It's all very dumb. A few random people with pistols wouldn't have done anything to help, and neither would stronger gun control laws. But both sides use the attack to push their opinions anyway.
I was at dinner by myself, browsing Twitter and just running across Salon blaming the right wing ( https://twitter.com/salon/status/665344751928008704 ) when the guy sitting at the next table blamed a conspiracy funded by the Koch Brothers to keep us afraid.
... I prefer these conspiracy nuts to the pundits; they have a better excuse. But that itself is quite sad.
Regardless of where we in the West land on the political spectrum, we all seem to forget that the people who do these things have some agency. Sure, there are external factors pushing and pulling on everyone, we all live in a context, good or bad. Ultimately, the people who carried out the attack looked at what ISIS has to offer and said, "I'll take that."
I agree with Bruni's general point, but I'd take Bruni himself a bit more seriously if he didn't cherry pick his examples from people he traditionally disagrees with. Repugnant piggybacking on this atrocity is taking place across the political spectrum.
LOL. Someone in the opinion pages complaining about opportunism... Good one.
I'll take this seriously when the NTY introduces a moratorium on all breaking news and stops jumping on things when it fits their agenda but jump against it when it goes against their agendas.
To be sure, concealed carry etc. is anathema to European society and also isn't the answer... Just look at iraq lots of weapons by civilians, it does not stop terrorism..But I have to laugh at their indignation of opportunism.
These criticisms seem to a be a meme among right-wingers who want to discredit the NY Times, apparently for posting things inconvenient to their ideologies. Having read the NY Times and many other sources for years, I don't see evidence of these things happening.
Do you have any? The fact that many repeat it, especially inside an ideological echo chamber, doesn't make it likely to be true.
Thanks for providing the link. I didn't read every word on the page, but my thoughts:
1) I see nothing substantive, only nit-picking over wording. In particular, the NR critic often just comes up with a different way of writing the same thing, something anyone can do with any piece of writing. Much is wording that could go either way, and some depends on what the reporter actually saw. For example, maybe the reporter can't identify who threw the rocks and so can't say anything about them. Maybe the reporter saw a scuffle and not a riot; the NR critic doesn't offer evidence that the statement is in error. In general, it's an old propaganda technique: Just keep up a flood of criticism and people will think that some of it - just a little! - must be true. It's not. Professionals in the field of political maniuplation really do pull this stunt on a regular basis. Look how they demonize every Democratic leader, for example (Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama). (Left-wingers do the same, but they have far less influence than platforms like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and Rush - all the most popular in their industries.)
2) The National Review has an avowed agenda of pro-conservative, anti-everything else commentary. This isn't the best source; they are going to find a way criticize the NY Times no matter what, true or not. Perhaps something from a study of journalism would be better (not that I realistically expect you to have that at your fingertips).
3) Reading the Israeli papers Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, I find that if the NY Times has any bias on any issue, it's not covering the bad things done by Israelis. The Israeli papers paint a much harsher picture of their own country. But I'm not sure I can make sense of it; of course the New York Times is not going to cover Israel in the same details as Israeli papers, so perhaps that explains the difference.
There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere.
It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans, if that makes a difference.
Hey, thanks for the link. That looks very intersting and I'll read it (but it's probably too long for right this moment).
What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about.
> It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans
And I assume that applies to NY Times reporters too. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.
What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about.
My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up, and if they consistently point a particular way, that means something. The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side, you don't get such awkward phrasing by accident.
I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it.
First, news organizations, by nature, are opportunists. NYT, Fox, LeMonde, RT, Granma and everyone else.
Second, I don't follow memes, some of my views will fall left, some will fall right. It's irrelevant to me where they 'fall' their classification. I only care that they are my views. A shorthand would be I consider myself non-aligned. No one is going to come to your recue in your time of need, ideology nor anything else.
Would you really be convinced by any critique of the New York Times coming from a conservative source? There are many of them and they're not hard to find.
