Losing the TV war

[pistoff democrat]

cut

There are many reasons for this daily thrashing on the world's screens. A major one emerges from the contrast between the striking invisibility of terror and the salience of daily images of Israeli military action.

cut

But on the other side of the equation, when the terrorists play their hand, television is impotent: It can show no dramatic contest or realtime violence: Terrorists strike where they are least expected. Unlike tanks and infantry battalions, they cannot be identified, let alone filmed, until it's too late. The cameras get there only for the aftermath: ambulances, police and hospital spokesman. The available documentation of terrorist attacks, inevitably coming after the fact, cannot provide the drama of contest, the real-time eruption of violence.

cut

Israeli culture, through its reluctance to expose mutilated bodies, streams of blood, and horrified onlookers, also thwarts the kind of coverage which could generate empathy. Should it want - and it doesn't - Israel could attract television coverage if not by contest, then by sheer gore.

cut

But maybe not, if the spread of television-blind terrorists from Iraq, and Israel to Istanbul, London, Paris and Osh Kosh makes international television professionals realize that the violent contest, invisible in their medium, threatens the life, liberty and happiness of them and theirs, and learn how to balance this ungainly media act.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070512321417

[bluesoul]

1. More RW rants

Yawn.....

[Violet_Crumble]

2. "This report may in fact be suspect..."

"The Washington Times Jerusalem Post is a well-known right-wing publication and I don't know that it can be trusted..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=35708#36118

Credit to Pistoff Democrat for pointing out that news about right-wing publications :)


Violet...

on edit: sharpening my sorely lacking html skills...

[bluesoul]

3. LOL

Biting themselves with this one ;)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izzie]

4. News is news and all should be put out for us.

We can shut our ears if we wish.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. But it's not news...

It's an opinion piece from what I can see of it, and when it comes to right-wing editorials, I think the wisest move is to either read it for light entertainment or print it out and use it as toilet paper. If I wanted to read conservative editorials I'd go hang out at FR. I don't, so I hang out here at a progressive site. Makes sense, doesn't it?


Violet...

[bluesoul]

6. Why should we care

about the same stuff that is annoyingly being repeated on sites like FR and other RW propaganda sites? I chose a progressive board, because I am a progressive/liberal. And I couldn't care less about what the (extreme) RW thinks on anything...

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It's got me beat...

I'm almost too scared to admit that I can't be bothered registering with JPost because of the crap-quota in its content for fear that I might be chided for closing my ears to the news ;)

Violet...

[pistoff democrat]

10. Then why did your comrades

quote from the Washington Times and the NY Post on the thread to which apparently 2 people on this board were unaware of my satirical, loving jibe at how things ain't so simple. You see, those who are sanctimonious sometimes get hoist by their own petards! I'm certainly not saying you were, but, my heavens, that's exactly what happened.

Two pro-Palestinian posters used the NYPost and the Washington Times as sources. No pro-Palestinian poster jumped on the source. For humor and camaraderie's sake, I made a joke ... and you still don't see the connection.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so darn sad!

[Jack Rabbit]

11. I missed the Washington Times reference

However, the citation of the New York Post was by Classical Liberal on this thread. Here, CL would appear to be inviting a discussion on rightwing reaction to a Democratic candidate's proposal to send peace envoys to help resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Choosing a rightwing source for that purpose seems proper. Perhaps CL should have explained his purpose for using Mr. Murdoch's fishwrap; however, most of us who have spent any time here know CL's views and that they are such as to hold the editorial policy of the Post in contempt.

That is quite different from posting a piece by Jeff Jacoby, a notorious rightwing shill, with the accolades like "Great article" and "must read". That poster would have done better to explain why we, the friendly members of Democratic Underground, should look at Mr. Jacoby's views favorably in this case when we normally would not.

[bluesoul]

12. Maybe because someone here

thinks that going along such RW thrash is ok, when it goes for Israel...

[drdon326]

13. Ahhhh....

SO.. It doesnt matter what the messege is, just dismiss it if
you dont like the messenger.

Gee I always thought that what
progressive thought was fighting AGAINST...at LEAST thats
what i always was taught to believe.

Tell me, Jack, did you support Bush going into Afghanistan
after 9-11 ??

Apparently reports of > 80% of democrats supported Bush
going into Afghanistan after 9-11.

That doesnt make them right wingers.

edit typos

on edit # 2...i see theyre deleteing...this is not a personal
attack.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. I stand on that

I had problems with Jacoby's opposition to the Geneva Accord as stated in that piece and expressed them there. I also stated my objections to Jacoby's views in general.

I also had problems with Charles Krauthammer's views on the same subject, and expressed those in a thread opened by another poster (wihtout comment) anchored by Krauthammer's piece. I also stated my objections to Krauthammer's views in general.

Jacoby and Krauthammer are people with whom we are not used to agreeing. Moveover, the views they expressed in their pieces were not going to be universally accepted here and those who posted them certainly knew that. It would have been wiser if the posters had acknowledged that.

It's a little like finding a worthwhile article in a pornographic magaizine. One is not going to simply tell his friends to go out and buy that particular issue. One would do better to explain why the article is so worthwhile as to override one's usual objections to the publication in which it is found, and even perhaps acknowledge that one may not agree with the article's view, but still find something worthwhile about the way the argument is presented.

[bluesoul]

16. I cannot believe this

People here should be trying to accept neocon BS from the likes of Jacoby and Krauthammer as credible here? Oh my...

[drdon326]

17. Fair enough...

I had NO problems with Jacoby's opposition to the Geneva Accord as stated in that piece and I also AGREE with your objections to Jacoby's views in general.

I had FEW problems with Charles Krauthammer's views on the same subject, AND i also agree with your objections to his views in general.

BTW...you really didnt answer my question about your views
on 9-11.

As for your anology on porno. magazines, funny you should mention
that on the 50th anniv. of PLAYBOY....which ,at least i believe
was a very progressive in terms of the issues of their day.

[bluesoul]

18. Hehe

Playboy is not exactly a Porn magazine but mostly soft erotic (sometimes barely revealing) stuff. Hustler and the likes are though ;)

[drdon326]

19. Many people...

over the years have viewed PLAYBOY as porography.

I, needless to say, have never been one of them.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. My views on the September 11 attacks and the Afghan invasion

My views on the September 11 attacks and the Afghan invasion are not pertenant to this discussion.

I have expressed them elsewhere.

As for Playboy, it at least has a reputation for literacy. I was thinking more in terms of something that doesn't.

[drdon326]

21. I respect that...

as I have ALWAYS held your views in very high esteem.

You have taught me much since coming here and I THANK
YOU FOR IT.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. That I consider a great compliment

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[bluesoul]

23. The closer that Christmas is

the better mood we're all in and the more we are thanking others ;) :toast:

[Lurking Dem]

26. Yeah Christmas always makes ME feel warm and fuzzy.

:eyes:

[pistoff democrat]

24. Right.

Jack and Don get Playboy for the articles.

:yourock:

[edzontar]

14. There is a big difference between criticizing RW sources

And embracing them, over and over and over again.

[tinnypriv]

25. "the striking invisibility of terror"

Are the AP/Reuters cameramen who rush onto the scene of suicide bombings all forgetting to hit 'record'? :eyes:

More reactionary chauvinism from the Jerusalem Post. No surprise, given that this is a publication which has no qualms about distorting wire reports, calling for the assasination of elected leaders etc.

The heavy reliance on it for topics around here is illuminating though, given those facts.