News

loverofliberty

yes indeed talk is cheap. if you are interested in proof of anything, am sure you will look for it yourself. and i knew you had absolutely no personal experience of the middle east. so let's end the cheap talk then, shall we?

Peace

Niloufar,

Niloufar: "however, where does the profit come from? from the viewers or the advertisers? despite the impression you give, the media's profits and 'directions from above' do not come from the viewers, but from the private sector. this means that the richer the client, the greater his/her company's weight."

So then, how exactly would richer clients, and thus having assumingly greater influence with regards to a media outlet, translate to there being a supposedly pro-Zionist control of the media in the US? 

(And no, I didn't actually describe this site as being pro-Palestinian.  What I was asking was, if this site were to host articles that tend to be more supportive of Palestinian issues than Israeli issues, then why shouldn't this site be considered to represent a kind of pro-Palestinian control of this website....similarly like you have said about the US media, in general?)

Niloufar: "in think your point about  DePaul university comes from a lack of research into the matter. he was expressly refused a post that was already promised to him there beause of his views on israel. this is well known. search chomsky on the subject. he attests to this in an interview."

Well, until you post a link to the text of the actual ruling made by DePaul University that supports your assertion, you haven't demonstrated that Norman Finkelstein denial of tenure was based on his views on Israel, rather than on other reasons. And, Finkelstein's or Chomsky's discussion of the matter only represents their versions of the story, so to speak, of what happened regarding Finkelstein's denial of tenure.  And achieving tenure, particularly at the University level in the US, is be no means, whatsoever, something that is guaranteed...or, as you implied, "promised." 

Niloufar: "i speak from my personal experience, and can tell you without any hesitation: there is unquestionable bias in favour of israel and against the palestinians across a range of institutions and media in the west. from the student union debating floor to the elected houses of politicians to the newspapers and electronic media, israel's crimes are whitewashed almost without exception on a daily basis. the bias is so deep and extreme that most of you western people have no idea it is happening."

Talk is cheap.  And, if you don't provide objective evidence to support such assertions, then these claims are simply unfounded.

(Why should I travel to the Middle East since, in fact, the supposedly pro-Zionist-controlled media in the West has been apparently unable to prevent people, such as Norman Finkelstein, from expressing their opinions?)

NP

I don't work for CIA so I don't know the real reasons :-) But my guesses are:

1) Bush planned to attack Iran. However he botched up Iraq so badly that it was not practical at that time.

2) The American population has not been ready for another costly war.

3) The banking fiasco.

4) They are busy mopping up Afghanistan.

5) IRI is doing a fine job werekcing Iran. Why should USA bother.

6) Most importantly the nuclear issue is a red herring. No one is really worried about it. Other than ultra paranoied Israelis. It is being used as an excuse to put pressure on Iran. That is it.

vpk

if iran has no real deterrent, why has there been no attack on the nuclear facilities then? according to various reports, iran is getting closer to making a bomb every day. what's stopping them?

marhoum

i hope so too. what we do know is that the war rhetoric has been running for years, yet bushehr was opened and is running smoothly without any attack (well, a failed cyber attack excluded). likewise, the location of iran's 20% refined uranium is not secret and the enrichment facility is also known to all concerned, yet no bombings!

something for sure is deterring them from bombing...

loverofliberty

yes indeed the media in usa is predominantly 'for profit', and all historical accounts are by nature biased. this is the elementary background that to me is little more than a truism.

however, where does the profit come from? from the viewers or the advertisers? despite the impression you give, the media's profits and 'directions from above' do not come from the viewers, but from the private sector. this means that the richer the client, the greater his/her company's weight. 

comparing this situation to that of this web site is not exactly relevant. in fact, even on this web site, the readers had to put up a fight in order to stop those google-generated israeli ads. and, btw, describing this web site as 'pro-palestinian' exposes a bias in your outlook. this site is nothing like that at all (despite my efforts)!

as for finkelstein, i think you know you are on shaky grounds. you know in most places on earth it is perfectly normal to express one's opinions. the consequences only come after. nobody can prevent anyone from expressing their views. it is in what happens next that we can gauge the system in operation. surely this is a basic requirement of a logical approach.

