« Sometimes it's good to just shut up and listen | Main | The finger of G-d »
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Still shutting up and listening
I have to say it was fun this morning spending my usual writing time just surfing around and reading people that I sometimes don't have time to visit.
During my predawn travels around the blogosphere I stumbled across this gem on White-Pebble:
In order that all men may be taught to speak the truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it.
— Dr. Samuel Johnson
It was nice to be reminded by the likes of Dr. Johnson that listening is an under-rated skill.
Just one side point about the Caroline Glick piece I linked to at the end of yesterday's post:
I don't think she really intended a literal comparison between either Israel or the US's mainstream media and that of North Korea. The point I took from the article was that both country's press seems to have adopted an unhealthy monolithic political positions amidst what should be very complex/diverse national ideologies. This has stifled national debate and made dissent seem akin to treason.
In the US there is the issue of very one-sided and incomplete coverage of events in Iraq. Casualties are reported scrupulously and in great detail (with a nearly constant attempts to evoke comparisons with Vietnam), while victory/progress are notably absent (from the coverage, not the actual events).
In Israel, the opposite is happening. The media has so completely embraced the worldview of Ariel Sharon that almost all the Hebrew dailies have come to sound like the Prime Minister's press office rather than the people's watchdog. Anyone (or anything) that is not in line with the PMs current thinking or statements is quickly vilified and treated as a dangerous, unpatriotic enemy.
I've already written more than I'd intended today. Seeya.
Posted by David Bogner on January 4, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5505228538834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Still shutting up and listening:
Comments
You are certainly correct about Iraq but it's not en vouge to say good things are happening there is it? I take it from the last line and from the heading of this post you are cutting back on the size of your postings? Is this part of the "listen more" component?
Posted by: Jewish Blogmeister | Jan 4, 2006 12:21:06 PM
I write this respectfully, so please accept it in the tenor that it is intended.But David, how open are you to the possibility that Bush a)lied and b) had this planned out way ahead of time? For whatever reasons that I might think this to be true( a subject for a different venue-or maybe never) I wonder if despite your recent post, you are willing to accept this as a legitimate side of the debate ( use any words that make you comfortable but nonehteless express this approach ) or you just dismiss this as mainstream-liberal-media -bias-agenda-driven nonsense?
Point being, from reading your writing over the past year or so it doesnt necessarily sound like you are truly open to "the other side", rather you have a point of view, a legitimate one, which seems to preclude you from seeing things on the balance that you lament is missing from the tone of this (inter-) national debate. I look forward to your thoughts.
Posted by: shabtai | Jan 4, 2006 3:05:26 PM
Jewish Blogmiester... No, I don't think so. The truth is that I have no idea what I'm going to write when I sit down at the keyboard... so planning to write a certain length post ahead of time would be kinda hard for me to manage. No, I just decided to take a couple of days to stop talking so much and listen to what others are saying for a change.
Shabtai... I love you dearly but based on your knee-jerk response I'd have to say you are the one who is being a little bit less than open-minded.
I never said anything about the premise under which the US entered Iraq, correct? If you want my opinion, I am fairly sure that you are correct in saying that Bush & Co. had a very clear plan to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq and grabbed at any handy excuse to do so. It turned out that the Afghanistan excuse (going after Al Qaeda) was very much in the US's defense interest. However, the Iraqi WMDs on which Bush hung his invasion never materialized (at least in the quantities that would qualify as a sole reason for invasion) and that put everyone in a tough spot. It was a tough spot because there were (and still are) dozens of good reasons why Saddam's regime needed to be toppled and replaced with one that would be less likely to foment terror and regional instability. Toppling Saddam's rogue regime should have been a global priority and not just a US-led coalition, but it was what it was.
I've given you this long-winded preamble because you ignored what I said, and decided I'd said something completely different. I simply said that the US press are deliberately withholding a portion of the real story going on right this minute in Iraq. This has nothing to do with whether or not Bush lied to get the US involved!
FOr the sake of argument, let's say he lied... so that would make it OK for the press to only report on casualties and to deliberately hold back and/or misreport stories from Iraq that would suggest that there might actually be a positive outcome to the US's involvement... and that some of Bush's goals are actually being realized? I am no fan of Bush, and as an Israeli I am frustrated as hell with any leader who would mislead the public to get his way instead of using proper democratic channels. But the press's responsibility to the public is INDEPENDANT of anything the president/prime minister has done in the past or wants to do in the future.
I'm not saying to let bygones be bygones. If Bush lied then let the system crucify him. But like it or not there is a war going on in Iraq with US troops in harm's way. For the press to try to sway public opinion and influence US foriegn policy by deliberately misrepresenting the current facts on the ground in Iraq is treasonous and contrary to their responsibilities as journalists.
Did I mention that I love you dearly? :-)
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 4, 2006 4:33:44 PM
you cant possibly believe that Israel's media has a direct influence on Sharon's success.
If the media had a significant influence on these things then Peretz would have far higher numbers than he ever did.
Posted by: Seth | Jan 5, 2006 12:16:20 AM
Seth... You are confusing endorsing a candidate for political office and running interference for a sitting Prime Minister in order to allow him to carry out a policy they hold to be ethically and morally correct. They did this by giving Sharon a nearly unlimited pass from criticism before and during the disengagement, while openly vilifying any sector of the population that opposed his policies.
I have read and heard several interviews with Israeli journalists since the disengagement about how and why they rallied behind Sharon, and they all said basically the same thing; that for the chance to finally allow an Israeli leader to do what they felt was morally correct, they were ready, able and willing to aside their responsibilities as journalists.
The ability to change history is heady stuff, and the powers within the Israeli media were not able to resist when Sharon adopted their agenda (getting out of the territories). The problem is that the press is supposed to serve the public, not the Prime Minister... and the Israeli public was/is sharply divided over exactly what was/is the 'morally correct' position on Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 5, 2006 12:36:46 AM
Hmmm... that raises an interesting question: when do you draw a line in how much their own opinions should allow to influence the work of the journalist? It's clear that "objectivity" is a very debatable issue, to say the list. But I'd say that at the very least, journalists have the responsibility to weigh the facts, and try to present a full picture, even if they disagree with what's happening. Unfortunately, when such decisions are left too much to individual choice, they can lead to very irresponsible decisions. Perhaps journalists should have a stricter set of guidelines?
Posted by: Irina | Jan 5, 2006 7:02:29 AM
Irina... There are already very clear guidelines in place for journalists. They can quote them to you chapter and verse if they need to seek refuge behind these rules (e.g. not divulging sources), but too many of them seem to feel comfortable setting them aside when it suits them. There is no problem with a media outlet having an editorial policy, endorsing a candidate or even expressing an opinion... so long as it is clearly an editorial. But when editorial bias plays an over-riding role in what news is reported and how, then there is a problem.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 5, 2006 11:26:34 AM
