C Span Washington Journal is my ‘beat.’
I consider C Span the ‘Colin Powell’ of cable media: people trust C Span to be impartial.
And yesterday, the tipping point was approached: a caller said,
“oil, oil, oil; that’s all you talk about. It’s very important but the flotilla is extremely important too, why don’t you talk about the flotilla? You cut off callers who say things critical of Israel.”
So today C Span Moderator Susan Swain took the bull by the horns: You, dear listeners, tell us what is most important to you.
Then Swain read the headlines of a number of national newspapers. I lost count; most of them lead with oil spill stories.
C Span Washington Journal frequently explains to its listeners that it tries to be ‘balanced’ by reading NYT AND Washington Times; that is, it thinks its covering the spectrum of print media.
But C Span does not get the larger point: ALL of the media is either bought or cowed to presenting ONLY what certain interests permit to be presented, and only in the way that those interests prefer. Nobody wants to think about it, including trustworthy C Span.
I’m still having a hard time categorizing the calls — twenty of them came in; most mentioned the oil spill as being very important; several mentioned pressing issues like immigration; pressing economic issues including employment/unemployment, finance reform. A few off-the-wall calls occupy the tails of the curve. Perhaps four or five callers mentioned Israel/Gaza and the flotilla.
Two calls regarding Israel laid bare the divide; one of those calls represented a major tipping point in US dialog about Israel. That caller said he thought the most important issue the US has to confront is the media. He said that C Span represented the best that the media spectrum has to offer, but that C Span seemed to pull its punches when the topic was Israel. He asked this question twice, and squeezed a response from Ms. Swain: “When C Span producers have their directors’ meetings, do they say, ‘Don’t talk about Israel or Jews?’ Because that what it seems like.”
(Swain replied softly and rather embarrassed, “No, of course we don’t eliminate any topic from discussion.”)
The caller spoke further (and to her credit, Swain was generous with time and did not interrupt or censure): “Many times when people say things critical of Israel, they are accused of antisemitism. Some seem antisemitic. But it is possible to talk about Israel without being antisemitic, and it’s important.”
The caller’s remarks were in the same vein of thought as one of . Stephen Walt’s three question of Peter Beinart:
Second, Beinart’s essay is primarily directed at the American Jewish community, which is understandable. Yet I’m curious as to whether he thinks this is a topic that all Americans should engage with, or whether he thinks (as some do) that it is a topic on which non-Jews should remain largely silent. My own view is that the special relationship has a profound impact on American foreign policy and therefore it is a subject that all Americans should care about very much and be able to discuss openly — without being unfairly attacked — even if they a critical of Israel’s actions and America’s unconditional support for them. No group should enjoy a privileged position in that debate. I wonder if Beinart would agree.
Some months ago, Michael Scheuer caused a mild stir when he said, on C Span Washington Journal, that Americans needed to, and deserved to, have a frank conversation about the US-Israel relationship. Scott Ritter has said the same thing on numerous occasions, including on C Span.
Starting at least three years ago, a network of some dozens of us low-life low-impact keyboard warriors have tried to raise the issue on numerous fora, perhaps with more passion than tact; we’ve been banned, censored, and vilified as vicious antisemites.
Who knows how many Palestinians, who knows how many Afghanis, who knows how many American soldiers, have died since Michael Scheuer and Scott Ritter stirred the waters.
Three days ago nine more people died– is it nine? we don’t know! Israel retains control of bodies, wounded, information, evidence, and the right to be its own judge and jury, by decree of Hillary Clinton, who is in thrall to Haim Saban who has stated that “he’s a one-issue guy and that issue is Israel,” and that he cares for the US so little that his businesses are incorporated in Cayman Islands so that he can avoid US taxes.
It’s time. NOW. Time for a vigorous all-American debate on the US-Israel relationship.
Pray that the conversation can remain a conversation and not a confrontation.
No comments:
Post a Comment