If not, you could do worse than just reading the column of the New York Times' public editor, who's responsible for handing questions from readers and issues of journalistic integrity. Often, when coverage is particularly slanted, some acknowledgement of that will eventually show up there. For instance, here's what she wrote on the New York Times' Benghazi coverage:
Here’s my take: The angry criticism of The Times on Benghazi has been based largely on politics, not journalism, and fomented by Fox News. (The conspiracy narrative goes like this: The Times is a liberal newspaper unwilling to take on a liberal president and his administration.) In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been solid. But my sense is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the lack of government transparency. Many readers would like to see more on that front, and so would I.
This can cut both ways, of course - I recall how she recently found the NYT's coverage was being regrettably dismissive of Bernie Sanders.
I do read the Public Editor's column occasionally; I think she should be far more aggressive. She just kind of takes what she's told at face value and doesn't pursue anything.
> Would you really be convinced by any critique of the New York Times coming from a conservative source? There are many of them and they're not hard to find.
My point (maybe made to someone else) is lots of bullshit is a just a big pile of bullshit. Lots of lies don't make for truth. Of course the Times is a target of conservative sources, the same that say climate change is in doubt, but does lots of repetition by them make it true? Did it make the Iraq War turn out any better?
I would like to read some more scholarly sources. Unforunately, while I don't object to conservativism at all, so much of it is wrapped up in ideology (which I do object to) that it's hard to find a good source. Do you know one that isn't ideological?
To be honest, the shock and pain and angst and awe we feel here in Paris is so overwhelming that I feel too numb to realize that, Yes, of course, people will use this event to promote their own ideological agenda... It makes me sick, truly.
You can call for peace all you want, those committing the atrocities will revel in it as it simply makes their work easier. Calls for peace instead of war only work when both sides are rational and one side is clearly not.
Really? Arguably ISIS would never have existed if the US didn't invade Iraq, destabilizing it and leaving a power vacuum. Also creating increased hatred towards the west in the process. I'd say using peace as a response to 9/11 could have saved us from the Paris attacks, as well as ISIS.
And to bring enough funds into the region to finance an army. The reports of what happened in Mosul are contradictory so I have no idea any more about what's true and what is not but the story goes that the Mosul bank heist financed the initial phase of IS. This is strongly advocated by some and just as strongly denied by others. There are also stories about planeloads of cash moved into Iraq.
And the left-wing media not long ago had little difficulty exploiting the drowning death of a migrant child due to his father's involvement in human trafficking to justify mass immigration of Muslim economic migrants--at least some of whom we now know were involved in the horrific attack on Paris: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-france-shooting...
Consequently, the author's complaints of exploitation ring hollow.
> justify mass immigration of Muslim economic migrants--at least some of whom we now know were involved in the horrific attack on Paris
Two out of ~1 million. Two that were NOT actually part of those refugees, but instead just pretended to be refugees - perhaps because it made getting to France _just a little_ easier or perhaps even to incite hatred against the refugees which will then make for a wonderful group to recruit from.
Americans and they idiocracy. I'm happy to live in EU and even though these sort of shocking events happening from time to time I still feel better here than I would ever do in USA. Count your police gun victims it will never add up to what just happened in Paris...
"[T]he public has access, thanks to the media, to news that they know as 'politics' or 'international relations', 'diplomacy', which only present [...] what we call 'the formal view'. The formal view always masks the 'real view', because the latter is almost always considered not receivable by a public that is not initiated (the widest audience) who would not be able to conceive of international politics in any other way than via the spectrum of ethics adapted only to social relationships between individuals."
- Missions, méthodes, techniques spéciales des services secrets au 21e siècle, Lt Col X and Jacques Leger (generally quite a good book on modern information wars and opinion manipulation)
http://www.amazon.fr/Missions-m-thodes-techniques-sp-ciales-...
31 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 68.3 ms ] threadCzech rep. has concealed carry
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
... I prefer these conspiracy nuts to the pundits; they have a better excuse. But that itself is quite sad.
I'll take this seriously when the NTY introduces a moratorium on all breaking news and stops jumping on things when it fits their agenda but jump against it when it goes against their agendas.
To be sure, concealed carry etc. is anathema to European society and also isn't the answer... Just look at iraq lots of weapons by civilians, it does not stop terrorism..But I have to laugh at their indignation of opportunism.
Do you have any? The fact that many repeat it, especially inside an ideological echo chamber, doesn't make it likely to be true.
