Mideast Media Sampler 11/18/2013 - Thomas Friedman: The Incredible Shrinking Columnist...
The proposal under consideration in Geneva was to have been the first stage of a multipart agreement. It called for Iran to freeze its nuclear program for up to six months to allow negotiations on a long-term agreement without the worry that Iran was racing ahead to build a bomb. In exchange, the West was to have provided some easing of the international sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy. After years of off-again, on-again talks, the deal would have been the first to brake Iran’s nuclear program.Despite the diplomats’ insistence on progress, the failure to clinch an agreement raised questions about the future of the nuclear talks, given the fierce criticism that the mere prospect of a deal whipped up in Israel and among Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.Unfortunately, this frames the scuttling of the talks in terms of those looking for a compromise versus pro-Israel ideologues. Subsequent reporting in the article is more specific about some, but not all, of the real issues involved.
Mideast Media Sampler 11/08/2013 -- Yasser, that's a conspiracy theory....
With talks over Iran’s nuclear program set to resume in Geneva this week, both sides engaged in a bit of public diplomacy Sunday: Iran’s supreme leader moved to quiet hard-liners in his country by expressing support for his negotiating team, while the chief American negotiator reiterated in an Israeli television interview that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds Iran’s final word on the nuclear talks, told a group of students here that he was not optimistic the negotiations would succeed, but he also sent a negative message to the conservative clerics and military commanders who in recent weeks have attacked the diplomatic initiative.
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a valuable resource on which we frequently rely for news tips and information regarding the Middle East. I'm not sure how I ended up on CAMERA's email update list, and I'm not even sure...
One group of people was happy as murderers went free while others wept. But the gulf here is more than emotional or merely, as the Times seemed to describe it, a difficult process that is part of the price Israel must pay for the chance of peace. In fact, the “emotional gulf” is indicative of a vast cultural divide between these two peoples that explains more about the absence of peace than any lecture about history, borders, or refugees. Simply put, so long as the Palestinians honor murderers, there is no reason to believe they are willing to end the conflict.Consider the way the New York Times in the article cited by Tobin portrayed the Israeli reaction to the prisoner release:
In Israel, where the returnees are widely viewed as terrorists, the release on Tuesday, like the one in August, has stirred protests and anguish. Many said it was too heavy a price to pay for entering negotiations with no guarantee of a peace accord."[W]idely viewed?!?!" This statement is incredible. It's not only in Israel that they are "viewed as terrorists," but by definition. Only in the crazy New York Times worldview is the definition of terrorists subjective.
On October 8, 2010 major elements of the Western and Arabic “news” media engaged in a campaign to elicit sympathy for a two pre-teen Palestinian boys, whom they claimed were “run down” by a Jew in E. Jerusalem. The situation was greatly aggravated by dramatic photos and selectively-edited videos, which, on first glance, seemed to support this incendiary allegation. In reality, these children – along with a gaggle of international “news” photographers – waited at the bottom of a hill for Jewish cars to roll past, at which point the children hurled rocks at it, and actually charged the car as it attempted to swerve to avoid hitting them.
We have featured Pallywood here many times, the Palestinian industry producing everything from outright video hoaxes to mere gross exaggerations all in the name of demonizing Israel. But there is an even more pernicious western media version of Pallywood, the outright bias and misleading characterization of...
This video pretty much epitomizes how the mainstream news media fights to protect Obama and Democrats. Andrea Mitchell argues with GOP Rep. Sean Duffy as if she were Obama's press secretary. This is not an opinion segment -- I have more understanding when Ed Schultz or Chris...
A few related thoughts. First: https://twitter.com/jtLOL/status/387344493512372224 Second: Watch MSNBC all day long and keep in mind that, for the vast majority of the reporters covering politics in Washington, MSNBC is the Gospel Truth. Realize that the ambitious younger journalists in the White House press corps dream of the day...
