RUTHFULLY YOURS

I’m done with Fox News By Patricia McCarthy

When Fox News debuted in 1996, it was a breath of fresh air, seemingly unadulterated by the leftist bias that had long characterized the three mainstream networks and CNN. But that initial commitment to balance has gone by the wayside, sacrificed on the altar of Donald Trump.

Fox News, as Mark Levin has observed, has become a Trump super-PAC instead of a news organization. From morning throughout the day and night, it is Trump, Trump, Trump.

Many of us who have depended on Fox for “fair and balanced” news feel betrayed. While Trump’s rants at his rallies are a form of repetitive mass hypnosis of an angry public by a fraudster, Fox has set out to convince its viewers that Trump is a legitimate candidate, not a spoiler for Hillary – that he is a conservative when he is clearly not. His millions of supporters who have hitched their hopes for a better future, a return to American strength and values, to him will be sorely disappointed. Trump has no core values beyond his own ego and accumulated wealth.

Has Fox News changed its nature at the command of Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes? Are large amounts of money involved? Who knows?

Megyn Kelly sure got in trouble for challenging Trump and had to go grovel before him at Trump Tower. Now she is about to interview him; it will most likely be a carefully orchestrated love-fest. She has capitulated. Greta is clearly his good friend of long standing, so she will not address his candidacy honestly. Hannity has become, as one cartoonist drew it, Trump’s ventriloquist’s dummy. And Giuliani! What can one say about his support of Trump?

Meanwhile, O’Reilly speaks as though Trump is already the Republican nominee. Maybe he will be; maybe he will not. But he is not yet. These folks are betraying the country for the friendship of a rich celebrity.

So I am finished with Fox News. The channel has sold out to the lowest common denominator and actively sabotaged the one qualified candidate, the constitutional scholar, the Reaganesque guy. While I greatly respect Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, and a few others, the rest of them can wallow in their Trumpaphilia to their hearts’ content.

A paper published Wednesday in the journal Studies in Contemporary History alleges that the Associated Press had a close relationship with the Nazi propaganda office in the 1930s. Historian Harriet Scharnberg writes that the AP was able to continue operating in Germany long after most other media outlets had been booted out.

USA Today:

The AP agreed to abide by the Nazi “editor’s law,” forbidding any publication “calculated to weaken the strength of the Reich abroad or at home,” according to The Guardian, which first reported on the research Wednesday. The news agency also hired reporters who worked in the Nazi party’s propaganda division, including photographer Franz Roth, who was in the propaganda unit of the SS and whose photos were approved by Hitler himself.

Scharnberg also contends the AP allowed the use of its photographs in antisemitic propaganda, including the publications “The Sub-Human” and “The Jews in the USA.”

By working with the Nazis, the AP helped that totalitarian regime “portray a war of extermination as a conventional war,” the historian said in the interview with The Guardian. For example, Roth’s photos following the 1941 Nazi invasion of Lviv in western Ukraine focused on the atrocities carried out by Soviet troops before the arrival of the Nazis, and ignored the violence of the German forces against the Jewish residents.

“The pictures played their part in disguising the true character of the war led by the Germans,” Scharnberg said. “Which events were made visible and which remained invisible in AP’s supply of pictures followed German interests and the German narrative of the war.”

The Associated Press said in a statement that Scharnberg’s research “describes both individuals and their activities before and during the war that were unknown to AP.” The news agency says it is conducting a review “to further our understanding of the period.”

The crowning indignity to Kitty Genovese’s memory is the half-page obituary and celebrity photograph afforded to her killer, Winston Moseley.( NYT 4/516) A close runner-up is the leniency shown to him by our justice system which did not execute this multiple rapist/murderer, but instead allowed him the privilege of a college education while in prison. To read the details of this man’s heinous and barbaric deeds and then chew on that last fact is perhaps an approximation of the angry frustration many American voters feel about how our government orders its priorities.

Moseley, who lived a long life, dying at 81, confessed to killing three women, raping eight and committing up to 40 burglaries. He stabbed Kitty Genovese 14 times, raping her after he had stabbed her, while she bled profusely, near death. Though he was sentenced to death, that penalty was reversed on appeal, a decision that enabled him to subsequently escape from Attica while our state, concerned about this vermin’s health, was transporting him to the hospital. Another innocent young woman was raped, innocent people were held at gunpoint and a dazed public was incredulous at the lapses in security and judgment that would allow this brutal animal to be uncaged.

