The London Review of Bigotry

Tarka the Rotter

It's shameful Melanie, quite shameful

Robin

Reading the Just Journalism article it is difficult to understand why writers who claim to be Jews are so hostile to their fellow Jews.

If you look at Nazi Germany it is possible to have an inkling of understand. In Hitler's Reich many innocent Germans were the recipients of great hatred from their fellow Germans.

JJ's scholarly report peels off the veneer of literacy criticism - it is the London Review of Books after all - to reveal a clear hatred of fellow Jews.

This hatred destroys, of course, any rational for the LRB receiving any tax-payers monies.

Pete

Melanie, I know you're grown attached to the phrase "verbal pogrom", but have you ever considered that you're devaluing the phrase a little?

A.

There is an interesting question here. How is a free press possible? Most of the press is owned by corporations and promotes the interests of their owners. State financed media reflect state interests, which in turn reflect the interests of those with the greatest lobbying power. Using public money to fund alternatives is problematic. But how else is a free press possible, other than as obscure blogs or newsletters that can play no part in the public discourse?

The good Samaritan

“I am a supporter of ASH (ashamed Jews).
I was accidentally born of Jewish origin but I have never had anything whatsoever to do with Judaism. Jews or Israel. I am truly ashamed at what I believe Israel is doing to the poor Palestinians. So much so that I need to make it absolutely clear just how different I am from these Jews and I insist the everyone should recognise that I am just like everyone else”
At this stage, the guard was not listening.

YouCannotBeSerious!

Talking of newspapers and verbal pogroms, I'd be interested in your views on the role of the Daily Mail in whipping up anti-Jewish sentiment in the 1930s.

TomTom

On a related but different note I received a Parish Newsletter which had the strange sentence telling me that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem "in Palestine".

When I went to school we used to learn that Bethlehem was in Judea and since I am younger than my parish priest I can only assume he prints this inaccuracy for some political purpose and fails to mention that Jesus was a Jew.

There is a theory that the world comprises knaves and fools

phil

The good Samaritan
November 18th, 2010 4:33pm
:) one day sadly she may find out, as so many poor souls found out in the death camps.

celato

Melanie:

Just Journalism claims to research 'how' Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media and lays down as a yardstick that ME conflicts should be reported 'objectively and impartially'.

Its research, however, does not seem to include any publications (or individual journalists, such as yourself) who adopt a strongly pro-Israeli stance. Only the 'antis' come under critical scrutiny.

From what I can see, JJ also takes no account of the diversity of views offered by the UK media; neither does it consider the audience reach of certain publications compared to others.

You, for example, write for the Mail (daily circulation approx 2 million), Spectator (77,146 weekly) and Jewish Chronicle (31,222 weekly).

The London Review of Books has a circulation of 48,555 per fortnight.

The articles published by the LRB may be lengthy and influential; many may also be passionately - even offensively - critical of Israel.

But I very much doubt that they are any more intemperate in tone than your articles - and they are certainly not read by anything like the number of people who read your pieces.

If JJ wishes to be taken seriously as an 'independent' scrutineer,it really should make efforts to adhere to the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality it claims to promote.

Truthtriumphs

Celato.
It is not the NUMBER of people who read the articles that matter, but rather, WHO they are, and their influence in society.
It is highly probable that proportionately, more movers and shakers and opinion-formers read the lRB than read the Daily Mail.

Daibhidh, Edinburgh

I've now reached the stage where I treat rationally unhinged drivel spewed in periodicals such as LRB as nothing more than a carbon choked exhaust backfiring.

Truthtriumphs

The Good Samaritan.
Just so.
The irony is that the anti-semite is equally contemptuous of the Melanies and the Wilmers.
The difference is that he will, at least, respect Melanie whilst privately reviling Wilmers.
That is what the latter, lamentably, fails to grasp.

Andy Gill

JJ is doing a great job of exposing the endemic anti-Israel bigotry and the spineless dhimmitude that has taken root within the British intellectual classes.

Fish rots from the head down.

the good Samaritan

'celato" display the sort of dysfunctional thought processes that so degrade reasonable debate on this terrible situation. What on earth have circulation numbers got to do with truth?

John Edwards

A sensible comment from Celato

Adam B.

the good Samaritan, you said it all.

A J Scott

Which Government Minister (or quango) is responsible for giving money to LRB?
He/she/it shoudl be required to justify this utterly wrong gift. If LRB can't pay its way - or find other donors - it should go to the wall. The Wailing Wall, preferably.

john

In these troubled economic times, will the Arts Council grasp the nettle and remove the LRB from its list of beneficiaries? The LRB is a mere leftist and bigoted journal of no intrinsic value. The LRB should be left to sink or swim on its appeal alone. Or will the AC spread its largesse to the Spectator - for instance??

Jack R

And London Review of Bigotry ignores Just Journalism's scathing critique.

Si, N

Phil - still waiting for the source of your claim that Ilan Pappe admits that he (Pappe) lies.

Come on - out with it

just Louise

I know a Jewish Studies academic who plugs the Israel-related junk in the LRB to his students! Incredible, nauseating, but true.

Bickers

I'm not Jewish and at times believe Irsael has shot itself in the foot with some of its actions and utterances, however until the Arab World accept as one Israel's right to exist as a nation State then I for one will continue to consider those that support terrorist groups like Hamas & Hezbollah useful fools

sleeping dolls

Just as a matter of interest, who is it that funds Just Journalism? They obviously have a lot of funds, with several employees, but there's no mention on their website. Or perhaps I've missed it?

Wm. H.

"Truthtriumphs"
You said Ilan Pappe admits to lying. You left the scene before telling us where he admits it.

Vernon

Which is worse?
Jews who hate Israel?
or jews who hate jews who hate Israel?

They cannot agree on this, but one thing they can agree on ... that we should hate the One jew who told us to love one another and then forgave us all.

Celato

TruthTriumphs:

'Movers and shakers' ultimately need to move and shake ordinary people if they want their agendas to succeed.

If this were not the case, why do even the most tyrannical, militaristic dictatorships invest so much in propaganda?

Hitler could never have prevailed without promoting anger/fear/hatred among the German people. Simply addressing a bunch of like-minded intellectuals, generals, financiers, etc, would have been a total waste of time if at the end of the day hardly anybody knew what Adolf and his mates were on about and didn't care one way or another. Hitler could never have rallied Germany to war and a programme of extermination without WIDESPREAD efforts to cultivate and encourage anti-Semitism.

That's why questions of circulation matter.

Linda Smith

For Si'n and Wm H (Hazlitt?):

There is no historian in the world who is objective. I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened. ("An Interview of Ilan Pappé," Baudouin Loos, Le Soir [Bruxelles],Nov. 29, 1999)

I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings...(Ibid)

“Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers. “(Ibid)

“my [pro-Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. “
(A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples by Illan Pappe)

C.Gee

Celato:

“That's why questions of circulation matter.”

What are you trying to say? That propaganda should be measured by its influence? But that is not the same as the breadth of its dissemination. Questions of circulation may be correlated with, but do not measure, influence. Circulation does not in any case indicate readership, nor readership understanding, nor understanding agreement.

The methodology for analyzing influence would be, what? Regular opinion polls? It is quite likely that the readership of the LRB will be anti-Israel - showing an even higher percentage of respondents than in the national polls who believe that Israel most threatens world peace, was illegally established, and ought to cede sovereignty in a one-state solution.

But you miss the point. You are assuming propaganda and trying to minimize it by reference to a relatively limited circulation. The LRB rests upon a reputation for authoritative journalism, and not being a propaganda organ. Just Journalism’s mission statement says in part: “Of particular interest is to what extent media coverage adheres to the journalistic standards set out in the UK’s regulatory frameworks.” Their methodology is to match the journalism against this regulatory framework, which sets out “guidelines for the BBC, television and radio broadcasters, and the print media and deal with the crucial issues of accuracy, balance and impartiality.”

In other words, JJ is measuring to what extent the journalism being examined is propaganda. It is performing a service similar to a consumer’s guide for a product. Whether it is being true to its mission statement and whether its examination is accurate balanced and impartial should be clear from reading its report.

If you were to impugn the service JJ offers, it could not be on the basis of its being pro-Israel, nor upon who funds it or reads it. You would have to show how it misrepresented LRB, got its facts wrong, or misinterpreted the regulatory framework.

Adam B.

SiN, Pappe openly admits that he is not impartial with his version of history - and that he actually isn't interested in trying to be impartial.

It is also apparent, from the recent disinvitation to Professor Alderman, that he doesn't like a dissenting view.

Adam B.

But Celato, the people who read this junk are the people who will, in the future, do what you describe. They are the future leaders, not the sheep. And you don't need many to be in positions of influence to set the agenda.

Jack Leyton

Mary-Kay Wilmers has a deadly background:

"Wilmers, at 71, has a deft grey bob and exudes undated Jean Muir chic, with good legs and flat patent shoes. She’s soignée, distinctive — and, she says, “nervous” to be launching her own book after presiding for years over essays on thousands of others. Meeting her in this cultivated haven, I find it odd to think that the family history she has written begins with a key figure in the Russian revolution being hacked to death with an ice pick while her relative, the Soviet secret-service killer who planned it all, waited in a getaway car."

This expplains much doesn't it. She learned her antisemitism on her parent's knees.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6877016.ece

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Cealto: "If JJ wishes to be taken seriously as an 'independent' scrutineer,it really should make efforts to adhere to the guidelines on objectivity and impartiality it claims to promote"

This begs the question, surely: is there "independent scrutiny" of the LRB out there at all which we should be considering? If so, is it irrelevant? Or is there "independent scrutiny" out there but Celato just wants to keep it under wraps? Or, is it that we ought not to trust any "independent scrutiny" which finds LRB's "independent scrutiny" of Israel. like Pappe's, wanting...in terms of "independent scrutiny"...???

.....or, are we to believe that Celato, in fact, is an ideologically driven anti Zionist who cares as much - in reality - for any "independent scrutiny" which undermines his or the LRB's faux intellectual "honesty" as he/it does for anyone who may yank him and his fellow ideologues out of the shadows in which they habitually skulk and reveal to the light the rank deceit on which their sanctimoniousness is almost always predicated?

