It is difficult to understand why so much attention is paid to the Sun King, Rupert Murdoch, and his opinion - apart from the fact that he is wealthy and married a much younger Asian woman some years back. Breathtakingly, she informed the world that ol' Rupe didn't need Viagra!!!
What seems to be forgotten, or conveniently overlooked, is that the Murdoch empire contains the likes of Fox News, the Sun in the UK, The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the New York Post, etc etc. - hardly bastions of sound or worthwhile journalism or reporting, let alone analysis.
That the Murdoch press has its own agenda is more than established. Of some 180 + newspapers in the Murdoch stable, only one [and that was because the editor was away] came out in favour of the Iraq War.
Middle East Reality Check makes an interesting and critical point about the way the Murdoch press writes and reports:
"Headline for John Lyons' report from Tehran in yesterday's The Australian: Students massacred in attack on uni
In the opening paragraphs we read: "Details emerged last night of a massacre of students at Tehran University by suspected members of the Basij militia as opposition supporters planned a day of mourning for slain protesters. At least 3 men and 2 women were killed in the attack on their dormitory on Sunday night."
Hold that thought: 5 killed=massacre. Got it?
Now revisit The Australian's headlines for December 2008 and January 2009 when Israel's massacres in Gaza were in full swing:-
29/12: Israel may follow strikes with ground war And in the body of the report: 270 killed.
2/1: Hamas appeals for ceasefire in Gaza (400 killed)
3/1: Nuclear fear drives Israel's hard line (425 killed)
6/1: Israeli chemical cover for Gaza assault (500 killed)
8/1: UN rejects claim on school (660 killed)
9/1: Lebanese rockets fire on Israel (700 killed)
12/1: Israelis split on do-or-die decision (850 killed)
13/1: Troops mass as Gaza endgame looms (879 killed)
14/1: Israel divided over its next move (900 killed)
15/1: Olmert dodging ceasefie meetings (1000 killed)
19/1: Hamas rockets break truce (1200 killed)
20/1: Israel begins withdrawal after truce (1300 killed)
Moral of story: In Murdoch fish wrapper, if Iranian forces murder 5 or more Iranian protestors, it's a massacre. If Israeli forces murder 1300 or more Palestinians, it ain't."
Update: Interestingly, on much the same theme of how "things" are reported in relation to Israel and the Middle East generally, Saree Makdisi, writing an op-ed piece "The language that absolves Israel" in the LA Times, questions the language employed by journalists in how they report something:
"Reality can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States.
In fact, a special vocabulary has been developed for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. It filters and structures the way in which developing stories are misread here, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories -- and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write.
The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possible for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country."
What seems to be forgotten, or conveniently overlooked, is that the Murdoch empire contains the likes of Fox News, the Sun in the UK, The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, the New York Post, etc etc. - hardly bastions of sound or worthwhile journalism or reporting, let alone analysis.
That the Murdoch press has its own agenda is more than established. Of some 180 + newspapers in the Murdoch stable, only one [and that was because the editor was away] came out in favour of the Iraq War.
Middle East Reality Check makes an interesting and critical point about the way the Murdoch press writes and reports:
"Headline for John Lyons' report from Tehran in yesterday's The Australian: Students massacred in attack on uni
In the opening paragraphs we read: "Details emerged last night of a massacre of students at Tehran University by suspected members of the Basij militia as opposition supporters planned a day of mourning for slain protesters. At least 3 men and 2 women were killed in the attack on their dormitory on Sunday night."
Hold that thought: 5 killed=massacre. Got it?
Now revisit The Australian's headlines for December 2008 and January 2009 when Israel's massacres in Gaza were in full swing:-
29/12: Israel may follow strikes with ground war And in the body of the report: 270 killed.
2/1: Hamas appeals for ceasefire in Gaza (400 killed)
3/1: Nuclear fear drives Israel's hard line (425 killed)
6/1: Israeli chemical cover for Gaza assault (500 killed)
8/1: UN rejects claim on school (660 killed)
9/1: Lebanese rockets fire on Israel (700 killed)
12/1: Israelis split on do-or-die decision (850 killed)
13/1: Troops mass as Gaza endgame looms (879 killed)
14/1: Israel divided over its next move (900 killed)
15/1: Olmert dodging ceasefie meetings (1000 killed)
19/1: Hamas rockets break truce (1200 killed)
20/1: Israel begins withdrawal after truce (1300 killed)
Moral of story: In Murdoch fish wrapper, if Iranian forces murder 5 or more Iranian protestors, it's a massacre. If Israeli forces murder 1300 or more Palestinians, it ain't."
Update: Interestingly, on much the same theme of how "things" are reported in relation to Israel and the Middle East generally, Saree Makdisi, writing an op-ed piece "The language that absolves Israel" in the LA Times, questions the language employed by journalists in how they report something:
"Reality can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States.
In fact, a special vocabulary has been developed for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. It filters and structures the way in which developing stories are misread here, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories -- and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write.
The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possible for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country."
Comments