Harry Reid then refused to agree to a consent motion in the Senate to approve the funding. Dana Bash at CNN even questioned Reid about it at a press conference, wondering why he won't just agree to the House funding bill since it might help a child.
All of this took place against an Obama veto threat.
Anyone who pays even a little attention knows that it is Democrats, and Democrats alone who have blocked funding for NIH child clinical trials.
Yet in the entire segment on NBC tonight, not a word was mentioned about why there is no funding. All that is mentioned is a generic and presumably bi-partisan failure to reach an agreement. Here's the full video (full transcript here):
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The 2013 Democratic Party reflects Richard Hofstadter's warning about the paranoid style of politics....
The latest development. https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/385042956857511936 https://twitter.com/rickklein/status/385043012147216384 https://twitter.com/rickklein/status/385043509516197890 I think negotiating with empty chairs will be a good thing. Reid and Obama are riding high, convinced the media will convey their messaging. There's reason for them to think that: ...
Ted Cruz swats away David Gregory's presumptions and accusations on Meet the Press...
Ask conservatives what went wrong for them the last time the government shut down, and many of them will bring up the cover of The Daily News of New York from Nov. 16, 1995. Under the block-lettered headline “Cry Baby,” it showed a cartoon of Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the Republican-led House, in tears, clutching a bottle and wearing nothing but a cloth diaper. Back then, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel was a year from its debut, Andrew Breitbart was a lowly assistant at E! Online, and The Drudge Report was an obscure gossip and news digest sent by e-mail — to the lucky few who had e-mail. But today, a fervent group of conservatives — bloggers, pundits, activists and even members of Congress — is harnessing the power of the Internet, determined to tell the story of the current budget showdown on its terms.
The tea party movement rose to prominence in the early years of Obama’s presidency, helping drive a surge of conservative activism that helped flip control of the House to Republicans in 2010. At the time, according to CBS-New York Times polling, nearly a third of Americans considered themselves tea party supporters. The movement’s popularity, though faded, shows signs of growing again: A quarter of Americans in a new CBS-New York Times survey between Sept. 19 and 23 said they support the tea party, up four points from two weeks earlier."Oddly" enough, it was really hard to find the poll to which WaPo was referring. The rise in Tea Party popularity in the CBS-New York Times survey didn't get the attention of the misleading Gallup headline. I could not find any stories about that finding prior to the WaPo article. The rise in Tea Party support didn't get headlines at The Times, or at CBS News which ran this misleading headline about the Gallup poll instead, but nowhere in the article mentioned its own contrary findings:
The question about Tea Party support shows that Tea Party support rose rapidly this month, is higher than it has been for over a year, and is in the same range it has been in since early 2010, with the exception of the surge in support around the 2010 election:
There's only one brief time period when opposition to the Tea Party was significantly lower, but opposition now is right in the 25-29% range it's typically been in.
Tea Party support is significantly lower than three years ago, but about where it was two years ago. So the drop took place two years ago, not recently as the Gallup headline (picked up in the mainstream media) would have you believe.
Why highlight just the drop in support? Because.
Moreover, the percentage of people who consider themselves Tea Pary supporters is slightly larger than those who consider themselves liberal, as measured in Gallup's ideological self-identification survey from 2012.
Considering the multi-year war on the Tea Party by Democrats, many Republicans, and the media, it is astounding that the Tea Party continues to stay more or less even in its support over the past two years. A 2% drop is hardly meaningful, and could just be variations within the margin of error in the poll, which was +/- 3%.
Also consider that half the electorate has no opinion one way or the other. So put it another way, almost 3/4 of the American electorate is not opposed to the Tea Party!
Think about it another way, if you were at a dinner table with four other people who represented the American electorate, one of the people at the table would be a Tea Party supporter. And two others would have no opinion.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Update: If Gallup wanted to be completely neutral, it could have written its headline as "Support and Opposition to Tea Party Stable." Instead, Gallup's anti-Tea Party spin is being picked up gladly at outlets such as TPM:
