Sunday, 29 December 2013

Fwd: Politics Is Interesting



--------

 The Tracinski Letter



To read this article on the web, click here.

December 29, 2013

ANNUAL REPORT

Politics Is Interesting

Annual Report from The Tracinski Letter

by Robert Tracinski

Last year, I published the first annual report for The Tracinski Letter, looking back at what the newsletter had accomplished over the previous year and setting out plans for the new year. 2012 was a year of big transitions for the logistics of the newsletter, with a new name and a new website. In 2013, the biggest transition has been in the content of the newsletter.


AFTER-HOLIDAY SALE

So no one bought you a gift subscription or renewal to The Tracinski Letter? Bummer. But you know what after-Christmas sales are for, right? They're your opportunity to buy for yourself all of the things you wanted but didn't get from someone else.

Go to www.TracinskiLetter.com/subscribe and take advantage of the last week of our Holiday Sale. Buy a one-year subscription (or renewal) and get 15% off, now through the end of the year. Just enter the coupon code CAROL.

Or take this chance to buy a belated gift for someone you accidentally left off your list. Just select the subscription you want to buy and click the box below that says "Is This a Gift?" Your gift recipient will be notified and added to our mailing list.

While you're getting a gift for someone else, we'll give a gift to you: buy a six-month gift subscription for a friend and get one month added to your own subscription, or buy a one-year gift subscription and get two months added to your own subscription.

Six-Month Subscription — $38
One-Year Subscription — $74
Two-Year Subscription — $144

Go to www.TracinskiLetter.com/subscribe while this holiday sale lasts.—RWT


Last year, I proclaimed that "Politics Is Boring."

"If the election had gone a different way, we might have some interesting things to talk about—a battle royale over entitlement reform, for example....

"For advocates of small government, there will be a particular tedium to the next four years. Part of the point of advocating free-market reform is the possibility that someone, somewhere in government might listen to you and act on your ideas. In a Romney administration, or with a Republican-controlled Congress, there would have been some chance. For the next few years, we might as well be talking to a brick wall. We can scream all we like about entitlements and the debt. The administration and the Democrats in the Senate just don't give a damn."

So over the past year, I have published the majority of my detailed, day-to-day political commentary at RealClearPolitics, while focusing The Tracinski Letter on wider and deeper issues, which eventually included series of articles on technology, the Bible, Atlas Shrugged, sense of life, and the long-term reform of the Republican Party. In general, I have published fewer articles, but articles that are longer and more in-depth.

You may have noticed that what I am basically doing here is building a book factory, with the intention of gathering each these series together in its own volume.

I got a little distracted later in the year and had about a six-week hole punched in The Tracinski Letter's schedule in September and October as I took time off for extensive work as a script consultant for the third Atlas Shrugged movie. Given how much the story and ideas of the novel mean to me, it was worth offering my best effort. Unfortunately, it's looking like my work there will not have much impact. Let's just say that I will not receive and have not asked for a screen credit.

But my effort was not entirely wasted because having to think so concretely and intensively about the novel helped me prepare for my articles on Atlas Shrugged, and I have only begun to publish the new material I've come up with. My goal is to polish off the two series which are shortest and closest to completion—"Three Paradoxes of American Politics" and "How to Achieve a Benevolent Sense of Life"—and to publish them shortly. Then I'll focus on the Atlas Shrugged series, with the goal of being able to put a large number of articles all together by mid-year. Somewhere along the way, I'll continue the technology series with some installments that are a little more speculative—though not as speculative as you might think. And I'll continue with the long-term project on the Bible. Eventually, I'll gather together articles covering the whole of the Old Testament before going on to the New Testament. But this will be going on in the background, so I probably won't make it quite that far this year.

I have also been distracted at the end of the year by something else. Just as I was coming off the Atlas Shrugged project, politics got interesting again.

What made it interesting, obviously, was the ObamaCare disaster. It was not simply the failure of the program. It was the totality of the failure and the clear lessons it has to offer about the basic ideas behind government control of the economy.

This is going to make politics very interesting and a little bit fun—though it's the worst kind of fun: schadenfreude, joy in other people's suffering. There is certainly some legitimate enjoyment to be had in the ideological discomfiture experienced by advocates of government control. But ObamaCare isn't going to be bad just for the people who deserve to suffer. Indeed, President Obama's people are cashing out while the rest of us lose our health insurance. So maybe it won't be that much fun after all.

Which increases the incentive to make sure we learn the lessons of this debacle. If we're going to go through this, we sure as hell better get something useful out of it.