Oh dear...more fallafel for thought....

wonderer

Adam B.
November 20th, 2010 12:02am.

Much as I hate correcting someone I largely agree with, it was Shlaim, not Pappe, when Alderman was disinvited.

Wm. H.

Linda Smith,
Two things:

I suggest you read some books on the methodology of history and read the work of some historians, any historians. In addition, read some of the historians Pappe is attempting to counter. I suggest that by reading both them and the "revisionist" historians you will better understand the history of Zionism/Palestine/Israel.

"Truthtriumphs" and Phil confidently asserted that Ilan Pappe admitted to lying (i.e intending to say things he knows to be false, or deliberately trying to persuade others to believe what he knows to be false).

("Hazlitt" - explain, please.)

phil

I see celato was giving a good account of himself ,sadly downgraded by the "approval" of john edwards -sorry celato you did not deserve it .The man has been here for years without bothering the scorers ,you might wish to ask him to change his adoration to harold :),or even Sin just back from his charity run raising funds for the impecunious alleged tortured group.

NicoleS

Celato: Just Journalism also consistently finds the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent guilty of bias against Israel. A fairly influential trio, I think you would agree. Hardly a case of the poor little LRB standing alone against superior forces.

John Edwards

A look at the "Advisory board" of "Just Journalism" tells you all you need to know about the purpose of that organisation.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

John Edwards: "John Edwards
November 20th, 2010 5:24pm
A look at the "Advisory board" of "Just Journalism" tells you all you need to know about the purpose of that organisation."

Now that's what I call "indpendent scrutiny"!!

There you go, folks. Case closed....Grmpphhhh...

Peter Gay

Hello Melanie,
I am amazed that the taxpayer is helping fund the magazine. You have done a valuable service by revealing this.

Celato

C.Gee and Adam B:

You (and others)put forward some very thought-provoking challenges here. I'm not sure I have time to address them all, but will do my best...

Of course no propaganda can be adjudged successful unless it achieves measurable influence. But neither can it succeed, I still maintain, if that influence is limited only to those already 'converted' plus one or two more ripe for conversion.

For there to be a genuine sea-change in people's perception of reality, the propagandist HAS to exert influence over the population at large.

Let's say for the sake of argument that those who write for the LRB are wicked propagandists seeking to influence those who read it. And they turn up trumps. LRB readers are, like them, influential people who (as Adam B. puts it) are 'the future leaders, not the sheep' and, though few in number, are in 'positions of influence to set the agenda'.

Fine so far for those pro-Palestinian devils! But now comes the hard part. To set that 'agenda', they need to spread their influence beyond the bounds of the LRB.

So they lobby MPs both at home and abroad, write letters to the Guardian, maybe even manage to get articles published in the Daily Mail... And sure enough, there is a gratifying level of supportive feedback.

But as propagandists, how are they really doing when all's said and done?

The battle for hearts and minds is by no means won - and for one simple reason: there are certain influential people out there (also 'leaders, not sheep')who support Israel to the hilt and they happen to include media giants on a GLOBAL scale determined to ensure that the 'right' message prevails.

So for every column inch of news and commentary passionately decrying Israel, there is at least a column yard forcefully arguing that Islamic terrorism is the worst threat the world currently faces, and that by comparison any wrongdoing by Israel is both understandable and insignificant.

We can't, as you say, measure exactly how far/deeply the public (or politicians for that matter) are influenced one way or the other by these conflicting views, but we can certainly take an educated guess.

Ask yourself: Is it really likely that immensely powerful media corporations with a pro-Israel agenda would continue to employ people who FAILED to get the message they wanted across to a mass audience? Would the Mail continue to give star billing to journalists like Melanie Phillips if the feedback they got was that readers were either overwhelmingly hostile or bored stiff by their take on the world?

I think not!

....

Final bit:

You say, C. Gee, that JJ is providing a 'consumer's guide' by matching the LRB's journalism against a regulatory framework of guidelines on accuracy, balance and impartiality.

This may be the case (though it's actually very difficult to apply such methodology to 'comment' pieces since the guidelines apply mostly to 'factual' reporting.)

Giving JJ the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept that there has been no misrepresentation of LRB and also that the journal deserves special scrutiny because it relies on a 'reputation for authoritative journalism'.

My quarrel with JJ is that by scrutinising ONLY publications which take a predominantly anti-Israel line, consumers are misled into thinking that these are (a) the worst transgressors and (b)the sole transgressors.

It's a bit like a supermarket watchdog issuing monthly reports in which the only store inspected is Little Joe's Hypermart. 'Stale bread! Rotten vegetables! Shut it down!' shoppers are told. So off we go to rival stores, where nasty bread and veg are on sale, too, but nobody bothered to warn us of that ...

Regulatory guidelines exist to protect media audiences as far as possible from being given a deliberately or recklessly misleading picture of the world. Cleaning up the act of one newspaper does nothing to eliminate distortion if a whole host of others are meanwhile left free to run roughshod over the rules and mislead all they like.

The LRB is by no means alone in trading on a reputation for 'authoritative journalism'. So too do most newspapers and broadcasters when it comes to the crunch. They want their readers to take them seriously on serious matters. They want to be influential and, above all, they want to be believed.

In this light, I stick to my guns: By limiting its criticism to publications of only one hue, JJ's credentials as a fair, balanced and objective scrutineer are deeply questionable. I'd be a lot more impressed if JJ - just once! - applied its qualitative methodology to the Sun, or Times, or Telegraph, or Daily Mail.

But I've got a funny feeling they never will.

Truthtriumphs

Wm.H, Si,N, John Edwards...Aren't you all one and the same?

When I read your predictable scribblings, dressed up to impress the gullible, I am reminded of the famous quotation.."Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak outand remove all doubt".
You continue to rabbit on and expose yourselves for what you really are.
My hitherto silence as to your request to prove that Pappe called himself a liar is consistent with GBS's dictum that "silence is the most perfect expression of scorn".

Since you persist, I will answer you.
Any 8-year old schoolchild of average intelligence knows that no one will describe himself as a liar as such.
Of course, Pappe has never said "I am a liar",but when he says that the truth/facts are unimportant in the pursuit of a goal,as he often says, that amounts to the same thing.
Linda Smith has provided some of Pappe's quotes, independent of JJ.
btw, Benny Morris--- a REAL historian, and one who hasn't always had kind words for Israel, slated Pappe's "magnum opus" as being full of the most basic errors.
Interesting, isn't it, that Pappe's website is adorned with the Palestinian national colours--would that be a co-incidence?
Some historian, he!

Truthtriumphs

Vernon.
That's a pretty nasty and loaded statement to imply that all Jews agree on one thing--- that they are united in hatred for Jesus.
Where is your evidence?
I have NEVER come across a single Jew who has expressed hatred for the Christian messiah.

Truthtriumphs

Celato.
Your understanding of how the world works, and what effects change, is limited.
It is always the dedicated and determined few who effect political change, not the disinterested lazy masses.
Think back to Communism.
The case of Hitler's Germany does not prove your point, because the vicious climate of anti-semitism had been cultivated for some 100 years before the Shoah--- just read the history of Germany of this period.

Wm. H.

"Truthtriumphs"
If Ilan Pappe did not say that he lies, and you know it, do not claim that he did. It is quite simple really.

C.Gee

John Edwards:

The advisory board of JJ is an exemplary collection of eminence and scholarship. Would you care to elaborate on how the board tells us "all we need to know about the purpose of that organisation?"

Why would you not look to JJ's mission statement to discover its purpose? It is set forth plainly enough. I quote from it in my earlier comment.
Are you on a quest for nefarious Jewish interest?

Jerry

It comes down to this: Does it augur well for a world where truth is a victim of political goals or will truth moderate all views. When LRB presents chronically one-sided material and JJ points this out, they are not in the same barrel - no matter who paid for what.

pterodactyl

All civilised countries have the enemy within who support those who are their enemies. Britain has just as much enemy within as a percentage of the whole as Israel does, if not more. These people have always existed, but today are over-represented in academia and the media, and tend to attract public funds for example for journals. This is not just a Jewish phenomenon – the left in Britain hated S.Rhodesia and S.Africa just as much as they now hate Israel. They hate Israel mainly for representing civilisation, not because they are Jewish. Those arabs who hate Israel do so for other reasons – because they are Jewish. The first group helps the cause of the second.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato:"By limiting its criticism to publications of only one hue, JJ's credentials as a fair, balanced and objective scrutineer are deeply questionable. "

Jeez, Celato, did I misunderstand you or what!!??? I do apologize!!

Your gripe is not that JJ is wrong, at all, it's view of LRB. It's just that it should extend its remit...Mmm..well, arguable, but ok...

I guess it's a bit like so many of the posters here who feel Israel is akin to Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, Serbia's ethnic cleansers - the very quintessence of Man's inhumanity to Man i.e they never put their profound and compelling critiques of Israel in the context of the the other sate and non state actors of the region.

Thanks for your important contribution, then, and I apologise again for misunderstanding your posts.

Adam B.

Wm.H, it is you being dishonest. Pappe's assertions about his "work" would lead any reasonable person to conclude that you aren't going to get to the truth from reading it.

If you want a pedantic and meaningless argument about "lying", enjoy.

Adam B.

wonderer, apologies!

Truthtriumphs

WmH.
The simple fact is that you, having exposed yoursef as an apologist for a seasoned liar, by definition fall into the same category as the person you are defending.
I'll try again.
Pappe has often said that it is acceptable to subvert the truth and ignore the facts in the pursuit of a political goal.
ie.the end justifies the means.
He is thus admitting to telling untruths ie. lies.
Of course, he is not going to say "I am a liar".
It's really that simple.
If you still don't get it, you are both intellectually and morally compromised.

Derek BLADES

According to JJ "On only one occasion was a mainstream Jewish and Israeli perspective on the conflict showcased [by LRB]...." But what is the "mainstream” perspective and how does JJ know where to find it?