For hard-working middle-America, college represents the second biggest financial burden after being a homeowner. Transferring that to their children via student loans, simply shifts the burden to the next generation which is increasingly in debt for decades after graduation. The argument for making a college education available to prisoners is that it reduces recidivism, ultimately saving the taxpayers’ money and it improves prison safety. Though this might make sense for prisoners who have reasonable expectations of leaving jail after completing their sentences, it makes no sense at all for a serial killer who is unlikely to ever be granted parole.

The willful blindness of the Western media and intellectual elites to Palestinian incitement and their hyper-focus on any incident they can use to portray Israel in a negative light were on abundant display last week when footage emerged of an Israel Defense Forces soldier shooting a wounded and disarmed Palestinian terrorist.

Since then, The New York Times and The Washington Post have run no fewer than 16 stories about the incident. This volume of coverage reinforces the patently mendacious Israel-is-evil “narrative” promoted by the mainstream media, the liberal elites in bed with Palestinian and jihadist killers, the demonstrably one-sided United Nations, and the sanctimonious rants of several congressional leaders who claim they are speaking out in the name of human rights.

Meanwhile, these same news outlets consistently fail to speak out against the massive and ongoing denial of human rights, suppression of basic freedoms and daily torture meted out to any Palestinian dissident by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Many of these violations have been investigated and documented in horrific detail by the courageous Palestinian human rights advocate Bassam Eid.

No, the “narrative” does not allow mainstream news outlets to file negative reports on Palestinian human rights violations, their rampant corruption, and most importantly, their massive incitement to terrorist violence, which is being promoted by the very leadership of the Palestinian Authority. This includes vile lessons in how to kill Jews, taught in U.S.-sponsored Palestinian schools and universities, and instructional videos on stabbing and murdering Jews being shown to thousands of Palestinian schoolchildren.

It is not surprising that The New York Times launched a frontal assault on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, bemoaning what its editorial board called his “lost opportunities.” But the timing of the attack, which U.S. President Barack Obama could have written himself, is worth examining.

Not only did it appear mere days after Jeffrey Goldberg’s portrait of Obama appear in The Atlantic, but it came on the heels of a couple of notable Palestinian terrorist rampages in Israel (notable not for their being distinguishable from all the other daily stabbings, car rammings and shootings, but due to their having taken place in Petach Tikva and Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem and the West Bank); a two-day shuttle-diplomacy visit to the region by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden; a rocket attack from Gaza; and ballistic missile tests in Iran — with an open threat to annihilate Israel engraved in Hebrew on a few of the projectiles.

Anyone who read Goldberg’s piece might have been lulled by his genuine flair for biography into ignoring the disastrous effect of Obama’s Mideast policies. And this emerged in a glowing report; one shudders to imagine how the U.S. president’s words and deeds would have been understood had they been described by an impartial raconteur and interviewer.

Though Obama, with Goldberg’s help, tried to pin his own failures on other leaders — highlighting Netanyahu’s flaws alongside those of additional counterparts who served to “disappoint” him — what emerged was a handbook on how to turn the United States of America into the world’s wimp. Obama’s mentor, “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky, could not have done a better job.

That the Times took this opportunity to publish a column blaming Netanyahu for the lack of peace with the Palestinians cannot be disconnected from the above. On the contrary, it was like an after-pill; an emergency damage-control measure to place the ball back in Israel’s court. Though Obama is on his way out, a fierce campaign for the election of his successor is underway. The Times, therefore, had to reassure American voters that it is not the Democrats who are at fault for their growing sense of international insecurity, but rather Netanyahu.