As I put it a few days ago:

"This is the big task for the next year. It seems that the general public had to actually experience the disaster of ObamaCare first-hand, after it was implemented. Now that they can see it all unfolding before their eyes, it is our job to observe, to explain, and to document this massive failure of statism, in an attempt to make sure we learn these lessons once and for all."

So I will take my "Ten Lessons of ObamaCare" as a starting point to be expanded on over the next year. The goal is to take a historic disaster and turn it into a historic opportunity to teach the practical and moral superiority of the free market.

This also implies that I'll be doing more political commentary again in The Tracinski Letter. It won't just be about wrangling over the latest muddled congressional compromise or the political horse race—though there's going to be the devil to pay in the mid-term elections. What makes this more interesting for The Tracinski Letter is that there will be some profound moral and philosophical lessons for us to identify.

It's a full agenda, and one with a very exciting combination of long-term, big-picture lessons and immediate practical value.

You can help. If you haven't already renewed our bought a gift subscription, take advantage of the last week of our holiday sale. Please also consider a donation to support The Tracinski Letter. I have expanded the donation page to include a wider range of options, so please go to www.TracinskiLetter.com/subscribe and give as much as you can afford.

Last year, I said that we had finally left the Reagan Era and entered the Obama Era. This is our big chance to end the Obama Era quickly and go back to a new era of liberty and productivity. Let's make the most of it.




One-Year Subscription — $74
Six-Month Subscription — $38

Subscribe now!

Copyright © 2013 by Tracinski Publishing Company
PO Box 6997, Charlottesville, VA 22906


Forward email

This email was sent to majors.bruce@gmail.com by rwt@tracinskiletter.com |  

The Tracinski Letter | PO Box 6997 | Charlottesville | VA | 22906


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: A continuing embarrassment to America








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  






 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Massive global push to criminalize all dissent against Islam







Massive global push to criminalize all dissent against Islam officially begins

 

Robert Moon

 

December 24, 2013

In yet another openly hostile, in-your-face act of intimidation against anyone who dares to disagree with the "Religion of Peace," 57 Muslim countries around the world are now coming together to pressure Western countries into silencing and prosecuting any and all criticism of Islam as a "hate crime."

As Investor's Business Daily explains, it is all happening under the banner of a Saudi-based group called the "Organization of Islamic Cooperation," which released its 94-page document on "Islamophobia" (noticing Islamic violence is fear-based bigotry) in recent weeks.

If this calculated attempt to obliterate all dissent has its way, it will officially become a felony in the U.S. and Europe for citizens to even suggest "that Muslims are inclined to violence" or that "Islam is an inherently expansionist religion."

Never mind the fact that huge portions of Muslims in countries all around the world admittedly believe adulterers and non-believers should be put to death, support suicide bombing civilians, and endorse honor killings.

Or that these are the same people who routinely stone women to death for being raped, who erupt into murderous worldwide riots over cartoons, and who danced in the streets on 9/11.

Or that Islam was founded at the tip of a sword. Or that its Koran openly teaches violent jihad against all non-believers. Or that Islam has remained entrenched in self-initiated carnage in every corner of the world since its bloody inception.

Islam revolves around violent expansion and conquest. Every last thing that in any way indicates something about a religion confirms this--its history, its founder, its teachings, its followers...everything.

But noticing this or objecting in any way is to be condemned and persecuted as "hate speech." Instead, we are to believe that approximately one abortion clinic bombing per decade makes Christians the dangerous extremists here...while Islam is just a misunderstood "religion of peace."

Incidentally, it is also worth noting that the "pro-tolerance," "pro-diversity" liberals who defend Islam as it murders, mutilates and enslaves women across the globe are the very same champions of civility who vindictively smear anyone who objects to limitless taxpayer-funded abortion and contraceptives as being "at war with women."



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013








 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/23/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations-of-2013/2/

 

12/23/2013 @ 3:38PM |214,089 views

President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

By Ilya Shapiro

One of Barack Obama's chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.

Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he's been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn't allow him to "fundamentally transform" the country without congressional acquiescence.

But that hasn't stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a "We Can't Wait" initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that "when Congress won't act, this president will." And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that "I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way."

And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that's fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I'd update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama's top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.

1. Delay of Obamacare's out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare's employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare's insurance requirements. The famous pledge that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn't comply with Obamacare's requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare's explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would've made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don't provide coverage if they buy a plan "through an Exchange established by the State"—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from "a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange."