The latest election in Israel does indeed suggest that the LRB's choice of contributors has not reflected the mainstream “Israeli perspective”. But the perspective of the wider Jewish community is not so easy to pin down. JJ reports that “more than half (53%) of all articles [in LRB on Israel/Palestine] were written by people known to be Jewish”. That makes me think that LBR may indeed reflect mainstream Jewish thinking in the United Kingdom.

wonderer

Comments made here by Adam B and TruthTriumphs about Pappe are consistent with the fact that he stood as candidate for the Knesset on a list led by the Communist Party.

Wm. H.

"Truthtriumphs",
Where has Ilan Pappe said that it is acceptable to subvert the truth?

Have you ever given any thought to how works of history are written?

Celato

Truthtriumphs:

Political change of an everyday sort may be the province of the 'dedicated and determined'- but not when the change these people seek is fundamental enough to require war or violent revolution.

The 'lazy masses' suddenly become energetically vocal and active!

Communism didn't drift in on a tide of 'disinterest': millions were prepared to lay down their lives to achieve and defend it. British squaddies didn't have to get herded like miserable sheep to fight in the second world war: they believed in a cause worth dying for.

And surely you don't believe that Israeli soldiers are merely apathetic morons doing the bidding of self-serving elitists...

Ordinary people are galvanised into action when they feel victimised, threatened, or protective toward others. Then they will argue their corner with all the passion - and even eloquence - of orators. (Take a look, for eg, at the quality of commentary by contributors to this blog.)

What worries me in the context of JJ's scrutiny of Middle East debate is that 'the masses' are not considered intelligent enough to make their own minds up on matters worth fighting and dying for. Certain opinions must be minutely dissected, rubbished, and preferably silenced, while others are allowed free rein.

We - 'the masses' - are too stupid to spot inaccuracies, bias, and manipulative language in an LRB essay and so need 'guidance'; but we don't need similar help in reading a Melanie Phillips article because ... well ... Melanie and JJ happen to see the world in much the same way.

Most people are not stupid, but they will harbour crazy beliefs and make misguided life-or-death decisions if they are given inadequate or distorted information.

Far better that a wide variety of opinion is allowed to flourish and that distortions become evident via the contradictions and illogical arguments that emerge than trust any one interest-group to claim exclusive stewardship of the 'truth'.

sleeping dolls

Adam B - presumably you are of the view that there is only one interpretation or narrative of history that can be correct. Pappe, to my mind, was stating the case that this assertion is wrong. History is to a large extent subjective, and the best way to arrive at "truth" (if such a thing is possible) is to take account of the many different "narratives" rather than, as seems to be the case with Pappe, issue death threats and attempt to silence him.

Truth Triumphs:
"Pappe has often said that it is acceptable to subvert the truth and ignore the facts in the pursuit of a political goal."

I have searched in vain for where Pappe uses these words. Plese provide a link.

Truthtriumphs

Celato.
Sorry, but you are quite wrong.
Ordinary people are galvanised into action when it is late in the day, often too late.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."
No-one could put it better.
Indeed, the greatest recent threat to our Western civilisation has been the mass immigration of some 50+ million Muslims into Western Europe, facilitated by the deceit and laziness of our so-called leaders without ever consulting the citizens of our continent as to whether it is desirable.
By the time the masses wake up to the danger, it will be, in fact, is already, too late.

As to your remarks re.JJ that "opinions must be minutely dissected, rubbished and preferably silenced, while others are allowed free reign", isn't that a perfect description of the Guardian World View, as it is accurately known?
That is an EXACT description of the behaviour of its blog, Comment is Free,(only if you demonise Israel).
Just go to CiFWatch to see wonderful examples of how the moderators on CiF deal with comments they don't agree with.

"Far better that a wide variety of opinion is allowed to flourish..."
Exactly---so what's your problem with JJ?

Wm. H.

"wonderer
November 21st, 2010 4:21pm
Comments made here by Adam B and TruthTriumphs about Pappe are consistent with the fact that he stood as candidate for the Knesset on a list led by the Communist Party."

What?

Truthtriumphs

Sleeping Dolls.
I was present at a meeting at which Pappe was a panellist, and he made the remarks about truth and facts that you seem to deny.
His position vis a vis the means he considers acceptable in the furtherance of his goal are well known.
If you don't believe me, why don't you e mail him and ask him directly?
He "teaches" at Exeter University.
Your remarks that he has received death threats
are news to me. Who has attempted to silence him?
Whoever it is, is mighty incompetent, because he has no shortage of sponsors allowing him to spout his venomous nonsense.

Truthtriumphs

Sleeping Dolls.
"History is to a large extent subjective, and the best way to arrive at a "truth" is to take account of many different "narratives"."

That is such an appalling and dangerous sentiment, that it requires a separate answer.

The British forces who liberated Belsen had remarkable prescience, and anticipating that there would always be those, like yourself, who have contempt for the truth, took as much evidence as possible from the scene to ensure that the true "narrative" will prevail for future generations.
There is ONE narrative of the Holocaust, arrived at by thousands of witnesses as well as persecutors.
There is ONE narrative of the killing fields of Cambodia.
There is ONE narrative of the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus.
There is one narrative of the ongoing genocide of the Darfurians in Sudan, etc. etc.
We didn't need the narrative of the David Irvings of this world to know the fate of 6 million Jews in WW11.
Nor do we need different narratives of Stalin's role in the deaths of 20 million citizens in WW11.

Your comments are grotesque and obscene, and should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

The one thing that truth is NOT is subjective.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

I agree with pterodactyl, "These people have always existed but today are over represented in academia and media." True those academia and media leftist are also feeding lies and lies to young people, how scary! and yes they are against civilization, religion, culture and honesty, i think they drink too much alcohol and take those cheap drugs they buy from the Internet wich is made in China so their head gets mess up for long time they don't even know what they talking about, they are bunch of weirdos.

Truthtriumphs

Wm.H.
" Have you ever given any thought to how works of history are written?"

It really isn't a good idea to patronise those who are far more knowledgeable and honest than yourself.
Such remarks merely serve to expose the vanity and ignorance of the the person making them.

Celato

Nicole S:

Sorry - didn't spot your post earlier.

JJ does, indeed, look more widely at the media than just the LRB, but what it is (exclusively) searching for is anti-Israel bias.

Examples of bias against Palestinians are simply of no account to JJ.

The result of such cherry-picking is that when a BBC interviewee says Israelis are baby-eating butchers, this is (rightly) spotlighted as anti-Semitic and inflammatory, but if another BBC interviewee says Palestinians are baby-butchering cannibals, no mention is made of it at all.

JJ cannot hope to be taken seriously as an ethical watchdog as long as it fails to expose media shortcomings in the 'fair and balanced' way the regulatory guidelines it claims to promote lay down.

....

PS, John Roosevelt: Cheers, glad have communicated!

sleeping dolls

Truthtriumphs: Sorry to be pedantic, but you did say he has "OFTEN said that it is acceptable to subvert the truth and ignore the facts in the pursuit of a political goal." If I were to accept you heard Pappe use those exact words (and words are important) then I would surely be accepting an uncorroborated secondary source - one of the main criticisms I believe is directed against Pappe. Please provide the corroboration to which you implicitly refer.

Baron

sleeping dolls @ 5.03:

the interpretation of history may indeed be subjective, facts however, are undisputable. When you have a minute click on the site below, it may enlighten you, sir.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hTOaRu7h4&feature=player_embedded

Truthtriumphs

Sleeping Dolls.
Sorry, but I have better things to do than play pointless word games with you.
I reiterate.
Just e mail Pappe at Exeter, and ask him yourself, and all will be revealed no doubt.
Suffice to say that NOTHING that Pappe has ever written stands up to peer review by a single respected historian.

sleeping dolls

truthtriumphs: dear oh dear! I never said truth is subjective. You are very very sloppy. Unless of course this was a deliberate attempt to subvert the truth and ignore the facts!

Interestingly, as you acknowledge, all the events to which you refer have masses of documentary evidence - as well as timely testimonials - from those who were victims, perpetrators and those who came across the atrocities soon after. But history is not always like that. History is not perfect. And when there is a paucity of evidence it is quite correct for historians to fill in the blanks. And this process is neccessarily subjective, and conditioned by the historian's narrative. Have a look at the dating of Shakespeare's plays, for example, and the way historians differ, if you don't believe me. For more recent examples of where historians disagree, try the legacy of the French Resistance, or the origins of the Welfare State.

But I'm sure you know all this! Being far more knowledgeable and honest than me.

wonderer

Wm. H.
November 21st, 2010 8:06pm
"What?"
Official history from Soviet sources wasn't renowned for accuracy, you know. And remember the old Bolsheviks who were air brushed out of photographs once they had been purged.

Adam B.

Truthtriumphs, bravo! You said it far more eloquently than I ever could.

If they wish to believe their version of "history" where truth is only what one perceives it to be (especially when written by a Communist who admits his playing fast and loose with it), well, what can you do?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "JJ cannot hope to be taken seriously as an ethical watchdog as long as it fails to expose media shortcomings in the 'fair and balanced' way the regulatory guidelines it claims to promote lay down."

This means, of course, that JJ is wrong even if its criticisms of the LRB are right - as long as it doesn't extent its scrutinity of the media at alrge.

Mmm..now that is interesting. In the same way, then, as - say - the British Parliament's assertion that the stoning of women in North Malden is unethical would be invalid if it did not criticise the sale of The Protocols of Zion in Damascus...if you see what I mean,..nudge, nudge??

Celato, I suggest you eat a gelato.

Derek BLADES

What I find ironic about the Pappe controversy is that the fellow is so remarkably open and honest about his approach to history. The quotes provided by Linda Smith were particularly revealing. This, for example:

“We [historians] try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers.”

That is a very perspicacious statement of how and why history gets written. We should thank Pappe for sharing his insight with us so frankly. Not label him as a low-life lying scoundrel.

Richard of Moscow

I thought readers here may be interested to note the use of inverted commas in this (to me) disgusting advertisement for a lecture by a NZ 'academic'

-------------------------------
6 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PALESTINIAN 'TERRORISM': A CRITICAL VIEW - Philip Ferguson
Saturday 4 December, 11 am - 4 pm, $14
‘Terrorism' seems to have replaced ‘communism' as the big bogey for many Western governments, while the use of ‘terrorist' lists serves to shut down rational discussion and debate about important issues and conflicts in the world today. This short course provides a critical view of the demonology created around the Palestinians, especially those involved in armed combat with the Israeli state. It will provide a counter to dominant media discourse about Palestinian ‘terrorism' and address the issue of state terrorism.

