But I felt fairly sure private was repeating an urban legend, and it appears to be so. Private should actually produce evidence, or take back that "blatantly false". He might also, as a person who holds a position of responsibility in a major publication, reflect on the uncontrolled, unexamined nature of his thought patterns, and his willingness to exhibit them as a supposedly rational point of view. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
reflect on the uncontrolled, unexamined nature of his thought patterns, and his willingness to exhibit them as a supposedly rational point of view.
Amen.
I can't make out what the man is saying at the end. The kids in the beginning and the old woman are saying Allahu Akbar.
The question is how representative it is. They filed these few shots of a few (not "thousands," as Fox News reported) celebrating Palestinians, but no other footage that I know of from Palestine that day -- for example, of people who weren't celebrating. That's sort of the nature of television, they take pictures of people doing things, not of people not-doing things.
It's hard to find anything online about this from people who don't have some sort of political axe to grind. Matt Taibbi in exile.ru had a long sort of rumination on it, in which he concluded that American television coverage of the Middle East is essentially the work of Satan. I mean, he didn't say that, but he wasn't very happy with the editorial decision to broadcast the clips....
It's clear from snopes.com (search for "arabs celebrating") that a whole bunch of urban legends (snopes says "innumerable") grew up around the theme of Arabs celebrating in the US. Edwin links to some pages in his diary. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
I remember a swedish television show (but which one? Mediamagasinet? Faktum? Google did not help...) doing some investigation on that clip, and tracking down that woman. Her take on it was that she had been tricked. She had been paid (in money or goods) to perform as the journalists needed some footage of joyous Palestines, but either did not say what for or lied about it.
Yikes!
Hold on...if his responsibility is payroll...that's one thing. Or maybe advertising? Or facilities, logistics, finance...of course!
If it's editorial or journalistic.
This is a very strange time, though. Can anyone think of another period in history when deconstruction of any meme was so quick and so widespread?
I wonder what I'd be thinking about, say, the Iraq war if the internet wasn't around.
My latest example is the Hamas/Fatah situation. From the news I get a sense of "Two groups of palestinians have been shooting at each other. Our govts. don't like the Hamas group because they say they wish to destroy Israel. As Hamas have beatten Fatah in Gaza our govts. are doing business with a Fatah guy in the West bank."
Huh? Why are they fighting and--an important question--who is supplying these people with arms?
Two seconds later I'm at my first article.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55797
So now I know the americans were offering arms to Fatah. So...who or what is Fatah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah
Huh? The americans are supporing Fatah? Okay then. Who or what is Hamas?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/
But there are so many links...so much information. What is interesting, for me, is that Private can read through and find the facts that balance his worldview...
...and then dismiss the "ideologically motivated" information that...well...the bit we don't agree with is disinformation.
And Jerome grows weary of fighting the...lies...for it is being caught out in a lie (Would you like lies with that dot com. Arf!)...that's the humiliating one--your lie broadcast to the world!
And okay, some liars don't care...but I reckon they still do. What mafia boss wants to know that behind his back he is called "Shit for brains"? Well, every one of them wants to know so they can...what? Stop 'em!
Yack yackety yack!
Who knows what the exact truth is with Wikipedia
I read that and thought...you could lose the "with Wikipedia" part. If something is known as an exact truth, how could it not be in Wikipedia? (I'm ignoring marginal articles about such things as Who Is Leader of the Zombie Brain Eaters sect in Yongshei province...and even that, if there is an exact truth, will end up being corrected or...I should say...can be corrected.
Wikipedia is a sort of centralising zone with no centre. For hot topics they have special warnings. I love [citation needed]...sort of like "sez you and, er, who else?" Or it means: "Hey, we know--well, we think we know--that this is correct. If someone knows the original source, please say."
How this will play out, I don't know, but I think it's unique...our new development in history.
And somehow people like Private (and deep in our hearts maybe there is a part of us that will always be Private)...are learning too. The internet is tolerant so I suppose it teaches tolerance. If you're not tolerant, hey! There'll be plenty of websites for the non-tolerant too! And if, after a bout of heavy non-tolerance you fancy a bit of...well...that's Private...but, hey! There are plenty of websites about...well...just about anything...yack yack!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
I am actually worried that private
holds a position of responsibility in a major publication
My operating assumptions were:
Preamble Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice. Seek Truth and Report It Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should: -- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. -- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. -- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. [...] Minimize Harm Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. [...] Act Independently Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know. [...] Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Journalists should: -- Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. -- Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media. -- Admit mistakes and correct them promptly. -- Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media. -- Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Seek Truth and Report It Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should: -- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. -- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. -- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. [...]
Minimize Harm Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
[...]
Act Independently Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should: -- Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct. -- Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media. -- Admit mistakes and correct them promptly. -- Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media. -- Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Emphasis is mine. We are for Justice and Mercy, and Truth and Peace, and true Freedom. Edward Burroughs 1659
Any Muslim would be absolutely justified in feeling that this was a racist attack on them.
Race and religion are not the same. While I agree that private's claim was both clearly unsubstantiated and clearly an effort of anti-muslim scaremongering and while it is very probably true that the majority of racists are also anti-islamists, it is simply inappropriate to equate anti-islamism with racism (consider, for example, the example of an orthodox Marxist - while most of these are certainly not racist by any stretch of the imagination, they are equally certainly anti-islamist, what with religion being considered the opiate of the people and all that).
Ignore this distinction at the peril of talking nonsense.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