in think your point about  DePaul university comes from a lack of research into the matter. he was expressly refused a post that was already promised to him there beause of his views on israel. this is well known. search chomsky on the subject. he attests to this in an interview.

more generally, i think you either lack experience or your research is poor on this subject. i speak from my personal experience, and can tell you without any hesitation: there is unquestionable bias in favour of israel and against the palestinians across a range of institutions and media in the west. from the student union debating floor to the elected houses of politicians to the newspapers and electronic media, israel's crimes are whitewashed almost without exception on a daily basis. the bias is so deep and extreme that most of you western people have no idea it is happening.

for you to get more balanced on this topic, you need to adopt a far more open-minded and logical approach. a trip to the middle east might do it for you. have you ever been there?

Niloufar,

As far as I can tell, the bulk of broadcasted mass media in the US is "media for profit," so to speak.  And, as such, those outlets tend to cater to a particular audience in order to maximize profits, no matter if the demographics of the audience are supposedly "pro-Zionist" or not.  So, besides the fact that historical accounts are always inherently biased since they rely on interpretations of historical data, there is sort of a bias that is introduced whenever historical articles are published just for a particular audience. 

However, this being said, should the bias that is introduced when a media outlet caters to a particular audience for profit be construed as being some kind of nefarious control over the media?  Should this website, for example, be considered to be "pro-Palestinian," if the majority of the articles on this site support Palestinian causes?  And, if this website is supposedly pro-Palestinian, and to be consistent, shouldn't it also be construed, then, that pro-Palestinian forces somehow control what is on this website?

The fact of the matter is, Norman Finkelstein did publish his opinions.  And, he was not, quite apparently, prevented from doing so.  But, if we are to believe the myth that supposedly "pro-Zionists" control the media in the US, then why was his opinions allowed to be published in the first place?

(Regarding Norman Finkelstein, it is just an assertion, as far as I can tell, that he was denied tenure at DePaul University simply because of his opinions rather than because of how scholarly his opinions were researched and presented.  And, since detailed reason(s) why he was denied tenure is not publicly available, it is anyone's guess at how fairly or unfairly he was treated by DePaul University. And, quite contrary to what you have implied, Norman Finkelstein never "ended up having to leave" academia altogether, as a result of the DePaul tenure incident.  That is, as far as I can discern, something he chose to do on his own.)

Marhoum

I don't see what is cuckoo about me. Just because I demanded they all kneel and follow me does not make me a loony. What is so wrong with it? All the other prophets got away with it.

I should have learned from Elron Hubbard; I'd have followers.

Hey VPK!

Prophet says: "...one reason I left academia"

And all this time I thought you left academia and became a prophet because you went cuckoo!

Niloufar, I hope you are right and there exists (!!!?) enough deterrence.

NP

I am not proud to say this. But Iran does not have a real deterrent. None of what you say is viable. Here we go:

• USA has Iraq more or less under control. They got what they want. Sure IRI may cause unrest. But the result will be Iraqi killing Iraqi. Nothing the USA really gives a damn about.
• USA may need Iran in Iraq. But the USA leadership has been oblivious to this fact. They are going it alone. Probably why they will fail. It is not a deterrent because USA is not relying on Iran.
• USA would easily take out Iranian missile fields. This is what the 500 $ billion army is good at. They are excellent at taking out military targets. Plus no doubt many innocent bystanders.

Relying on this flimsly set is very foolhardy. It is similar to what Saddam did. This is what I mean about being cunning and intelligent. Open confrontation with America is suicide. Both for AN and for the IRI and all involved with it.

NP

Right Finkelstein was demoted and kicked out of academia. Very unfair and one reason I left academia. However he did not get stoned or hanged. Now imagine someone writing in open support for Zionism in IRI. Will he just get demoted. Or hang off a crane?

magas

i know aziz. i included you there as it was a continuation of the 'power' line of argument.

iran's deterrents are there, same as before. in short (i know you know!):

- usa needs iran in iraq

- usa needs iran in afghanistan

- iran can block the strait of hormuz

so they have to make a deal with iran. it's not the bomb they worry about. iran doesn't need the bomb for this negotiation.

loveofliberty

there are so many holes in your position, am not sure where to start. but let's take the shareholder issue:

since when have shareholders shown any control over what corporate execs do? they could not even stop greedy bonuses being paid in the middle of a recession.