Philip Ferguson has a PhD from Canterbury University where he currently teaches history and world affairs in Bridging programmes.

http://www.cwea.org.nz/Programme.php
----------------------------------
Further proof that western universities are mere retard-factories.

TruthTriumphs:
"There is one narrative of the ongoing genocide of the Darfurians in Sudan, etc. etc."
- and it is that it is NOT ongoing, but finished several years ago, as this very publication admirably demonstrated.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/880096/part_3/monty-pythons-guide-to-the-darfur-conflict.thtml

"We didn't need the narrative of the David Irvings of this world to know the fate of 6 million Jews in WW11."
No, we need the narrative of all sensible historians, who agree the figure was 5 million. I share your disgust of Holocausat deniers, but they feed on sloppy inaccuracies, such as 6 million killed, or 4 million killed at Auschwitz, etc etc.

"Nor do we need different narratives of Stalin's role in the deaths of 20 million citizens in WW11"
- Take away "WWII" and that's a credible figure. He could have killed over 30 million during his reign, but 20 million in WWII is ridiculous. For obvious reasons, he needed to go easy for four years.

Derek BLADES

I was struck by this paragraph from the JJ article quoted by Ms Phillips:

"In this period 92 articles on Israel-Palestine were produced by contributors. More than one third (36%) of articles were written by Jewish Israelis and more than half (53%) of all articles were written by people known to be Jewish. On only one occasion was a mainstream Jewish and Israeli perspective on the conflict showcased by this (or any) contingent"

The fact that 53% of articles were written by people known to be Jewish suggests to me that these articles might well be reflecting the "mainstream" Jewish perspective.

Of course, JJ might regard Israeli government handouts as constituting the "mainstream" perspective. If so they should say so and we can all have a good chuckle.

Wm. H.

Truthtriumphs
November 21st, 2010 8:47pm
"Truthtriumphs",
Where does Pappe admit to subverting the truth?

For any historic event there is an infinity of true statements. To say that historians should concern themselves with the truth is fine but doesn't get us very far. In saying that he is trying to counter the narrative of the Zionist historians Pappe is simply more honest than they are about how the writing of history works. No doubt, the next generation will study both the Zionist historians and the revisionists and revisit the archives and write their own narratives. As the work continues some things become more difficult to deny and others to assert.

I would never condescend to anyone more knowledgeable and honest.

Wm. H.

wonderer
November 21st, 2010 10:34pm
What has Soviet historiography to do with Ilan Pappe?

Linda Smith

Derek Blades opines, “The fact that 53% of articles were written by people known to be Jewish suggests to me that these articles might well be reflecting the "mainstream" Jewish perspective.”

No. The fact that 53% of articles were written by people known to be Jewish suggests only the bias in the editorial selection process.

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith tells me that "The fact that 53% of articles were written by people known to be Jewish suggests only the bias in the editorial selection process."

It was kind of Linda to put me right, but that raises a deeper question. Why are the JJ people interested in whether or not a contributor is known to be Jewish? Surely JJ’s only interest is in the alleged bias in the articles. The race or religion of the author has no bearing on the issue.

Can Linda solve the puzzle?

Truthtriumphs

sleeping dolls @Nov.21, 10.30pm.
"but I'm sure you know that, being far more knowledgeable and honest than me".

But I addressed that remark to Wm.H, not to you!.
So now the secret is out---- you are Wm.H and probably Celato, A, Si,N and a host of others,
the idea being to give the illusion that there are many of you who share the same warped viewpoint.
My money is on Blades as being the author--- the clue is in the weak grammar---
it should read... "more knowledgeable than I", NOT " than me".
Considering that you, Blades, in a previous post asked us all to pay more attention to language, and then talked about "less people" when it should have been "fewer", suggests that you are in serious need of a course in English grammar, as a matter of urgency.

wonderer

@Wm. H. November 22nd, 2010 11:25am
"What has Soviet historiography to do with Ilan Pappe?"
Communist, both Communist.

Derek BLADES

Tuttitrumps chides me with this: "Considering that you, Blades, in a previous post asked us all to pay more attention to language, and then talked about "less people" when it should have been "fewer", suggests that you are in serious need of a course in English grammar, as a matter of urgency."

Possibly "Blades" does need a grammar lesson but not from you Tuttitrumps. In the sentence quoted above, what did you have in mind as the subject of the main verb “suggests”? Perhaps you decided not to bother with one. Or didn't know one was needed.

sleeping dolls

Truthlimpsoff:"So now the secret is out---- you are Wm.H and probably Celato, A, Si,N and a host of others,
the idea being to give the illusion that there are many of you who share the same warped viewpoint."

Blimey. Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist? These are the ramblings of a very sick man.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades, to answer your riddle I suggest you read Howard Jacobson's prize-winning book re Ashamed Jews.

Richard

If it's possible to rescue this conversation from ding dong points about grammar and usage, could one of the people condemning the LRB say what they think would be an appropriate balance of viewpoints? Are they asking for roughly equal time for both sides of this question?

I write as someone who values the LRB enormously for its literary articles. As a general circulation magazine, rather than a specialist academic one, which even gets into a few newsagents, yet carries literary articles of serious depth, it is almost uniquely valuable (the TLS carries some too, but doesn't usually allow its contributors the same space and scope). Check out Julian Barnes's article on translations of Madame Bovary in the current issue, for example. I admit that the Middle Eastern coverage is indeed very one-sided, and I'm sorry about that; I'd like to see a contribution more sympathetic to Israel's predicament, to answer the others. But please don't cut off the LRB's funding. Something very precious would be lost.

Worried

Somewhat surprised at the lack of a post by M on the unsurprising but frightening news today that British Muslim schools are preaching hate against Jews and others. Me thinks and hopes M is preparing a major post on this, so I'll be doing a lot of reloading on these pages over the next few days.

C.Gee

“History is not perfect. And when there is a paucity of evidence it is quite correct for historians to fill in the blanks. And this process is neccessarily subjective, and conditioned by the historian's narrative.”

What a sad confusion.

If history is to be a battle of narratives (propagandas), with the no side being able to rebut the other on “facts”, then the reason why people choose one narrative over the other becomes the issue.

If there is no objective recounting of events, if the facts are controversial, why would someone - an Englishman, say - not involved in the dispute (war) prefer the Palestinian narrative? Is it because the Palestinian narrative is more compelling as a tragic story of loss and struggle? Are the Palestinians more likeable than Jews? Or is it because the Palestinians are the enemies of Jews, and the Englishman wants the Palestinians to win? Perhaps it is because they like the honesty of the Palestinian narrative writers in declaring that they are fabulists?

Perhaps Wm H, and the other Palestinian narrative supporters here, would explain why they go for it?

The “new historiography” is in fact old Marxian theory: define history is the (inevitable) empowerment of the underdog, then historians must correctly reflect this. Correct - even perfect - history is a narrative that shows history fulfilling socialist (or anti-West ) destiny.

It is no coincidence that Pappe is a communist, or that all of the new historians are left-wing transnational progressives. Edward Said, another leftist, did much to popularize the idea that the Palestinian narrative is correct historiographically. He fabricated his own history to fulfill the narrative imperative and make himself into the “other”, thereby claiming authenticity.

Celato

TruthTriumphs:

Many thanks for referring me to the 'CIF Watch' site. I think the difference between it and JJ sums up perfectly why I am so critical of the latter.

CIF Watch states quite clearly and openly that its mission is 'monitoring and exposing antisemitism in the Guardian newspaper's [Comment is Free] blog'.

By contrast, JJ describes itself as an 'independent research organisation focused on how Middle East issues are reported'.

CIF Watch does exactly what it claims (though I could quibble with some of its extrapolations).

JJ does not fulfill its promise in the least.

By promoting itself as INDEPENDENT and researching HOW issues are reported we are kidded into thinking it is concerned about standards of reporting on all sides of the ME debate. We are led to believe that its findings of bias are grounded in a scrupulous monitoring of both anti-Israeli and anti-Palestine commentary; and, moreover, that the 'media' - as a whole - is under scrutiny.

John Roosevelt (among others) can't see why this is relevant, pointing out that as long as JJ's analysis of a particular journal or article is soundly done, what's to grumble at?

Two reasons.

One is that if a researcher claims to be 'independent', we take it on trust that they have contextualised their findings and that those singled out for public censure are not simply random scapegoats, but have been adjudged - significantly - to be the worst/most persistent/only offenders. If, however, the researcher honestly admits (as CIF Watch does)that his or her scope is limited to one particular form of transgression in one particular sphere, we will take it as read that for a broader or more balanced view we must look elsewhere.

The second reason misleading claims of 'independence' are relevant is that they give a spurious impression of 'authority'. Journalists and broadcasters are much more nervous than some media-bashers would have us believe of being accused of bias, so any research which carries an aura of respectable 'objectivity' will tend to be given a wider (and more uncritical) airing than analysis emanating from sources with a blatant vested-interest.

How many people posting here, for eg, have doubted JJ's 'professionalism' enough to actually check for themselves whether or not JJ's methodology has been properly applied? And I don't just mean latched onto words and phrases which personally offend them - but seen if they breach JJ's chosen regulatory guidelines ...?

....

C.Gee

Richard
November 22nd, 2010 6:40pm:

Literary journals are not the only ones to smuggle in fictions concerning Israel's false narrative. Medical journals find many creative ways to suggest Israel is bad for the Middle East's health. I haven't checked, but I'm sure that gardening mags can find a way to show Israel is blighting the planet. There is no special interest - whether subsidized or not - which could not find an angle on Israel, supplied by Jewish contributors to boot.

What would they give equal time to to balance the irrelevant Israel coverage? Any country chosen at random?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "John Roosevelt (among others) can't see why this is relevant, pointing out that as long as JJ's analysis of a particular journal or article is soundly done, what's to grumble at?

Two reasons.