1) I see nothing substantive, only nit-picking over wording. In particular, the NR critic often just comes up with a different way of writing the same thing, something anyone can do with any piece of writing. Much is wording that could go either way, and some depends on what the reporter actually saw. For example, maybe the reporter can't identify who threw the rocks and so can't say anything about them. Maybe the reporter saw a scuffle and not a riot; the NR critic doesn't offer evidence that the statement is in error. In general, it's an old propaganda technique: Just keep up a flood of criticism and people will think that some of it - just a little! - must be true. It's not. Professionals in the field of political maniuplation really do pull this stunt on a regular basis. Look how they demonize every Democratic leader, for example (Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama). (Left-wingers do the same, but they have far less influence than platforms like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and Rush - all the most popular in their industries.)
2) The National Review has an avowed agenda of pro-conservative, anti-everything else commentary. This isn't the best source; they are going to find a way criticize the NY Times no matter what, true or not. Perhaps something from a study of journalism would be better (not that I realistically expect you to have that at your fingertips).
3) Reading the Israeli papers Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, I find that if the NY Times has any bias on any issue, it's not covering the bad things done by Israelis. The Israeli papers paint a much harsher picture of their own country. But I'm not sure I can make sense of it; of course the New York Times is not going to cover Israel in the same details as Israeli papers, so perhaps that explains the difference.
There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere.
It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans, if that makes a difference.
What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about.
> It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans
And I assume that applies to NY Times reporters too. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.
Thanks again for the link.
My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up, and if they consistently point a particular way, that means something. The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side, you don't get such awkward phrasing by accident.
I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it.
See http://journalism.indiana.edu/general-news/news/press-releas...
* Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.*
The example you gave of business news is the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles.
I disagree on both counts, but I think I'm about to repeat myself ...
> the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M.... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles.
Interesting, but that study is from before the News Corp (i.e., Rupert Murdoch, Fox News proprieter) bought it.
Second, I don't follow memes, some of my views will fall left, some will fall right. It's irrelevant to me where they 'fall' their classification. I only care that they are my views. A shorthand would be I consider myself non-aligned. No one is going to come to your recue in your time of need, ideology nor anything else.
If not, you could do worse than just reading the column of the New York Times' public editor, who's responsible for handing questions from readers and issues of journalistic integrity. Often, when coverage is particularly slanted, some acknowledgement of that will eventually show up there. For instance, here's what she wrote on the New York Times' Benghazi coverage:
Here’s my take: The angry criticism of The Times on Benghazi has been based largely on politics, not journalism, and fomented by Fox News. (The conspiracy narrative goes like this: The Times is a liberal newspaper unwilling to take on a liberal president and his administration.) In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been solid. But my sense is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the lack of government transparency. Many readers would like to see more on that front, and so would I.
This can cut both ways, of course - I recall how she recently found the NYT's coverage was being regrettably dismissive of Bernie Sanders.
> Would you really be convinced by any critique of the New York Times coming from a conservative source? There are many of them and they're not hard to find.
My point (maybe made to someone else) is lots of bullshit is a just a big pile of bullshit. Lots of lies don't make for truth. Of course the Times is a target of conservative sources, the same that say climate change is in doubt, but does lots of repetition by them make it true? Did it make the Iraq War turn out any better?
I would like to read some more scholarly sources. Unforunately, while I don't object to conservativism at all, so much of it is wrapped up in ideology (which I do object to) that it's hard to find a good source. Do you know one that isn't ideological?
This should be a call for peace, not war.
And the Guardian as usual did not disappoint: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/14/paris-a...
And the left-wing media not long ago had little difficulty exploiting the drowning death of a migrant child due to his father's involvement in human trafficking to justify mass immigration of Muslim economic migrants--at least some of whom we now know were involved in the horrific attack on Paris: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-france-shooting...
Consequently, the author's complaints of exploitation ring hollow.
Quite the contrary, they only corroborate it.
Two out of ~1 million. Two that were NOT actually part of those refugees, but instead just pretended to be refugees - perhaps because it made getting to France _just a little_ easier or perhaps even to incite hatred against the refugees which will then make for a wonderful group to recruit from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdvFfSGxtNI
Please, stop that disinformation campaign, the guy who creates that video isn't totally neutral [1].
[1] https://www.schusterman.org/users/zvika-klein