the same is true of the media output on the airwaves. there is no reason to believe that american shareholders have much of a say in the news that is broadcast, or the political slant given to them.

but you can take the bias clearly dominant in american media as a reasonable indicator of where the direction is coming from.

so from this perspective the US media can reasonably be described as 'predominantly controlled by pro-zionists'. it may not be totally accurate, but it would be illogical to call it a 'myth' as you do.

regarding Norman Finkelstein, was yes he was allowed to present his opinions, and then he was summarily demoted from his professional position, and ended up having to leave the academia. he was also banned from israel. his relationship with the establishment and the meida is quite telling. it is another indication of pro-zionist control of US mdia.

when it comes to isareli crimes, there is little or no regard for international law or basic human rights by the american media or politicians. this must be a considerable source of anger for a lover of liberty like you...

Peace

T9

Have you no conscience?

No Niloufar

Niloufare-e azeez, I think you misunderstood me. I made no judgment on whether Ahmadinejad is the best choice or not. I only agreed with VPK regarding  "Rule of the mighty and powerful." and these days even these guys are not hiding that.

Personally I hope Iran does not capitulate, no matter who the president is. As for Ahmadinejad I hope he has enough in his chanteh (some form of deterrence)  so that he can show the applicable finger (*) to Obama, Natanyhoo and the rest of them.

(*) In US it is the middle one in Iran it is the thumb!

Niloufar,

The assertion that the media in the West-or just in the US-is "predominantly controlled by pro-zionists" is a myth.  And, this quite dubious assertion is rather easily debunked when one considers the observation that media outlets in the West are increasingly becoming-or already are-publicly traded multinational corporations who answer primarily to their investors, such as banks, insurance companies, and stock-holders, and, more importantly, to advertisers who almost always provide their primary source of revenue.  And, with the advent of the World Wide Web, and the fact that just about anyone in the West can host a website that says whatever they want it to say short of libel, it is quite absurd to claim that the media in the West is "predominantly controlled by pro-zionists."

With regards to Norman Finkelstein, was he or was he not allowed to present his opinions?  (This question, at least in my mind, has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz and DePaul University.)  And, why should this one particular case be used to imply that the the media in the West is "predominantly controlled by pro-zionists?"

With regards to Ahmadinejad, he would be "objective" if he presented any factual evidence to support his assertions that the US government was behind the events of 9/11.  Since he hasn't done that, his assertion that the US government was behind the events of 9/11 is no more or less truthful than a subjective assertion that, say, the Iranian government was behind the events of 9/11.

Unbelievable ...

ahmadinejad has been more cunning that you give him credit?

Yes, so cunning that we must be grateful that he has put everyone (Iranians) who disagrees with him in prison or threatened with death. You people clutching at straws to defend his ideology, his blunders and inhumanity. Have you no conscience?

vpk (and marhoum)

i agree that he is not the best choice of president for iran. i agree that the islamic regime is not the best regime for iran or any other country.

but if you are going to play the 'realism' card, then we have to accept him as the current president of iran.

we can try to wish him away. but that's not realistic right now, is it?

anyhow, as you no doubt have heard, they have agreed to a new round of nuclear talks starting in October. it does not quite look like the 'cliff' scenario, so perhaps ahmadinejad has been more cunning that you give him credit?

NP

Tipping the order requires intelligence and cunning. AN has none of these. The thing he is tipping is his hand. Pushing your nation off the cliff is not tipping the balance. AN will most likely end up like Saddam. I just hope Iran does not end up like Iraq.

An intelligent leader will lull the opposition into a false sense of security until it is too late. If he really wanted nuclear might he should shut up; pretend to bend over. Then one day announce a nuclear breakthrough. Instead he shoots his mouth off. This way all opposition is on full alert. In addition they have plenty of excuse to take whatever action they want. AN is a moron and not worthy of being a leader. He should go for the sake of Iran.

rule of might

and within that established order, some will try to tip the balance. it is rational too. neither the 'tipping' nor the 'maintaining' of this balance needs to be done violently.

US/Israel would be very happy!, IF (to Agha_Irani)

"...and take the country even further back, if the 7th century wasn't bad enough already."

If they had really taken Iran that many centuries back, US/Israel would be VERY happy today, and not sanctioning, sabotaging Iran every day! That is why Obama bends over for Saudis:

//www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/04/04/obama-...