One is that if a researcher claims to be 'independent', we take it on trust that they have contextualised their findings and that those singled out for public censure are not simply random scapegoats, but have been adjudged - significantly - to be the worst/most persistent/only offenders. If, however, the researcher honestly admits (as CIF Watch does)that his or her scope is limited to one particular form of transgression in one particular sphere, we will take it as read that for a broader or more balanced view we must look elsewhere.

The second reason misleading claims of 'independence' are relevant is that they give a spurious impression of 'authority'. Journalists and broadcasters are much more nervous than some media-bashers would have us believe of being accused of bias, so any research which carries an aura of respectable 'objectivity' will tend to be given a wider (and more uncritical) airing than analysis emanating from sources with a blatant vested-interest.

How many people posting here, for eg, have doubted JJ's 'professionalism' enough to actually check for themselves whether or not JJ's methodology has been properly applied? And I don't just mean latched onto words and phrases which personally offend them - but seen if they breach JJ's chosen regulatory guidelines ...?"

I am a little flummoxed by you, Celato. If I claimed to be an an "Independent" researcher in the 30's and also claimed that Hitler was not merely a child-fawning sweetheart but also a murderous anti semite, you would say that even I had been right in this judgement, the judgement sould have been deemed invalid unless I had applied equal scrutiny to all possible murderous anti semites who might also love a bit of googoo gaga with babies?

So, LRB off the hook, then?

Don't be schlemiel, Celato!

sleeping dolls

C.Gee:
"If there is no objective recounting of events, if the facts are controversial, why would someone - an Englishman, say - not involved in the dispute (war) prefer the Palestinian narrative?"

Why don't you ask one, instead of (maybe not you personally) accusing him of being an anti semitic supporter of terrorism?

Speaking for myself, I don't "prefer" the Palestinian narrative - I have not chosen one narrative rather than another. I am, however, deeply suspicious of countries, and their supporters, that bully dissenting voices. I am as you correctly infer not a party to this conflict. I am however affected by it, hence my interest. In my opinion any Englishman who believes only the Zionist narrative, or only the Palestinian narrative, needs his head examining. Perhaps I am applying an English narrative?

Wm. H.

wonderer
November 22nd, 2010 3:02pm
I'm sorry, but is that it?

The Soviet government told lies. The Soviet government was communist. Ilan Pappe stood on a list led by communists. Therefore, Ilan Pappe tells lies.

That's it?

Wm. H.

C.Gee
November 22nd, 2010 7:21pm
Still looking for goats.

Derek BLADES

Richard asks "could one of the people condemning the LRB say what they think would be an appropriate balance of viewpoints? Are they asking for roughly equal time for both sides of this question?"

Equal time for both sides sounds nice but is not always a good thing. On this blog site contributors were recently asking for asking for equal time for Intelligent Designers and Creationists to answer Darwinists. A more chilling example was the equal time afforded by American broadsheets to lynching stories. As late as the 1950s the New York Times gave to equal weight to "both sides" when strange fruit were found hanging from trees in the Southern States.

Sometimes only one side is worth hearing.

C.Gee

sleeping dolls:

"Why don't you ask one,"

I did precisely that.

"I am, however, deeply suspicious of countries, and their supporters, that bully dissenting voices."

Which country would that be?

"I am as you correctly infer not a party to this conflict. I am however affected by it, hence my interest."

How are you affected by it?

"In my opinion any Englishman who believes only the Zionist narrative, or only the Palestinian narrative, needs his head examining."

I am attempting to examine the Englishman's head who believes the Palestinian narrative. The Englishman who believes part of the P narrative and part of the Z narrative must explain which parts and on what grounds he does so. The Englishman who believes neither P nor Z - the "pox on both your house" road- is a special case of stupid: one who not only cannot choose between the fire and the firefighter, but also cannot tell them apart. He should shut up and do some homework.

"Perhaps I am applying an English narrative?"

You are applying something. An embrocation of some sort?

C.Gee

Wm. H.
November 22nd, 2010 9:41pm:

Still skittish?

Bubblecar

While I certainly regard Islamists as enemies of the West, it's not clear why I should regard Israel as an "ally". Israel's democratic politics are certainly preferable to what goes on in a lot of Middle Eastern countries, but that in itself is not sufficient reason to regard the country as an ally. Nations founded on religious identity, whether Jewish or Muslim, are destined for endless conflict, and the West would be wise to keep them all at arm's length.

A.

C. Gee,
You have told us you comment as a prank to get people's "goat". Does this warning not render your efforts futile? Or does is give you pleasure every time someone fresh falls for it? Is it worth concocting these elaborate hoaxes just for that? Are the little tell-tale signs planted so you can feel even cleverer that they fell for it even when it is absurd, or are they inadvertent? I fell for it once so I should know better - but I'm curious why you persevere. Would it not be more effective to deploy half-decent arguments?

C. Gee

A:

Is that a rebuttal to any argument I have made on this thread? Or have I still got your goat?
My arguments are always dressed appropriately for the occasion: half-decent, naked, or three-piece bespoke splendor.
The only elaborate hoaxer spoken about here has been Ilan Pappe. Why do you not join your herd in bleating for a Pappe confession of being a liar? Better than stampeding a lonely goatherd.
Meanwhile, I'll yodel out my question to you:
Why do you prefer the Palestinian narrative to the Israeli one?

C.Gee

Celato:

I suggest you look hard at this statement of yours:

" there are certain influential people out there (also 'leaders, not sheep')who support Israel to the hilt and they happen to include media giants on a GLOBAL scale determined to ensure that the 'right' message prevails."

If nothing bothers you about this, then I would ask you to provide the basis upon which you think there is quantitively more global media support for Israel than for Arabs/Islamists. Even a cite to "a study" would be helpful.

"Cleaning up the act of one newspaper does nothing to eliminate distortion if a whole host of others are meanwhile left free to run roughshod over the rules and mislead all they like."

Specious. All-or-nothing is hardly an argument against the integrity of a media watch group. There are many such groups - with different methods and focuses. Each does one analysis (or more, depending on personnel) at a time. Which subject they choose for scrutiny is their business. We can read their reports and agree or disagree with their substance. We cannot justify not reading them because they are not about something else, or because there are not more of them. The police do not let a burglar go because their are lots of others out there. (Or perhaps in Britain they do, now.)

“From what I can see, JJ also takes no account of the diversity of views offered by the UK media; neither does it consider the audience reach of certain publications compared to others.”
JJ is not undertaking a review of the market-place of ideas (your “Little Joe’s Supermarket.”) The market is bogglingly vast and growing. Such a review would be impossible quantitatively, quantitatively and in terms of influence. Who knows what opinions people read? Who knows how opinions are formed? One might subscribe to many journals from different ends of the political spectrum. One might read Islamist, Nazi and Fluffy Kitten sites on the internet. We live in a culture of free speech. Of course there is opinion on every issue. JJ undertakes the service of distinguishing opinion from bias, fair comment from propaganda in selected media. And who reads JJ reports? If they were more influential that they are, wouldn’t you be more against them?
“If this were not the case, why do even the most tyrannical, militaristic dictatorships invest so much in propaganda?”

They invest in the Big Lie, and they also kill dissenters. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were not free societies. Influence came at the point of a gun.
Propaganda was what you said you believed on pain of punishment. Propaganda turned justice into enslavement, dissent into insanity, down into up, but not by force of ideology alone.
“Ask yourself: Is it really likely that immensely powerful media corporations with a pro-Israel agenda would continue to employ people who FAILED to get the message they wanted across to a mass audience?”

Once again, examine that sentence hard, and then ask yourself: where did I get the idea that “pro-Israel” corporations have a message and that they are influencing opinion with it? Do you have evidence that anyone has been fired for failing to get across a pro-Israel message? On the other hand, in Britain we see academic journals and unions boycott Israeli academics and in America we see tenured professors vilify israel at the same time they claim that pro-Israeli lobbies have a stranglehold on government policy, and Jews manipulate the media and finance. They also claim that accusations of anti-semitism are attempts to silence them and chill their freedom of speech.

“...so any research which carries an aura of respectable 'objectivity' will tend to be given a wider (and more uncritical) airing than analysis emanating from sources with a blatant vested-interest.”

This is funny. You seem to be groping for a proportionality concept: that self-described objective analyses such as offered by JJ will be given, unfairly, disproportionately more credence than the blatant anti-Israel journalism it exposes! But the “aura of respectable objectivity” applies to the LRB - which is why JJ undertook in the first place the critical analysis that exposed LRB’s blatant vested-interest and the falsity of the aura. By all means undertake a critical analysis of the analysis - become a watch-dog watch-dog. But being suspicious of the identity of the backers won’t do in place of a substantive analysis.

You blow a lot of smoke. Is it so very hard for you to admit that anti-Israel bias exists, and that JJ has fairly exposed it?

Derek BLADES

Well said Bubblecar! The notion that Israel is the West's ally in the Middle East - "only ally" even - is one of the sillier myths promulgated on this blog site.

And speaking of silliness, C.Gee puts this silly question to anyone silly enough to answer it "Why do you prefer the Palestinian narrative to the Israeli one?"

Sleeping dolls gave him the definitive answer on 12 November but apparently he did not understand it. Nobody with a measurable IQ believes the entire case (not "narrative" you silly man) put forward by either side to any dispute. That is a good rule to follow whether it is Israel versus Palestine or Mrs Smith versus Mr Smith. Take a cold shower C.Gee and report back when you have spent a few minutes considering why it might be a tad silly to characterise Palestine as the “fire” and Israel as the “fire-fighter”.

(Damn. I was silly enough to answer him. What does that make me?)

A.

C. Gee,
"Is that a rebuttal to any argument I have made on this thread? Or have I still got your goat?"

You appear to want to have it both ways. You want your travesties to be taken as... arguments!

C.Gee

Derek BLADES:

Where is sleeping dolls "definitive answer" on November 12?
I do not recall a debate with sleeping dolls, except on this thread.
What's the diff in your mind between "narrative" and "case"?
What rule do you use to decide which part of a case to believe, and which to discard?
Interesting that you should assume I meant Israel is the firefighter when the Palestinians would view it as the fire. Mr Smith says Mrs Smith is a liar and Mrs. Smith says Mr. Smith is a liar. Comes Solomon BLADES and hacks a bit off both of them. Dat's da rule.