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a "be on the lookout" ("BOLO") list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," and "Israel"; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department's extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government's view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding "pro forma" sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is "confirmed by the Senate.") In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to "one court, one case, one company."

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana's handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national "blueprint" for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on "unwelcome" speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere "more likely than not" standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could've filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive's biggest dereliction this year of his duty to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, and to "take care that the law be faithfully executed."

Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential "counselor" John Podesta's belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power "presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage."

Happy New Year!

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Why The New York Times Won the 2013 Dishonest Reporting Award







 

Why The New York Times Won the 2013 Dishonest Reporting Award

Glorifying Stone Throwers

Not once, but twice, the Times put stone-throwing Palestinians on a glowing pedestal. First was a March New York Times Magazine cover story about weekly protests at Nabi Saleh (accompanied by a photo slide show titled The Resisters).

The author of the piece, Ben Ehrenreich, had previously smeared Israel in a vile Los Angeles Times op-ed comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa (South Africa was judged more benign) and labeled Gaza as a "139-square-mile prison camp." And in a Harper's dispatch, Ehrenreich imputed that Israel was waging a "water war with Palestine."

As for the story itself, the specific criticisms were simply too lengthy to detail here. Arnold Roth had a compelling personal connection to the article. See also Haaretz columnist Chemi Shalev and Commentary editor Jonathan Tobin.


Asked what got him curious about Nabi Saleh, Ehrenreich said afterwards:

I wanted to understand what would motivate people to keep fighting, to keep demonstrating every week, knowing exactly what the consequences would be and how much they stood to lose.

Memo to Ehrenreich and the Times: the weekly clashes in places like Nabi Saleh and Bilin are scripted for the media's consumption.

In August, the Times published a second look at rock throwing — this one about boys from the village of Beit Omar. How did bureau chief Jodi Rudoren explain the violence?

Here in Beit Ommar, a village of 17,000 between Bethlehem and Hebron that is surrounded by Jewish settlements, rock throwing is a rite of passage and an honored act of defiance.The futility of stones bouncing off armored vehicles matters little: confrontation is what counts.

HonestReporting reminded the Times that Throwing Stones is An Act of Violence. Rudoren followed  in the footsteps of Amira Hass, whose stone throwing apologia earned the Haaretz columnist her own Dishonest Reporting award too.

Questioning Israel's Right to Exist

Nobody questions, say, Japan's right to exist. Denying Russian people their self-determination is anti-Russian. And invalidating inherent Irish national aspirations won't score points among Irish people anywhere in world.

Yet the New York Times saw fit to publish a hefty 2,052-word commentary by Professor Joseph Levine in March arguing that it's not anti-Semitic to question Israel's right to exist. A Jewish state, asserts Levine, is "undemocratic," while the trappings of statehood aren't a big a deal anyway.


Professors Ian Lustick (left) and Joseph Levine (right).

But the same rights the philosophy professor denies Jews are granted to the Palestinians. Self-determination? Jews need not apply.

A second op-ed calling for Israel's demise was published in September. At face value, Professor Ian Lustick appeared to be calling for a one-state solution.

But a closer reading showed Lustick went beyond that to deny Jewish national aspirations. Is there any room for Jewish national expression in the one-state fantasy Lustick describes from the thin air of his ivory tower?

In such a radically new environment, secular Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank could ally with Tel Aviv's post-Zionists, non-Jewish Russian-speaking immigrants, foreign workers and global-village Israeli entrepreneurs. Anti-nationalist ultra-Orthodox Jews might find common cause with Muslim traditionalists. Untethered to statist Zionism in a rapidly changing Middle East, Israelis whose families came from Arab countries might find new reasons to think of themselves not as "Eastern," but as Arab.

Lustick's response to critics was reminiscent of William Shakespeare soliloquy: A tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Both Lustick and Levine are Jewish, but neither represents any mainstream Jewish views. Fancy academic titles don't make up for the shortcomings of their arguments. But what does all this say about the Times?

Israel, Iran, and the Gray Lady's Vendetta


Prime Minister Netanyahu addressing the UN, 2013.

This was absolutely the single biggest bone of contention among HonestReporting readers.

In September, world leaders gathered in New York for the start of the UN General Assembly. Amid signs of a thaw in US-Iran relations, the paper featured a steady parade of news and commentary pooh-poohing Israel's legitimate fears of Iran's nuclear program.

Quite a few readers went so far as to imply that the Gray Lady was either acting as a mouthpiece for the Obama administration or engaged in a personal vendetta against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Or both.