BTW Regarding Niloufar Arabi

Fact check every claim she makes it is full of exaggerations if not outright mistakes.

Niloufar Arabi

I see that you are as usual begging your arabist masters to interfere in Iran again - and take the country even further back, if the 7th century wasn't bad enough already.

Do you fail to see the hypocrisy of your comments? Is it beyond your intellect? 

vpk: Couldn't have said it

vpk: Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done.

It boils down to deterrence/Nukes! (I agree with VPK)

"what is it going to be? democracy and respect for all in
international affairs or a global oligarchy to be run by the chosen
ones?"

Niloufar, these days and specially with Iran's Nuke issues they are no longer hiding it. From Barack the Democrat to Palon the fascist republican they say Iran has to listen to us/US/Israel.

...I hope Iran has/gets some kind of deterrence soon, otherwise it is all empty words.

"Rule of the mighty and powerful." as VPK said.

NP

you asked:

what is it going to be? democracy and respect for all in international affairs or a global oligarchy to be run by the chosen ones?

Rule of the mighty and powerful. Just as it is in IRI. Just as it was throughout history. The strong will dictate terms to the weak. If you doubt me then you are welcome to prove me otherwise.

Is AN willing to listen to dissidents. Is Khamenei willing to take criticism. No, they respond by sending their thugs. So does the US; Israel; Britain and others.  No surprise; no shock.

vpk

obama spent his speech preaching to the whole world about what's good for them. he was dictating terms to every country on earth more or less. a real tired, irritating, condescending bush-lite agenda. why not criticise him too?

ahmadinejad has every right to talk about iran's regional and global affairs in the UN. would be a mistake not to.

he has always failed to show tact. but lack of tact on his behalf is no excuse for an unwillingness to engage by the opposing side, unless they do not believe in freedom of speech.

what is it going to be? democracy and respect for all in international affairs or a global oligarchy to be run by the chosen ones?

NP

Just for the sake of argument let us say AN's questions are valid. What if all his points were right. How does that help Iran? Does that in any way help solve the problems of the nation. Our problems are not whether Jews got treated worse or Communists or Gypsies. The problem is that IRI is driving Iranians into: hopelessness; self imposed exile; isolation; drugs and a general malaise. None of AN's questions help here. That is why I say he has the wrong job. 

Maybe there should be an organization chartered with researching the holocaust. In fact that would be a great place for AN. He should resign from Presidency then found such an organization. He will be doing what is his passion and can do this all he wants. Meanwhile let Iran be run by someone interested in the job. 

AhmadiNejad is not a president, he is a movement

I just typed in the title, and I have nothing add. Strange!! 

My heart is true as steel.

vpk

the debate is not about whether it happened or not. it's other things that are also extremely important. let me copy and paste something i wrote on another blog to demonstrate:

fact is, communists were treated worse than the jews or other minorities by the nazis. this is documented for example in the 'Mauthausen' concentration
camp that is now open to the public as a museum. i visited the camp in
austria about 15 years ago. for example, the number of prisoners per
cell was twice as high for communists as compared to jews. and they were
made to work harder than the jews. it is all stated so very clearly on a
number of different placards as you walk through various parts of the
museum.

ahmadinejad has a point about WWII deaths. the jewish side of the story is the only one we hear. 

here is a link
to a jewish web site's description of the Mauthausen concentration camp
and it's horrific sotry [story]. check it out. it describes the camp as
'category 3' type meaning: "This was the fiercest category, and for the prisoners it meant "Rûckkehr unerwünscht" (return not desired) and "Vernichtung durch arbeit" (extermination by work)".

but you keep searching and you will find that the word 'communist' is
not even mentioned anywhere on the page! there is just a single
reference to 'russian' prisoners.

and there is something very suspect about the way no local compensation
was ever given to the jews. they were in fact encouraged to leave the
region even after the war ended when it was their inalienable right to
stay/return. germany and austria should have given a piece of their own
land as compensation for jews. this is the least they could have done.
instead they paid for jews to leave, and they still pay compensation to
israel. 

ahmadinejad is coming out with various statements that seem so
'provoking' from the western point of view, but from the east's
position, the questions he raised are apt and require answers.

Peace