Si, N

Truthtriumphs reminds us of the 'famous quoatation', '[b]etter to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt', and then proceeds to deliver yet more screeds of idiocy - talk about walking onto ones own punches. He speaks of contributors' 'predictable scribblings' and seems somewhat exasperated that contributors might 'persist' in seeking clarifications about seeming falsehoods. But here's the fun bit: Truthtriumphs then says 'Pappe has never said "I am a liar"' - in other words he confirms that which contributors were querying; that is, Pappe never owned to lying.

Btw, maybe Truthtriumphs can explain why he deems Benny Morris a 'REAL historian'. Truthtriumphs celebrates Morris' slating 'Pappe's "magnum opus" as being full of the most basic errors'. At the risk of coming across as being in possession of 'intelligence' lower than that of an '8-year old schoolchild', perhaps Truthtriumphs can point out Pappe's 'most basic errors'.

Richard

Derek BLADES wrote:
'Sometimes only one side is worth hearing.'

Sometimes, perhaps, but that's a dangerous proposition, since it silences somebody. Trying to understand a problem means listening to everyone and working out how they got to their views, doesn't it? Mediation and reconciliation involve this too. Only the partisan, who care only for the interests of one side, will want to silence the other. The very stark and simple conflicts in which all the right seems to on one side and all the cruelty on the other do exist, but they don't make a good general model. And - though it sounds a bit innocent to say it - if ever there was a need for each side of a conflict to try the moral discipline of sympathy with the other's predicament, the Middle Eastern conflict is such a case.

That's why I'm asking those who condemn the LRB whether they think roughly equal time for both sides would be fair. Is this what JJ is asking for?

Derek BLADES

C.Gee

Apologies. That should have been "sleeping dolls, November 22nd."

Even Solomon mistypes occasionally.

Truthtriuphs

Si,N

Continue talking to yourself.
No-one is listening.

Vernon

@Truthtriumphs.

Point taken. A better choice than the word "hate" would be "ignore". And if He were dead, then we would not have any hope to argue this very point.

wonderer

@ Wm H November 22nd, 2010 9:37pm "wonderer
I'm sorry, but is that it?..."
Yes. I'd be very sceptical of anything written by a communist historian affecting politics.

That's not to say I wouldn't buy a used car from him.

C.Gee

Richard:

"That's why I'm asking those who condemn the LRB whether they think roughly equal time for both sides would be fair. Is this what JJ is asking for?"

No. JJ suggests stopping public funds, but has no power to mandate it. Nor should it have. Nor does it have power to set editorial policy - so mandating "equal time" would be futile. The point about fair commentary, is that it takes into account the reasonable arguments of the other side. Perhaps the JJ report will encourage the LRB to select journalists who do not simply ignore what does not suit their case. Failing that, perhaps the report will cause readers of LRB like you to be skeptical of its policy in connection with Israel . That is about as much as can be hoped for.
To quote from the report:
"The LRB is free to take whatever editorial stance it chooses on any number of subjects, within the wide parameters of free expression allowed in the UK. However, when it consistently maligns a country with which our government enjoys strong bilateral relations, in terms which evoke the crime of genocide, the question arises as to whether it should do so with public funds."

Would you be prepared to pay more for the LRB to keep reading its "uniquely valuable" lit. crit.?

O-Dog

Thank goodness for people like Melanie Phillips who can offer a balanced, nuanced and unbiased perspective of what is really happening in Israel/Palestine.

Truthtriumphs

O_Dog.

Just like the "balanced, nuanced and unbiased perspective" over at the Guardian's CiF.

C.Gee

A:

Can you tell the difference between travesty and substance? Of course you can. Especially with Derek BLADES to help you. Travesty! Great word. Ties in with "hoax" and "narrative" and "history" and even "case" rather well. So your comment does have some relevance to the discussion. Well done, you.

I do not mind if you answer a travesty with argument, or an argument with travesty. There are so many super ways to communicate! Explore them all.

But in all earnestness, A , discussions or jabby little comments on style bore me. Style is merely a vehicle (a Bubblecar or a Bentley, take your pick) to convey thought. Substance, content, reason, logic - that’s the stuff I go for.

I notice that your first post here asked what you advertised as an “interesting” question. “How is a free press possible?” It did not get any takers, but I’ll have a go: Where there is no government censorship and enforcement of correct thought, the press is free - to be as crass or clever as it likes, and to represent any interest it wants to or is paid to do by consumers or benefactors. Freedom of the press means merely freedom from government restraint. Our society has enormous freedom of the press. (Britain needs to revisit its libel law, but how often has a journalist - or anybody - been indicted for sedition, or incitement to riot?) If it takes a Soros to keep moveon.org going - that’s fine. If it takes the publisher’s fortune to make up the short-fall in advertising to keep the NYT from collapse, that’s fine. If it takes government to prop up selected propaganda organs - that is not fine. As a rule of thumb: where there is profit motive, there is more likely to be honest middle-ground coverage; where there is ideological passion, there is more likely to be propaganda - disguised or blatant; where there is government there is coercion, and ultimately gulags, asylums to cure dissent etc.

Truthtriumphs

Richard of Moscow @Nov.22.

You might find that the "sloppy inaccuracies" you complain of come from you.
I have looked up the figures you contest, and you are wrong.

1)You say that all "sensible" historians agree that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is 5 million.
No they don't!
The figure most commonly used is 6 million.It was first given at the Nuremberg trials, confirmed again and again by later research.
It was the figure given by Adolf Eichmann.
Sir Martin Gilbert gives the number as 5,750,000 in his Atlas of the Holocaust, based on records that survive.
However, the actual number is thought to be in excess of 6 million, because the numbers given only include those killed between Sept 1st.'39 and May 8th.'45.
Those killed in the round ups before, and for example pogroms in Poland post war,or the thousands of Jews murdered at the banks of the Danube after the war, are not included.
In addition, thousands of villagers in remote parts of Poland were deported, without numerical register of their existence or fate.
Similarly, thousands of infants and babies were murdered by Nazi killing squads in 1941 whose existence were also thought not to be registered.
You wouldn't wish to deny the deaths of one million Jews, surely, would you?
The number of 4 million deaths quoted in Auschwitz is news to me---- I have never heard anyone say that. It is always given as approx. 1.35 million, most of whom were Jews.
2) As to your querying my figure of 20 million dead in WW11, it seems I was way out, but in the opposite direction than you indicated.
In fact, 23-24 million Soviet lives were lost during this period.
The total number of lives lost in WW11 is thought to be in the region of 60 million.
3)As to Sudan, it is true that the hostilities are very much reduced, but there is a difference of opinion as to whether the war is over.
A senior UN aid worker said "if that is true, why do some parts of Darfur remain out of bounds, even for UNAMID" (The UN humanitarian organisation there)?

Celato

John Roosevelt:

I don't really understand how 'googoo gaga babies' comes into it, so leaving that aside...

One of the main dangers posed by a researcher who spuriously claims to be 'independent' is that - when caught out in this false claim - we no longer trust him. So he may be right on some things, wrong on others; we simply can't be sure WHAT to believe any more.

Take your 1930s chap (let's call him Justin): He meets up with Hitler, identifies him (quite correctly) as a murderous antisemite, and duly alerts the world.

'I am an independent researcher with impeccable credentials,' says Justin. 'I have made a meticulous study of all the threats to humankind and must advise you that antisemitism is the biggest current peril. Hitler is a particularly influential and murderous antisemite and must be dealt with right now. War with Germany is what I recommend.'

Just as we're on the brink of taking Justin's advice, it comes to light that he actually isn't 'independent' at all; indeed, he has undertaken no systematic study into world-threatening phenomena and is just one very frightened Jewish guy who has kept a log of all the antisemitism he has encountered in his life.

'Whew,' we all say. 'This Justin bloke is obviously a total charlatan. If he is prepared to distort his credentials so much, he is probably also distorting the extent of antisemitism. Maybe Hitler isn't such a monster after all and certainly not worth going to war over. So best we just sit on our arses for now...'

To make matters worse, Justin's neighbour Julian (who lost out on promotion to a Jewish colleague) also poses as an 'independent' researcher in the 1930s. He has come to the conclusion that Jews are the biggest threat to the world, but nobody thinks to challenge HIS credentials because ... well ... he spins such a good line and there was one time he he did this amazing piece of investigative journalism showing how a particular Jewish shopkeeper was ripping people off; and that turned out to be absolutely true, so why should we doubt his judgment now?

So Julian produces a weighty report which is published quite uncritically in all the German press and is hugely influential in persuading people that Hitler is absolutely spot-on, etc, etc, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Both Justin and Julian are menaces because what they ultimately do is contribute to a climate of informational chaos by failing to be transparent about their motives and analytical limitations.

Justin (who happened to be right about antisemitism) came a cropper and let the world down because he was caught out in a lie; Julian (who was wrong about Jews) prevailed because his dodgy credentials were never exposed.

Julian isn't the only one who deserves a good clout - they BOTH do!

A.

C.Gee
November 23rd, 2010 5:50pm

You really do want to have it both ways, do you not.

In previous threads you have been challenged many times on points of substance and of (faulty) logic. You have time and again declared yourself wearied by such questions, or admitted you were just trying to wind people up.

You may say of yourself with superb smugness, "Substance, content, reason, logic - that’s the stuff I go for." (Just as you told us previously that "justice" is your "shtick"!) - But why would anyone believe you? If they take you at your word, you as often as not revert to "weariness" or "wind-ups".

You take yourself very seriously, very seriously indeed. Why should anyone else take you seriously at all?

C.Gee

A:

Sorry, I'm moving on, now. The new thread has scope for someone of my talents, though I say it myself who shouldn't.
Tutty 'bye.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato:

"John Roosevelt:

I don't really understand how 'googoo gaga babies' comes into it, so leaving that aside..."

Ohhhh..ok then...

"One of the main dangers posed by a researcher who spuriously claims to be 'independent' is that - when caught out in this false claim - we no longer trust him."

So, you dont trust JJ and have dismissed it' critique of LRB without ado?