Monocultures are prone to infirmity and disease, which perhaps explains The Guardian’s laughable attempt to characterise a journalist who believes in free speech as a witless promoter of anti-semitism. When everyone thinks the same, one fool’s braying is lost in the racket of the herd.
Like an elevator formerly occupied by a passenger afflicted with terminal flatulence, a visit to The Guardian Australia website serves as a sharp reminder that noxious emanations linger noisomely in small, tight, closed-off spaces. As Bertholt Brecht lamented of his contemporaries’ insistence on pouring their talents into the mundane when the workers’ paradise had yet to be realised, “They are like painters who cover the walls of sinking ships with still lifes.” Pardon the irony in quoting a red-raggin’ propagandist and totalitarian publicist in regard to a red-raggin’ publication with a pronounced affection for greenish jackboots, but the agit-propping dramatist’s observation is too delicious to resist. Here we are, the left’s march through the institutions long ago complete, yet in The Guardian’s strange and sealed little eco-system the same old battle cries and campfire songs echo yet. Suggest that journalists of the modern breed are bitchily contemptuous of free speech and intolerant of any opinions but their own, as the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann did last week in The Australian, and the truth of that observation is immediately confirmed by something akin to an eruption of explosive peristalsis. The offence against leftist presumption to solely determine what can be discussed and how, having been duly digested, prompts an immediate rumbling in the literary bowel until, after a period of authorial grimacing and discomfort, it spurts noisily forth in a gaseous bum burp as short on substance as it is foully obnoxious. Here, the effusions of former journalism academic and current Guardian contributor Jason Wilson come immediately to mind.

It is quite the case study, Wilson’s excoriation of Uhlmann, but very much of a piece with his earlier and no less gassy gushers. Not long ago, for example, he displayed a unique talent for finding perfidy in the prosaic by denouncing the faddish paleo diet as an assault on women and feminism. That expose should not be missed, especially by those who find amusement in the bizarre, but do set aside more than what might normally be considered adequate time to absorb a few hundred words of the merely tendentious. Some will laugh until they cry, and those tears will blur the vision as thoroughly as does the author’s compulsion to make everything, even plates of offal, symptoms of the right’s cleverly concealed and ever-sinister intentions. As a former Canberra University academic, Wilson cannot have worked in close proximity to Professor Matthew Ricketson, co-author of the infamous Finkelstein review, without having what seems a congenital inclination to useful idiocy greatly enhanced. The Finkelstein opus, it should be remembered, recommended the jailing of recalcitrant editors (see below), so there is another alleged journalist opposed to unfiltered free speech.

It’s important to remember that journalists are human beings, too—and just like everyone else at work, they can often be overwhelmed, underprepared, bought with kindness, and subject to unconscious bias.

People always ask me if I’m pro-Israel. No one has ever asked me if I am pro-America or pro-Canada or pro-Kenya, where I was born. What does it mean to be pro-Israel? The question even seems vaguely offensive, as if it questions the legitimacy of Israel itself.
I am sure that the concept of a Jewish state has always made sense to me. Perhaps because I myself come from an ancient ethnic and religious minority, the Zoroastrians, who continue to live in a diaspora outside of what was once our homeland, Iran.
So I came to Israel with a predisposed understanding of the need for a state, a safe haven for a people that has been a global minority for millennia and continuously persecuted. But as for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I had no clue what was going on, who was right and who was wrong.
What I came to realize was that you simply cannot understand this highly complex, multidimensional situation unless you come see it for yourself and experience it for yourself, without preconceived notions. This is hard to do. So whom do we rely on to do it? For most people, it’s the Western media, and we presume they know what they’re doing. For the most part, they don’t.
I first came to Israel in January 2014 for a short trip. This two-week holiday turned into two years. At the time, I was a graduate student in journalism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. While traveling, I stumbled on a really eye-opening story—“everyday life” in the West Bank. In the U.S., I was exposed to images of violence and chaos any time the West Bank was mentioned in the news. So when I accidentally ventured into the West Bank during my travels, I had no idea I was even there. I was surrounded by tranquil scenes, modern infrastructure, and economic cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis. I guess this was too boring to make any headlines.
I thought it would be interesting to show people the uneventful side of the story. This wasn’t to negate any social and political injustices of the situation. I just thought people should see the entire truth—not just soldiers, bombs, and riots, but also what’s happening when none of the drama is taking place.
And it wasn’t just the normalcy of life in the West Bank that went unreported. Many of the human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority were never mentioned, such as the lack of freedom of speech and the press, and a complete neglect of the Palestinian people by their own politicians, who continue to exploit the peace process while pocketing European and American funding for a “free Palestine.” My work, however, didn’t consist of criticizing the PA. I thought I should leave that to the “real” journalists. It was their job, after all, to report such things.