish comments is a good one. I have considered it often, especially in the past few weeks. It would give me back hours of my life. But I think blogging is about interaction and exchange and therefore I will continue to welcome them until I get good and tired and fed up and then ... NUKE!

As for your statement Reality Check, it really didn't make much sense once you got here: "If you acept that terrorist organizations exist at all, Hezbollah clearly is a terrorist organziation. If that's the case, is it appropriate to present its views and the views of a legitimate State actor on an equal playing field?"

Don't forget, members of Hezbollah have been democratically elected and are part of the government of Lebanon. You can't tar everybody as a terrorist and then say, we don't interview terrorists.

By your logic, Arafat would never have been interviewed. As for Hitler, I think good journalists, had they been given access, would have posed tough questions of him. A Crossfire segment is a ridiculous hypothetical.

[sooey]

i think the media should report as much news as it can get its hands on and disseminate it however it can to reach as many people as possible, reality check.

[Ti-Guy]

"Would today's media if reporting on WWII do a Crossfire style segment between Hitler and an Allied spokesperson as to whether Hitler's views really were correct?"

Actually, Antonia -- I think we could all do without the ignorant comments from people who think we're in the middle of WW2. We might be at the beginning of WW3, but the dynamic is completely different, namely...

...*ahem*...Bush=Hitler! (...ah ha ha!)

The truth about anything in a war never comes out at the time it's reported. It usually takes months or years (if ever) when all the pieces come together, and when people feel safe enough to tell the truth again. I don't think the commentary can be improved one way or the other; I'm just skipping the idle speculation (from the J's especially, since, although mock-worthy, it's a complete waste of time) and just concentrating on new information. And no, IDF press releases don't count...

[AMJ]

johnnykap @8:09

"Anyone who apologizes twice and then hits "send" doesn't have much credibility or firm convictions."

----------

I realize that this is not directly germane to this thread's topic, But it is wholly relevant to certain debates overall:

What immediately struck me upon reading Mr. Kap's comment was this -- how Israel apologized twice, expressing great sorrow, (for bombing first the UN post killing several peace keepers, and again for bombing and killing all those children and other civilians in Kana) but refused to stop, and continues to "hit send". Ergo Israel no longer has any credibility or apparent convictions.

[Dude]

I think your media guru friend needs a history lesson. Actually, s/he needs glasses. To state, as s/he did, that the Palestinians have traditionally received more favourable coverage than the Israelis is beyond ludicrous.

[arthurdecco]

"Sorry if I was tiresome I did not know that to rebut with the truth was so tiresome..." posted by Jim Trautman

Mr. Trautman, you beat me to it...

Gotta be a bitch to have to read the truth in response to the distortions and out-right lies presented as facts by the usual suspects here on this blog!

Tiresome? I suppose it is to anyone not willing to investigate the validity of the claims made here by your posting community, Antonia, from right, left and centre.

To be equated with the Stephen and Jay types in your anonymous emailer’s missive made my skin crawl. This is one person who hasn’t been paying attention, his or her “reputation” notwithstanding.

Name one point I've made here that was a lie. JUST ONE! When I’ve made an error and it’s been pointed out to me, I have immediately retracted my point and apologized for it. Look it up! The fact that I'm angry doesn't make me a liar. The fact that I'm completely anti-Zionist doesn't make what I have to say any less true either. It just makes me a TARGET.

Review a few of the latest posts from Reeves and Currie. Can they make the same claim?

I suppose I could shove my head in the sand and ignore the world as it actually exists but then what would be the point of posting?

(Or is that the REAL POINT of this line of attack - getting the effective voices that are now raised against the horrors of this latest Israeli over-the-top conflict extinguished? Remember the threat you received from Jean Crustacean the other day, Antonia? When he demanded that you distance yourself from posters like me? "IN WRITING" or ELSE?) (Shudder!)

Maybe I’m feeling overly dramatic sitting here in this heat my air conditioner is fighting a losing battle with, but I’m feeling a lot like the aggrieved and confused doctor in Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”.

And I’m frankly confused by why I should be thinking this way. After all, I’m fighting this battle on the side of the victims here – certainly not as a champion of brute force and psychotic violence like so many of the pajamadeen typing madly away are. Why am I in the spotlight – or Jim Trautman? Since when did defending morality and ethical behaviour become a bad thing? Since when has it been possible to equate a moral, ethical and legal stance with a criminal one?

Finally, to be lumped in with Jim Trautman is an honor. Jim Trautman is an honorable man, which is more than I can say about several of the characters who regularly choose to insult us personally, put words in our mouths we would never dream of saying (or even think), and brazenly lie to us to reinforce their questionable points of view.

[Maz]

Antonia, the best thing about your blog is the work you do up front in finding, arranging and posting stories with information re all the 'hot' issues of the day. You could eliminate some of the bickering &
bitchery that goes back and forth among commentators, that add nothing to the content of the debate. But that's a secondary matter; the original spadework you do to bring issues to the fore is why we cannot let a day go by without a routine check of 'what's new' on your blog. Add to this a touch of humanity and decency in your outlook and insights. That's important, when so many opinion-makers 'out there' are flogging a 'make war, not love' agenda. (Who loves yuh, baby?)

[Todd]

Dude said:

"I think your media guru friend needs a history lesson. Actually, s/he needs glasses. To state, as s/he did, that the Palestinians have traditionally received more favourable coverage than the Israelis is beyond ludicrous."

Actually, that might be true, Dude.

Not too long ago, Israel wasn't so much of a bosom buddy to the States; a short period in the 50s I think (paging media historian . . .).

[anonymous coward]

AZ, it is this anonymous coward's opinion that you're at your strongest and most indispensable when you're doing your job: media reporting and analysis, especially in the Canadian context.

Conversely, I'm always amazed when you let yourself get dragged down to the level of the political blogosphere (and I agree fully with Adam Radwanski's critiques of it that you posted earlier). Why engage in ugly mudfights with people who practice bloviation, not journalism? You put in calls, you talk to sources, you do your best to get your facts straight and analysis grounded. Blogs like this move the Internet forward. Blogs like the ones you and your commenters so frequently link to keep it planted - by the knuckles - in the past.

[Antonia Z.]

First, thank you all, especially Maz. (You loves me baby!)

But to address Anonymous Coward:

Oh don't I know it. It would make my life so much easier to blog about who is zooming whom at CTV or CBC or wherever. But I feel that covering the war coverage, whether it's Iraq or Israel, is a crucial party of my job, one that somebody has to take on.

Believe me, there are days I wish I were writing about the latest fashions in pantyhose.

[johnnykap]

"Believe me, there are days I wish I were writing about the latest fashions in pantyhose."

I'm puzzled by your remark, AZ. Do you mean you wish you were writing about general fashion whilst wearing pantyhose or do you mean you wish you were writing specifically and only about pantyhose fashion fads? I think you mite find the latter rather limiting.

ArtDeco, you were lumped into the leftist group because of your extreme views that appear to be sympathetic to the Hezbollah terrorists. Quit feeling so sorry for yourself. The weight of the world is on Bush's shoulders, not yours. Or as Ti-girl calls him, Hitler. Or when he's being really clever, Bushitler.