"So he may be right on some things, wrong on others; we simply can't be sure WHAT to believe any more."

Clearly you cannot, but that is a condition worthy of treatment, in my view. I do hope you're never on a sinking ship with one whom you dont trust because they dont fullfil your rigorous standards when they warn of you the water about to engulf your cabin.

"Take your 1930s chap (let's call him Justin): He meets up with Hitler, identifies him (quite correctly) as a murderous antisemite, and duly alerts the world.

'I am an independent researcher with impeccable credentials,' says Justin. 'I have made a meticulous study of all the threats to humankind and must advise you that antisemitism is the biggest current peril. Hitler is a particularly influential and murderous antisemite and must be dealt with right now. War with Germany is what I recommend.'

Just as we're on the brink of taking Justin's advice, it comes to light that he actually isn't 'independent' at all; indeed, he has undertaken no systematic study into world-threatening phenomena and is just one very frightened Jewish guy who has kept a log of all the antisemitism he has encountered in his life."

I have a feeling you may have been advising Chamberlain when Justin was screaming that Hitler was a murderer and would stop at nothing with his 3rd reich reveries. Are you serious???

"'Whew,' we all say. 'This Justin bloke is obviously a total charlatan. If he is prepared to distort his credentials so much, he is probably also distorting the extent of antisemitism. Maybe Hitler isn't such a monster after all and certainly not worth going to war over. So best we just sit on our arses for now...'

To make matters worse, Justin's neighbour Julian (who lost out on promotion to a Jewish colleague) also poses as an 'independent' researcher in the 1930s. He has come to the conclusion that Jews are the biggest threat to the world, but nobody thinks to challenge HIS credentials because ... well ... he spins such a good line and there was one time he he did this amazing piece of investigative journalism showing how a particular Jewish shopkeeper was ripping people off; and that turned out to be absolutely true, so why should we doubt his judgment now?"

Dear oh dear, Gelato...You are in a pickle when it comes to the truth, aren't you. Sounds like you need mummy around to hold your hand when you see people murdered before your eyes, just to help you feel confident that it is really happening. How do you leave your cot at night..alone...in this world where is may be so difficult to tell right from wrong without your sniffy rag of an independant researcher to give you and history a nudge?? May I suggest some Xanax?

"So Julian produces a weighty report which is published quite uncritically in all the German press and is hugely influential in persuading people that Hitler is absolutely spot-on, etc, etc, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Both Justin and Julian are menaces because what they ultimately do is contribute to a climate of informational chaos by failing to be transparent about their motives and analytical limitations."

So, there we have it: JJ is quite possibly right about LRB but we have to ignore the fact because they are right on false credentials> Mmmm....Scary...

"Justin (who happened to be right about antisemitism)"

..a mere piffle of a thing...

" came a cropper and let the world down because he was caught out in a lie; "

Lucky you weren't a Jew at the time, I guess...

"Julian (who was wrong about Jews) prevailed because his dodgy credentials were never exposed."

..but you would no doubt villify him with or without an "independent "observer..or does this all, really depend on whether or not what JJ etc are ctritiquing dovetails with your ideological persuasion or not?

Julian isn't the only one who deserves a good clout - they BOTH do!

Truthtriumphs

C.Gee.
May I just say that your comment of the 14th. Nov.@9.48pm on the "Jews for injustice against Jews" thread was quite brilliant.
No wonder that the Israel detractors are so riled.
They are no match for you.

Richard of Moscow

So, TruthTriumphs, you don’t know when the Holocaust started, you are totally unaware of the history of Auschwitz (Four million was the original estimate, and although the western media was not interested for several months, the Times re-printed it on VE day – no-one with the slightest interest in the subject would be ignorant of this) and you deny the deaths of over three million in the Soviet Union (over 27 million died) and talked of ‘Stalin’s role’ in the deaths of those people – the people who won the war, by the way. Mass-murderer as he was, Stalin and the Soviet Union’s ‘role’ in the deaths of over 27 million people in the Great Patriotic War was FIGHTING BACK and beating Nazi Germany, you ungrateful little cretin. The guilty party in the deaths of those 27 million (and more) was called Hitler. Google it.
“A senior UN aid worker said "if that is true, why do some parts of Darfur remain out of bounds, even for UNAMID" (The UN humanitarian organisation there)”
The UN is only capable of molesting children, deciding whether or not to condemn Israel for defending herself, and propogating hysterical bollocks about man-made global warming and non-existant genocides (like now in Darfur and in 1999 in Kosovo) while ignoring genuine genocides (Rwanda), and that is why no-one with a brain takes the slightest bit of notice of that pathetic organization.

Leave the Hollywood version of history for retard-rags like the Guardian

Richard

C. Gee,

So, for you, it all comes down to the question of public funding.

Since you ask, I probably would be prepared to pay more for the literary (and philosophical and scientific) articles if I had to, but I believe that it is a good thing for a democratically elected government to mandate funding for the arts and for kinds of arts journalism that would have difficulty surviving in a purely commercial market. I don't think the survival of these things should depend on the whims and personal enthusiasms of super-rich patrons, and I certainly don't think the super-rich should have an excclusive right to dictate the content of public culture. The state has a role in providing spaces for other voices.

The LRB is primarily a literary and intellectual magazine, not a news and current affairs one. The literary and intellectual content is what deserves the subsidy.

As I've said, I would prefer a more balanced coverage of Israel-Palestine; one that explored the Israeli predicament with some sympathetic understanding, as well as the Palestinian. But I'd also like to see that openness in other publications, such as The Spectator, The Daily Mail and even Melanie's own blog. Would you?

A.

C.Gee
November 23rd, 2010 8:52pm
Right on cue. Thank you.

Natalie Irene Wood

There have been self-hating "ashamed to be Jewish Jews" since antiquity. But then there are renegades in all societies. I sometimes wonder, if like me, Ms Phillips has one of their ilk in her own family which is why like me, she is so passionate about this subject. Can we 'out' her on this? I wonder!

Celato

JOHN ROOSEVELT/C. Gee:

Time for some cards to be laid on the table, I think.

I am one of those Jews routinely described by Melanie Phillips as 'self-hating' or 'treacherous' because I happen to disapprove of Israel's stance on Palestine.

When I first came to this blog, I fully expected the 'comment' contributors to be foaming with irrational hatred for stereotypically-drawn Arabs and uncritically supportive of Israel.

And sure enough, there were quite a few who lived up to expectations. But a great many, too, were prepared to engage in thoughtful, stimulating debate, offering a wide diversity of views.

As a result, I was persuaded to check out a plethora of websites citing research (not only JJ's) which concluded that there was an anti-Israel bias and/or endemic anti-Semitism in the UK media. One thing became clear: My perspective on the Middle East may well have been skewed/distorted/unduly influenced by media accounts (my sole source of current information on a faraway land).

On the other hand, I was also aware of a mass of research concluding that the media's bias was PRO-Israel. So what did that make me? A free-thinker, impervious to propaganda? Or a loony self-loather, hell-bent on the destruction of a beleaguered, benevolent state?

In a genuine effort to grapple with the question of media influence, I decided that the JJ debate was a good a starting point. Many people here were arguing that the LRB should be deprived of public funding because - as Melanie put it - the periodical was 'the most Judeophobic...in western society'.

The clear inference was that LRB was INFLUENTIAL on anti-Jewish feeling (otherwise, why waste time and space highlighting it?).

The evidence on which Melanie's piece was grounded came from JJ, described by her as 'ever-more impressive' and the producer of an 'important critique'.

We were, in other words, being asked to accept that JJ was a reliable researcher.

And that's where things began to fall apart for me. If I really wanted to know whether or not LRB was 'Judeophobic', (or simply exercising its right to comment freely on a controversial subject) I would damn well have to look at all 92 articles cited myself. I would have to analyse each one against the regulatory guidelines on which JJ's methodology is based and come to my own conclusions.

Why?

Because it was perfectly obvious that JJ was not the 'independent' research organisation it claimed to be. Its focus was solely on examples of bias against Israel and it paid no heed whatsoever to anti-Palestine rhetoric. No effort was made to contextualise its criticisms against a wider background of Middle East media coverage.

(C:Gee, please note here: JJ states quite categorically that its remit is examining 'to what extent media coverage adheres to journalistic standards [and] identifying trends in the reporting of key issues in Middle East affairs' If that's not a 'market place' review, I don't know what is...)

Once these claims collapsed, any faith I might have had in JJ's quality of analysis toppled too.

Sure, there was a chance that JJ reached the right conclusions, but just as much chance that it was scapegoating LRB on spurious grounds.

You (John Roosevelt, in particular) will no doubt continue to accuse me of merely dismissing JJ's and Melanie Phillips's critiques because they don't 'dovetail with my ideological persuasion'.

It might be time to ask yourselves how much more or less ideologically hidebound you are.

As a result, I began to look a good deal

C.Gee

Richard:

“The state has a role in providing spaces for other voices.”
“The literary and intellectual content is what deserves the subsidy.”

My own view of government funding for the arts is that it is corrupt and corrupting.

You want government to fund “other voices”. By this, I assume you mean artists who cannot earn their living from their art because they have no patrons or because they do not have popular appeal. But upon what criteria does government select these other voices, and, if funding decisions are discretionary, who are the bureaucrats or consultant committee members who make the decisions, how are they selected and to whom are they accountable? The “other voices” are individuals quite arbitrarily privileged at the whim of a few, well-connected other individuals who dole out other people’s money in the indulgence of their own taste and politics.

The cultured elites (arts faculties, journal editors, BBC pashas) used to have an idea of educating the lower classes in the more refined aspects of national or foreign culture. Now they scorn high culture, in favor of their ideal of the demotic - a shabby thing, born from a long line of bad ideas: noble savagery, French revolutionary mob, proletarian power. These cultured elites are those who now decide on government subsidy. The “other voices” they select for promotion reflect their own interest in (lefty) political art.

Naturally enough, artists will produce more of the art they will be paid for. Government subsidy stultifies rather than invigorates creativity. Art tends to conform to the expectations of elitist inverted-snobbery, the ideal of the demotic - a shabby thing, born from a long line of bad ideas: noble savagery, French revolutionary mob, proletarian power. The galleries are saturated with vulgar, message-laden (visual puns), enfant terrible, and terribly infantile, in-your-face, f-you art. The stage ditto. The non-arty, real demotic art - pop culture - is as it always was, worth precisely what the masses pay for it.