As Times of Israel reporter Avi Issacharoff wrote at the time:

And still, some American media outlets have evidently been mesmerized by President Hassan Rouhani's smile. The New York Times seems to be directing a campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has said sanctions on Iran must not be removed and warned about the Islamic Republic's true intentions. Certain Western journalists are possibly driven by the hope — and, perhaps, some degree of naivety — that the crisis will not require the use of force.

But the anti-Netanyahu campaign misses (or ignores) the fact that the wary Israeli government, not surprisingly, enjoys the support of many Arab countries — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — which are not naive about Iran.

And Israel HaYom's Dror Eydar added:

The Times has a long history of supporting even the faintest of hopes when it comes to reconciliation with ruthless dictators.

What fueled these perceptions?
1.  A staff-ed confusing Israeli wariness with malice.

2.  A staff-ed accusing Netanyahu of deliberately trying to sabotage the nuclear talks.

3.  A staff-ed condescendingly implying that Israel, Turkey and the Saudis are rebelling against the American master.

4.  A staff-ed setting up Israel to be the fall-guy for the collapse of US-Iran diplomacy.

5.  A staff-ed suggesting that reaching an agreement with Iran is more important than the contents of the deal.

6.  A staff-ed describing Israeli objections to the interim deal as one of the "perils ahead."

7.  A staff-ed describing Netanyahu's objections to an interim deal as "hysterical opposition."

8.  Roger Cohen's condescending take on "Bibi's Tired Iranian Lines."

9.  Roger Cohen's dismissive view of Israeli concerns.

10.  Tom Friedman claiming that Congressional opposition to the White House on Iran stems "from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do . . ."

11.  Tom Friedman trivializing Israeli concerns by contrasting "Bibi crazy" with "Obama cool."

12.  Tom Friedman's condescending take on concerned American allies.

13.  Jodi Rudoren's analysis that went overboard on Netanyahu's political isolation. (This article caught a second wind of buzz because the paper corrected a description of Sara Netanyahu. Rudoren also sent the prime minister's wife a personal apology.)

Looking back on it all, readers wondered: Did the the Times take the opportunity to hit back at Bibi after his UN speech called out the NY Times? If so, was doing so on such an existential issue an appropriate way to settle scores? How else would the Times explain the insultingly dismissive tone of all those commentaries? And why didn't the Times bring more balance to its op-ed section?

Conspiracy Theorist Joins Editorial Board

Alaa Al Aswany

In October, the Times announced the expansion of its editorial board. Newest members of interest to Mideast watchers include Israeli columnist Shmuel Rosner, former PA cabinet minister Ali Jarbawi, and the Iranian-born Professor Vali Nasr.

But also joining the board was an Egyptian writer who has spread anti-Israel conspiracy theories, Alaa Al Aswany.

HonestReporting looked into Aswany's history. In a nutshell, the Times is associating itself with a talented, award-winning writer who also:

Refused to allow his book to be translated into Hebrew or sold in Israel.

 Claimed baselessly that Israel meddled in Egypt's revolution.

Denied a long history of Arab anti-Semitism.

What about Aswany's right to express himself? asked one reader who wrote of Taking a Bullet for Alaa Al Aswany's Freedom of Speech. As with Joseph Levine and Ian Lustick, Aswany's entitled to his views. But that doesn't mean the Times has to give a proven conspiracy theorist a plum seat on the editorial board.

Correcting the Record

Journalists are fallible, lines of communication get crossed, and too many editors will inevitably spoil something. And who hasn't been plagued by computer glitches or an embarrassing typo? Mistakes happen. That's why newspapers correct the record.

But there's an unfortunate reality to the corrections. The majority of people reading an erroneous "fact" will never know that hours (or days) later, a correction was made (except in very unusual circumstances).

And so it was in August, when Tom Friedman erroneously stated that Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir, was a settler. (Amir lived in Herzliya.) The miscue was unfortunate (the Times had previously corrected the very same error), but also forgivable, because A) in the context of Friedman's column, it was a relatively minor point, and B) the original correction was made eight years ago.

But it's also fair to ask (as HonestReporting did in 2012), If the NY Times Posts a Correction, Does it Make a Sound?

(Friedman's column also mistakenly stated that the 60′s rock star, Eric Burdon, had boycotted Israel. That assertion was based on a report in The Independent, but Friedman missed the UK paper's followup. The Independent's contradictory articles apparently arose from either a miscommunication or disagreement between Burdon and his manager. Perhaps Burdon foreshadowed the mess when he sang Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood.)

