Subject:
|
Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 May 2002 21:19:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
534 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Which leads to the question, why do "studies" at all? Seems to me that their
> purpose is to influence popular opinion by their results and advance agendas,
> thereby making them propaganda tools from the git-go. Because honestly, who • is
> going to take the time and spend the money on a study that will negate or
> disprove their own ideas?
I hope that the majority of scientists are out trying to prove the null
hypothesis! The whole goal of the scientist is to devise every possible way of
disproving their idea and carrying out those tests. Only when they are
unable...and their peers agree...can we say that their original idea is
supported. Studies are done to gain the truth.
> Sure, it was the excuse given for such a blunder, but it wasn't the
> cause. The cause was irresponsible "journalism". What ever
> happened to the idea that if you can't get the facts straight, don't
> print the story?
Or print it as a hypothetical. I find nothing wrong with a piece stating that
they find Israel's unforthcoming access disturbing because it _might_ mean this
and such, where printing falsehoods is definately distasteful.
> Now it's, if you can't get the facts that support your idealogy,
> make them up to advance it.
I'm not actually sure that this is possible to avoid. It is simply so that if
you believe a thing, you process information differently that you would if you
believed the opposite.
> No, no, no. Yeah, I understand how it *appeared*. Fine. But there is a huge
> difference between believing something *may* be true and going ahead and
> reporting that it *is* true.
I agree. It should have been reported as "rumors have it" or somesuch.
> "Janine di Giovanni writing in the London Times even claimed the devastation
> was on a worse scale than anything she had seen in Bosnia, Chechnya or Sierra
> Leone, where scores, even hundreds, of thousands of people had died"
>
> Are you kidding me? What a hack!
Yup. It almost sounds as if she wasn't really there.
> > Ummm....because they were refusing to let people in to look for themselves.
> > The Paestinians were not. It was quite one sided.
>
> So you are saying that the appearance of guilt = guilt? Maybe it *was* too
> dangerous for them to enter (as Israel claimed)
Why not let them decide that? There have commonly been news people in
dangerous places. Sometimes they get killed. That's on them.
> > > It was prudent to keep the media out of harm's way in this type of fighting.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Ummm.... so the idiots wouldn't get themselves killed?
Why not let those adults make their own decision? The only really valid reason
that I see for Israel to control the press is because their presense would
critically hinder the operation. In which case they could still have been
stationed pretty close while keeping some degree of tabs on what's going on.
> ??? They didn't "allow" their own to be killed (unless you would be referring
> to the decision not to just bomb the hell out of Jenin from the air, which
> would have guananteed *no* lose of life by the Israelis). Come on, Chris-- do
> you really believe that Israel doesn't take *every* precaution it can to
> minimize lose of Israelis soldiers???
I'm not being nitpicky here, but "every precaution" would involve not engaging
in military operations. There was an executive decision made to sacrifice the
lives of some Israeli troops to win a particular objective. I'm not even
saying that was a bad call...I'm just saying that they did not protect their
soldiers with the same standard of vigor used to protect international
journalists.
> One Israeli soldier's death is too many to her!
False! It was not _too_ many. It was decided to be a worth-while expense.
> Again, you miss the *whole point* (the whole point being the media's bias).
> Israel appeared to be hiding something *ONLY TO THOSE WHO THOUGHT THEY HAD
> SOMETHING TO HIDE* When they said it was too dangerous, it was the truth.
Everyone has something to hide. It is not unreasonable to me to assume that
Israel (or the US, or anyone) may be hiding something.
> > > Israel has the right to defend herself against terrorism
> > > as any country does.
> >
> > To what extent? By engaging in what behaviors? Would we have
> > been within our rights to simply nuke the hell out of Afghanistan
> > to be sure of catching them all?
>
> I don't think so. And neither would Israel had she bombed Jenin from the air.
> But we didn't and neither did she, because we both care about innocent life
OK, but which behaviors are OK and which are not? Defined by what criteria?
Might we and they disagree on these?
> (as opposed to Palestinian terrorists, who hold *no regard* for innocent
life).
Or at least define innocent differently than you do.
> Breaking international law? Do you really think that the Palestinian's
> possession of weapons and explosives are *legal* under international law?
I'm not sure. I actually don't know anything about international law. Does it
pertain to individuals or only nations? Since there is no Palestinian nation,
I'm not sure that it applies equally to their behavior. but I'm just
speculating. I kind of think that international law is a mis-notion anyway.
I know that my own possession of those goods here in the US is legal.
> Where is the indignation over that? I'm so tired of people constantly holding
> Israel up to laws to which their side holds nothing but contempt. I really
> miss the point.
Well, you have to realize that Israel claims to be a nation of laws and that's
not so for the other side. If Israel really is a rule-of-law kind of place
then I expect them to act a certain way and in turn we treat them a certain
way. If they are not, then we should revise the way we treat them.
> Honestly, the Palestinians would be a lot better off if they had
> stuck to stone throwing-- it plays a lot better.
All parties involved would be better off ditching their silly superstitious
attachment to a home- or holy-land and learning to live where they are without
neighborly aggression. I don't think that stone throwing was getting them
anywhere.
> > > <warning: dirty little secret coming> Most of the Palestinians
> > > killed in Jenin *were terrorists*.
> >
> > How do we know this? And what makes a person a terrorist?
>
> You have to ask?
When I ask something like that and get an answer like this, I (and
others, I'd imagine) assume that you don't have a reasonable response. Is that
how you want to leave it?
> And I
> am here to state my opinion that the European press is a bunch of biased,
> agenda-pushing hacks and I offer the story of Jenin as proof.
Oh, I largely agree. And would expand it to all press of which I am aware.
I'm not disagreeing wholeheartedly with you, only exploring certain elements of
what you're saying.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) So I take it that if the ATF dropped by your place this afternoon and relocated your family to, I don't know, a desert in New Mexico, you'd just buck up and make the best of it? If not, then please explain the difference for me. Dave! (22 years ago, 26-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) Correct:-) You know Chris, they don't call the right "right" for nothing;-) (...) Which leads to the question, why do "studies" at all? Seems to me that their purpose is to influence popular opinion by their results and advance agendas, (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