The lit. crit. journals no doubt have some good writers writing interesting pieces on other good writers' interesting books. They are not, however, examples of worthy “other voices”. They are not unrecognized geniuses. They are not offering an education to the masses. They are not the last artisans practicing a dying skill. They are the elite talking to the elite about the elite, reflecting the elite’s demotic affectations (patronizing Palestinians and demonizing Israel is a small aspect of this grand view). It is a vanity press. Are these the people you would subsidize? Is this the literary and intellectual content that you would have the working man subsidize? There is no justification for government subsidy of lit. crit. journals - even were every article they publish concerning Israel (especially reviews of the many books on Israel by anti-Zionists) to be scrupulously fair. In fact, the more literary and intellectual the content is in an elite opinion journal, the more outrageous it becomes for it to get a subsidy from democratically elected governments. The LRB should only be subsidized by the super-rich, if writers and readers cannot sustain it themselves. Mary-Kay Wilmers should seek out Soros.

C.Gee

TruthTriumphs:

Thank you.

Your exchange with Richard of Moscow, and John Roosevelt’s with Celato have afforded much pleasure.
Richard of Moscow has some sort of axe to grind about Russian valor and sacrifice. Celato is determined not to admit that JJ has fairly exposed bias in the LRB. His fable - set in Hitler’s Germany, no less, presumably before Kristallnacht - of Justin the Jew who loses credibility when he warns against antisemitism (because he lied about doing “independent” research, not because he was a Jew warning of antisemitism !) and Julian the anti-semite who gains it (because he told the truth about a Jewish shopkeeper who ripped people off), is so utterly dotty as a hypothetical that there is no need to bother relating it back to (Justin )JJ v. (Julian) LRB. Bet you a tenner, Israel would be the shopkeeper.

Richard

C. Gee,

My difficulty in this debate, I suppose, is that I can see the truth and force of much of what you say here. Yes, state funding of the arts produces cronyism; yes, there will be favouritism and unfairness in the allocation of grants. Cronyism, as it happens, is the other great weakness of the LRB; some contributors turn up far too frequently, and the journal does sometimes feel like a cosy circle of friends. I am in favour of state funding of the arts not because I think it's an ideal system but as the best of a range of imperfect possibilities. The defects you mention here are serious, and need constant vigilance, but they seem to me smaller than the defects of a culture left entirely to the commercial market. That, I take it, is the real difference between us. You would view with equanimity an artistic and intellectual culture determined entirely by market forces. I would not.

That's because I do, actually, believe in 'high culture' and the educational and public value of evangelising that culture and taking it to wide audiences. Perhaps I mean by it something different from you, and from the relativist movement you describe (your account is a bit of a caricature, but I do recognise the phenomenon). For me, high culture is any culture that is responsive to intellectual, aesthetic and ethical debate; the debate is the necessary context for such a culture, whether the works under discussion happen to be 'demotic' or 'refined'. I don't want to reproduce any distinction between 'high' and 'low' that is merely reflective of a class-hierarchy (though I don't accept that the old distinction was ever merely that). But I do want art and literature to be subject to rigorous evaluative criticism, and to be responsive to that criticism.

Without any state funding, poetry, for example, might be a severely endangered art form. Most commercial publishers that get books into high street bookshops have already abandoned contemporary poetry. There are a few honourable exceptions, motivated, I imagine, partly by love of it and partly by the cultural prestige that still attaches to it. If it were not for that other source of state funding, the school curriculum, its situation would be even more parlous. I don't think it would die out completely (the viability of small poetry presses demonstrates that), but it is likely that it would only circulate among small groups of enthusiasts. Outsiders would be unlikely to encounter it.

You might be indifferent to its fate. I wouldn't, because I - in an old-fashioned humanist way, I suppose - think rigorous artistic and intellectual life is joyful, fulfilling, generous, educational and a force against brutality. But it's difficult, and many people feel excluded from it and resentful of it, mistaking it for nothing but snobbery. I wish state funding were not necessary, but I don't see much evidence that a purely commercial culture, subject to all the competitive pressures of modern marketing, will promote these values, or even preserve them. 'High' and 'low' have always nourished each other, but for that to be possible they both have to be healthy.

REPay

Melanie, why doesn't LRB just change its name? I subscribed in the hope of reading some book reviews. It is largely the sort of political conversation one would hear at a bien pensant Guardianista dinner party. No public funding should be forthcoming...

A.

C.Gee
November 23rd, 2010 8:52pm
A:

Sorry, I'm moving on, now. The new thread has scope for someone of my talents, though I say it myself who shouldn't.
Tutty 'bye.

C.Gee
November 25th, 2010 4:46am
Richard:

“The state has a role in providing spaces for other voices.”
“The literary and intellectual content is what deserves the subsidy.”

My own view of government funding for the arts is that it is corrupt and corrupting etc. etc. etc.

C.Gee
November 25th, 2010 8:15am
TruthTriumphs:

Thank you.

Your exchange with Richard of Moscow etc.

Right on cue, again.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "The evidence on which Melanie's piece was grounded came from JJ, described by her as 'ever-more impressive' and the producer of an 'important critique'.

We were, in other words, being asked to accept that JJ was a reliable researcher.

And that's where things began to fall apart for me. If I really wanted to know whether or not LRB was 'Judeophobic', (or simply exercising its right to comment freely on a controversial subject) I would damn well have to look at all 92 articles cited myself. I would have to analyse each one against the regulatory guidelines on which JJ's methodology is based and come to my own conclusions."

Celato, what IS your problem? You do seem to have a very special capacity to miss the point: who the hell care if JJ meets you criteria for being a an "independent researcher" or not??? All you need to do is read the LRB, hold onto your yamulca for a bit of intellectual courage and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!!!

Oi vey...vat is it with you???

Truthtriumphs

Richard of Moscow.
It's clear that you should go to the official archivists of the Holocaust and the Nuremburg trials, as well as respected historians such as Andrew Roberts and Martin Gilbert, and tell them that they are "totally unaware of the history of Auschwitz" and "don't know when it started".
Advise them that, based on a Times report just after the war,4 million died in Auschwitz out of a total of 5 million, and that that an assortment of "sensible historians" have arrived at those figures,so they should amend their official estimates for posterity.

Re. Stalin's role as the great liberator to whom we should be eternally grateful, I suppose that his altruistic quest to save us all had nothing to do with the fact that his hitherto ally, Hitler, reneged on their agreements, and attacked Russia in June 1941.

Just like a broken timepiece which tells the time accurately twice a day, you are quite right about the UN--- couldn't agree more.
That is why that revolting body denies that there was a genocide in Darfur, and proves the point I was making.

Celato

John Roosevelt:

OK - since I don't have time/resources to hunt down, read and analyse all 92 articles, I will take it that JJ has highlighted the 'worst bits' and take it from there...

My verdict:

LRB has been unjustly accused of failing to adhere to journalistic standards. It has not transgressed the regulatory code of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). I can see no evidence of anti-Semitism in the material presented by JJ.

What we have in JJ's sample is a collection of articles condemning (in very strong terms) the actions and policies of a country - Israel. None of the authors bases his/her critique on either the ethnicity or religious beliefs of Israeli citizens, and where they are censured it is entirely on the basis of the support given to the policies/actions of the state.

These are, in other words, political commentaries and, as such, the only two clauses in the PCC code relevant to them are those covering 'Accuracy' and 'Discrimination'.

Specific instances of factual inaccuracy haven't been offered by JJ, though its general drift is that the articles present a 'distorted' picture.

In 'straight' news reporting, allegations of distortion are a minefield; in 'comment' pieces even more so. Among the guidelines designed to assist journalists is this:

'The Press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.'

From the evidence presented, the LBR authors are very clearly indeed offering a personal perspective; they are exercising their freedom to be partisan. So: NOT GUILTY.

The PCC clause on 'Discrimination' says this:

The Press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any phyical illness or disability.'

Not a single prejudicial/pejorative reference to race, colour or religion is cited by JJ; in addition, the PCC stresses that this clause relates ONLY to individuals, not groups or countries, so, again: NOT GUILTY.

JJ's claim that its analysis is framed by the demands of regulatory codes (and not by a partisan agenda of its own) seems even shakier to me than it did a few days ago. Independent? No way: GUILTY!

Before you accuse me (and JJ?) of merely using the PCC code as a 'mummy's hand' rather than simply making our own minds up about what is and isn't 'acceptable' journalism, try this exercise...

The following is a quote, cited by JJ, from Llan Pappe:

[Israel is a] 'paranoid society led by a fanatical political elite, determined to bring the conflict to an end by force and destruction, whatever the price to its society or its potential victims ... an ethical void which allows it to go on killing unarmed Palestinians.'

Now read it again, substituting the word 'Palestine' for 'Israel' at the start and 'Israelis' for 'Palestinians' at the end.

Pappe's version you would no doubt condemn as a disgrace; the amended version as 'fair comment'.

Codes like that of the PCC are necessary to ensure that no matter how much you might disagree with version A, and I might disagree with version B, neither of us has a right to shut those authors up without far better reason than our own personal feelings.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: "Codes like that of the PCC are necessary to ensure that no matter how much you might disagree with version A, and I might disagree with version B, neither of us has a right to shut those authors up without far better reason than our own personal feelings."

I couldn't care less about your obsession to morph this debate into one about legal transgressions of PCC codes. A red herring.

I think the LRB should not get funding for its consistent vitriol against the Jewish state, only, in the context of the Middle east conflict. If it has managed to avoid your "independent 'researches'" or the PCC's censure doesn't matter a whit to me.

Chamberlain wanted to party all night long with that dear liitle thing - Hitler, if you remember, and brought back from his night out in Germany (such a glam trip) "Peace in Our time". Transgressed any codes you would sanctify? I guess not. However, his opinion stank, ..and the smell is not dissimilar to that of the LRB, in this regard.

I trust my sense of smell. You can stick with your codes but, as a Jew,particularly, God help you.