The Gray Lady did the right thing, fixing the factual faults (Corrections – August 8). Ironically, among the other articles corrected that day was an unrelated piece by bureau chief Jodi Rudoren. Her dispatch on Israeli settlements misstated the State Department's position.

The paper's global reach compounds the headaches of correcting the record. Lots of papers republished the Friedman and Rudoren pieces but not necessarily the clarifications. So if the Sidney Morning Herald or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette never issued the proper corrections, where does the buck stop?

Fumbled Photo Flub

Images are supposed to do more than simply illustrate a story. Effective photographs and graphic illustrations help readers zero in on the essence of the article.

Thus, when Eden Atias, an 18-year-old soldier traveling to his base was stabbed to death by a Palestinian aboard a bus, one would have expected to see funeral images or a photo of Atias himself. As a gesture of respect, press  photographers in Israel have an understanding not to take pictures of dead bodies at terror scenes (that's a separate debate); however Attias's bloodstained bus seat wasn't considered out of line.

So how was the Times's coverage illustrated? With a sympathetic photo of — who else? — the terrorist's mother.


(This was actually the second time this year the Times used a photo of a Palestinian terrorist's mother inappropriately.)

In any event, the image of Silwa Gawadreh receiving visitors touched a raw nerve. Outraged by the misplaced sympathy for the terrorist, HonestReporting readers flooded the Times with emails demanding an explanation. And they grabbed the paper's attention. Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren wrote to one reader on Facebook:

. . . I spoke to the international photo editor about it. He and I agree it was not the best choice (I did not know about it until the other reader wrote me), and that for sure it should have at least been paired with a picture of the victim.

Margaret Sullivan

Public editor Margaret Sullivan concurred, and went on to quote two senior editors expressing their mea culpas:

Hundreds of readers wrote to me in recent days to protest the prominent use of a photograph that accompanied an article in The Times last Thursday.

The photograph was an emotional and sympathetic portrait of a distraught Palestinian woman, whose son had killed an unsuspecting young Israeli soldier on a public bus. Although it was a powerful image (in fact, partly because it was such a powerful image), it was a poor choice, failing to put the focus where it belonged . . .

The selection of the Palestinian mother's image with the article was an effort to achieve balance, but such an effort was not appropriate in this case, Ms. McNally said.

The chest-beating was certainly impressive, but the Times hasn't changed the photo. Sullivan followed up, quoting Philip Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards. (HonestReporting received a similar response directly from Corbett):

He explained that "except to correct factual errors, we very rarely change or delete published content. The stories that remain accessible through our website constitute our electronic archive of what The Times has actually published, parallel to the print and microfilm versions of our archive that we have always maintained . . . Other than for factual errors, if we routinely went back into a story published days, weeks or years earlier – rewriting, re-editing, adding or deleting photos or other elements – pretty soon our archive would cease to be an archive at all."

The net result is that the image remains online, a lasting memorial to the Times's false balance and misplaced sympathy.

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Terror-linked CAIR’s 2013 Year in Review




BareNakedIslam posted: "Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) whines about the ever-rising tide of 'Islamophobia,' yet fails to explain what it is about Muslim anti-American behavior, both societal and violent jihad, that is causing this ste"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Terror-linked CAIR's 2013 Year in Review

by BareNakedIslam

Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) whines about the ever-rising tide of 'Islamophobia,' yet fails to explain what it is about Muslim anti-American behavior, both societal and violent jihad, that is causing this steep rise in hatred and suspicion of Muslims.

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | December 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-10pQ

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/12/29/terror-linked-cairs-2013-year-in-review/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Muslim Persecution of Christians: October, 2013





creeping posted: "More Slaughter in Muslim Lands; Media, Governments Silent  by Raymond Ibrahim "Don't they know that the Koran orders us to slit the throat of whoever is disrespectful to Allah's beloved prophet?" — Representative of Jamaat ud Dawa. Although Christi"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Creeping Sharia

Muslim Persecution of Christians: October, 2013

by creeping

More Slaughter in Muslim Lands; Media, Governments Silent  by Raymond Ibrahim "Don't they know that the Koran orders us to slit the throat of whoever is disrespectful to Allah's beloved prophet?" — Representative of Jamaat ud Dawa. Although Christians are habitually killed in Muslim countries, as this series attests, the U.S. government rarely condemns the […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Creeping Sharia.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/muslim-persecution-of-christians-october-2013/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.