rigorousintuition.ca

There are plenty around in America and Britain.<br><br>Telling it Like it Isn’t <br>Robert Fisk – Los Angeles Times 27 December 2005<br><br>I first realized the enormous pressures on American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers. <br><br>"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore." <br><br>Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing as it had ever been. <br><br>This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" — or even, in some cases, "outposts." <br><br>Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into "disputed" Palestinian land — just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory. <br><br>Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all — so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall. <br><br>The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely. <br><br>If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act. <br><br>And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" — words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex. <br><br>For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them. <br><br>We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi insurgency — referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or "terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently — and grotesquely — by American journalists. <br><br>American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in which the horrors of conflict — the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs — are kept off the screen. Editors in New York and London make sure that viewers' "sensitivities" don't suffer, that we don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or "dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed. <br><br>Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war. <br><br>Back in the old days, we used to believe — did we not? — that journalists should "tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K. Smiths and Alan Moorheads didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different version. <br><br>So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not, primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit. <br><br><br>Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author, most recently, of "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East," published last month by Knopf.<br>www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11391.htm <br><br> <br> <p></p><i></i>

It works both ways. It's quite rare, for instance, to see the word "terrorist" used, unless someone is being quoted. They're always "militants", "gunmen", "fighters", etc. What I think is actually going on here is that it's easier to deflect criticism and charges of bias if you use a nonconfrontational term such as "security barrier" or "militant". It saves the editor's time, which is a virtue of such great weight that it can balance many faults.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>

Hello Sepka<br><br>Could you please provide evidence in the mainstream media where "it works both ways".? <br><br>I personally see the deliberate use of the term "terrorist", as part of the obvious black propaganda by the controllers and their whores. <br><br>If you sincerely think that those who use the term "security barrier", are doing so for the reasons you mentioned, then sadly I think you are rather naive, to be polite, in your political knowledge and understanding.<br><br>By the way could you back up the following by you:<br><br>"Does anyone really believe that the Iranians' intentions are benign? If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, there will be a nuclear war."<br><br>Your evidence please<br><br>Thanks <p></p><i></i>

There is already nuclear war. DU is a "dirty nuke" and the long-range repercussions must have been known by the perpetrators-- our own government-- before the decision was made to use it.<br><br>It is just as Eisenhower warned as he was leaving office... the military-industrial complex is a self-perpetuating monster. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

the mockingbirds and chikenhawks fly us into their hellsih vision for us..while they fly to" safety "with their masters <p></p><i></i>

Hi Otis.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I personally see the deliberate use of the term "terrorist", as part of the obvious black propaganda by the controllers and their whores.<br><br>If you sincerely think that those who use the term "security barrier", are doing so for the reasons you mentioned, then sadly I think you are rather naive, to be polite, in your political knowledge and understanding.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And yet, you don't have trouble believing that on the one paw, there's a massive conspiracy afoot to control public opinion in the western media through word choices, while on the other paw, the Los Angeles Times (a Tribune Media property) runs an analysis piece to point out their own bias...<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"Does anyone really believe that the Iranians' intentions are benign? If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, there will be a nuclear war."<br><br>Your evidence please<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The Iranian government has spent the last 25 years describing the United States as "The Great Satan". The state-sponsored prayers have traditionally closed with chants of "Death to America! Death to Israel!" for (with brief exceptions) those same 25 years. What's going on here isn't the least bit subtle. They're demonising (literally) Americans and Israelis, and getting their populace in a wartime frame of mind. <br><br>I can't help but note as well that the Iranian people have, in an apparently honest election, finally appointed a President who enthuses openly about "wiping Israel off the map". All these things taken together tend to make me believe that they don't want nuclear weapons for defense. <br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel<br> <p></p><i></i>

Rule by Limited Hang-out.<br><br>Cover-up that draws attention is not a successful cover-up.<br><br>This is how the illusion of a free press is maintained. <br>Dissent is not eliminated, it is marginalized and discredited.<br><br>This is the intellectual equivalent of wiping out a village but leaving a survivor to tell the tale to prevent further resistance.<br><br>In the army's psy-ops manual for guerilla warfare in Nicaragua (which I recommend reading to see how it is used in the USA) the tactic of suppressing hostile literature is encouraged with the caveat that it is self-defeating to entirely suppress hostile info because that serves to VALIDATE that it is information that is dangerous to you and makes people more interested in reading it.<br><br>Hence the 'wacky paranoid conspiracy theorist' meme instead of wiping them off the map. <br><br>Or the polarization into Red vs Blue treatment that explains everything as 'partisan' like a petty domestic argument to stay clear of.<br><br>See how the Operation Mockingbird headlines do this: "Democrats Demand Nominee's Documents."<br>"Democrats Claim Election Fraud."<br>"Democrats Call for Inquiry." <p></p><i></i>

Hello Sepka<br><br>Actual evidence that Iran actually has "W.M.D".........oh gosh been here before, the Iraq war. Deja vu....or whatever.........come on .! <p></p><i></i>

sepka, there was indeed a planed compaign to change the terminology. "Mainstream" jewish lobbying organisations went at it full bore to make sure the terminology favored their view of what is "good for Israel" Some of the talking points were even published in Harpers when some of their briefing documents were leaked.<br><br>It's not some great hidden conspiracy, just "Public Relations" at it's finest. IF I have to I can find sources, but this was talked about quite a bit in the 2001-2002 era. <p></p><i></i>