The Economist chastises the NY Times for its Israel/Palestine coverage
Only thing is—they think the Times hasn’t been hard enough on Israel.
Actually, the article in question from the Economist is about language, in particular the “weasel voice” of evasion (it’s part of a continuing “Johnson” series about words/grammar in journalism, named after Samuel Johnson).
Here’s the problem, according to the Economist:
On May 14th, as Palestinians massed at the Gaza Strip’s border, Israeli soldiers fired on them, killing around 60 people. Shortly afterwards, the New York Times tweeted: “Dozens of Palestinians have died in protests as the US prepares to open its Jerusalem embassy.” Social media went ballistic. “From old age?” was one incredulous reply. #HaveDied quickly became a hashtag campaign.
The fault was soon laid not only at the door of the Times, but at a feature of English grammar. As Glenn Greenwald, a left-wing journalist, put it, “Most Western media outlets have become quite skilled””through years of practice””at writing headlines and describing Israeli massacres using the passive tense so as to hide the culprit.” His view was retweeted over 5,000 times and echoed by other critics.
Those of you who follow the news on this blog or any other blog that isn’t part of the left will probably be aware of how ludicrous and offensive this is—and by “this,” I mean the Economist article and the contentions of Greenwald. Now, I have no quarrel with the idea that “have died” is a euphemism and “were killed by Israeli soldiers” would be a better construction to use—I’m all in favor of straight talk. But if we’re into straight talk and actual, unvarnished news rather than propaganda, the Economist critique is a piece of garbage (how’s that for straight talk?)
The truth? They weren’t “protests” and these weren’t just random “Palestinians.” And we have no idea how many of them were killed by Israeli soldiers because the only people reporting an actual number were health officials in Gaza, who have a lousy track record for truth.
Read this article for some background to why the Economist’s piece is so outrageous:
…HAMAS displays a remarkable deftness in defining the March of Return as a peaceful demonstration while surreptitiously waging insurgent warfare. Violating the Geneva Conventions, HAMAS have planted its operatives, armed with explosives and weapons, among the so-called peaceful demonstrators. They have also sent little girls to the frontlines, directly into harm’s way.
By getting the world media, including much of the Israeli media, to define (and thus to perceive) the March as a peaceful demonstration, while using it to wage insurgent warfare, HAMAS have scored a major victory in 4GW [Fourth Generation Warfare]. Anything the IDF does to protect the border or even the lives of its own troops will make the IDF look like they’re using excessive force, never mind the fact that the limited force they’ve applied so far has, in all likelihood, kept the “demonstration” from becoming even bloodier.
Pretending to hold “peaceful” demonstrations and deftly tricking the world media into defining the March (marching is a martial metaphor) as a peaceful demonstration by unarmed civilians, HAMAS have created a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t moral predicament in which anything Israel does short of withdrawing from the area will undermine the legitimacy of the Israeli state. By making its defense forces appear “immoral,” HAMAS make Israel itself appear illegitimate.
The article from the Economist about the weasel voice is actually an entire weasel article. But to the vast majority of its readers nothing is amiss, because it conforms to the MSM narrative that they’ve consumed over and over again. It’s really quite a seamless whole.
“The article from the Economist about the weasel voice is actually an entire weasel article.”
Precisely.
And quoting Glenn Greenwald should have given the game away immediately; as if Greenwald was truly capable of anything unweasely, when it comes to Israel, at least.
And yes it works.
Curious, though, how the Economist is so concerned with language…as though picking up the mantle from Orwell.
Disgusting in every sense of the word.
Those who lie, slander and foment hate are not on the side of the angels. Some are wolves in sheep’s clothing, some are cowards seeking to appease those they fear. Some are fanatical ideologues who dismiss contrary facts as meaningless. Some justify the sacrifice of righteousness in the name of a rationalized “greater good”.
“Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil…” the prophet Isaiah 5:20
“By their fruits shall ye know them” a then unknown* 1st century Jewish carpenter and itinerant preacher…
* in the ‘civilized’ world
Here’s a hypothesis:
Israel as a collectivity and Israelis as individuals tend to be brash and speak with a frankness which can border on the brutal. The British chatterati is shot through with people who are weasely by nature when they’re not being snide and supercilious. They don’t like eachother, and one of them is right not to.
I read one reference to the Pali fence demonstrations being
“non-violent.” Yeah , right. “For the most part, non-violent?”
Hundreds of ‘Incendiary Kites’ Have Assaulted Israel from Above Since Mid-April (VIDEO)
What journalist is going to confront Hamas about this? 🙂
Wheat AND corn. And nature preserves.
It’s very dry down there and the prevailing winds are west-to-east.
That should be “nature reserves”….
I am pleased to see The Economist recognized here as just another media Leftist shill. I ceased subscribing after two years, about 15 years ago, for this very reason. Not very much useful economics in The Economist. It is just another version of Time magazine, which I am glad to report from supermarket inspection is a very thin version of its former self.
Jordon Peterson had a long interview earlier this month with a senior editor of The Economist. She isn’t Cathy Newman, although tried to play the same game, but didn’t have Cathy’s good points either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QRQjrsFnR4&t=2476s
About The Economist – Peterson interview
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/jordan-b-peterson-triggers-host-over-female-aggres/