It ended almost before it started, but the kerfuffle over Rupert Murdoch’s tweet about the way some publications cover Israel is still worth considering. The controversy was over something the media magnate posted on Twitter last night. The tweet, which has since been deleted, said the following: “Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti-Israel in every crisis?” The response from some in the liberal media was instant and ferocious. Peter Beinart wrote this was an accusation that some Jewish publishers and journalists are nothing less than self-hating Jews because they express their Jewish identity via hostility to Israel. To him, that combined a lot of “idiocy and nastiness into 140 characters.”
Murdoch, clearly stung, deleted the tweet and then posted the following on Twitter:
Let’s specify that any references to the “Jewish owned press” in a public forum are unfortunate since that phrase smacks of anti-Semitic myths about the media being controlled by a Jewish cabal. That is true even if the person saying it is the living proof that non-Jews actually control a lot more of the media than any Jew. The generalization Murdoch used about such publications being “consistently anti-Israel” also has all the faults that are usually associated with any broad generalization in that it was imprecise. Not all Jewish-owned publications are anti-Israel, and even those that are not exactly friendly to the Jewish state cannot be said to be perfectly consistent in that stance. Even more to the point, the Jewish identity of some of Murdoch’s fellow media barons may be so tenuous that it is arguable that their biases have little to do with their ethnic and/or religious origins.
And yet it must still be said that there was enough of the truth in Murdoch’s poorly phrased tweet to make some of Israel’s Jewish media critics howl.
I imagine Beinart was not incorrect to assume that the primary “Jewish owned press” outlet that Murdoch was thinking of was the New York Times that yesterday led with a front-page op-ed masquerading as a news analysis that mischaracterized the reasons for Israel’s “toughness.” He might also have been thinking about the Jewish ties of the family that has long owned the Washington Post that published this front page the other day. In that context, it wasn’t unreasonable for the non-Jewish Murdoch to wonder why these papers as well as much of the liberal media are often so reflexively hostile to Israel’s cause even when it is clearly the aggrieved party, as it is this week after Hamas rocket attacks set off the current conflict.
In response, Beinart only sees a foolish observer assuming that Jewish publishers should sacrifice their journalistic integrity when covering Israel and assume the pose of Zionist cheerleaders.
But that is not what Murdoch or many other media critics are talking about. Quite the contrary; in the last 30 years we have often seen mainstream publications ditching their integrity to unfairly bash Israel.
Part of Beinart’s own pose as a Jewish critic of Israel is the claim that taking the position that the Jewish state must be saved from itself is so unpopular that it takes courage to stray from the AIPAC playbook. But anyone who has observed the way the media works knows that the opposite is true. The easiest way for any self-identified Jewish writer to get published on the op-ed page of the Times or to get prominent notice in most other mainstream publications is to attack Israel. Indeed, at times it seems the only papers that do regularly publish defenses of Israel against these unfair attacks are the ones Murdoch owns.
Let’s assume that all those who treat Israel unfairly or show bias against it are doing so with motives that are pure as the driven snow. Let us further assume, as we probably should, that all those Jews who do so are not self-hating Jews but just ignorant, blinded by ideology or just as misguided as Beinart.
But let’s not pretend that any journalist who takes such a stance, or a publisher who puts out a newspaper or magazine where Israel is harshly treated, is being brave. Far from it, running with the pack baying for Israel’s blood is the path of least resistance in mainstream media culture.
Under these circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that many Jews as well as some non-Jews like Murdoch are given to wondering aloud about why so many Jews in the business are so little moved by Israel’s predicament and so inclined to rationalize the actions of the Jewish state’s foes.
As usual, Beinart has it backwards. Far from wanting Jews in journalism to jettison their professional obligations, what media critics want is for them to return to a position of integrity and to tell the story of the Middle East conflict more accurately. If they did, media bias against Israel wouldn’t be as much of a factor as it is today.
Though Murdoch expressed this sentiment poorly, he was a lot closer to the truth of the situation than the bile that Beinart directed at him.
I love Rupert Murdoch. n n140 characters means a lot of generalizations have to be made. n nI can say Beinart is an ass in a lot less than 140 characters . . . .
oh, Peter Beinart was wrong again? and that's news how? n ngranted, Murdoch was "inelegant" in his wording (wasn't that what Romney was always accused of?) but his question is a good one. I was wondering the same thing, looking at that WaPo front page. n nbut the problem is not only in HOW they cover news, but WHAT they cover. let's remember, hundreds of rockets were shot at Israeli civilians for years and the media showed absolutely no interest. suddenly, when Israel says "enough" and decides to defend itself, THEN it's a crisis for humanity and everyone flocks to Gaza to lament the violence. when it's just Jews under fire it's not important enough to report on.
Reminds me of the joke about the Jewish man who is an avid reader of ant-semitic bogs and news papers. When asked why, he replies, well you see, when I read them theres's such good news about Jews. We own the news media, Hollywood, the banks, the Congress – just about everything. It makes me feel so good and proud to be a Jew.
Jonathan, please tweet back to Beinart the last sentence of this blog post.
and so ironic that the world of Islam is convinced Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. n nThe NYT should keep up their palestinian bias. That was what finally got me to stop believing anything they print. n n
New tweet from Rupert Murdoch n n@rupertmurdoch nObama making excellent statements on Israeli situation, but if they don't deter Hamas and Iran more than words will be needed. Getting ugly.
Ah yes, Obama making nice sounds about Israel. His great love now established with quotable lines for his next biography, it will be that much easier for him to press Israel to give up the moment it looks like they might do some significant damage to Hamas' stockpiles and the Muslim Brotherhood's rep in the hood. I see The O is already fidgety; concerned about Israeli soldiers' lives and even injuries, no doubt.
Jewish liberals are, indeed, blinded by their ideology and certainty that the New York Times treats Israel (and everything else) fairly and authoritatively . Last year after Bibi spoke to Congress I had a "disagreement" with such a woman who actually said that Tom Friedman's statement that Bibi's success there was "bought and paid for". This woman actually said that it took courage to state that opinion in the New York Times. I was so astounded by such ignorance that I threw my hands up and said "Peace".
Yes, Friedman is courageous all right. n nOnly he dares stand up to the Israelis who control the world. n nHe speaks for the little guys – the academia, the media, the international left, the Ummah, the sadly misunderstood Hamas and the poorly spoken Saudi Royal Family – he speaks for all the underdogs. n nHe's a Prince!
Jonathan is right and so is Murdoch, however "inelegantly" he put it. A Jewish writer trashing Israel is practically guaranteed success. Ditto for Jewish academics and activists…and double bonus if they are Israeli. n nNothing new in that. Back "in the day," the Church would richly reward Jews who turned on their community and with their knowledge of Hebrew and Talmud would facilitate mock theological debates and trials of the Talmud whose conclusions were predictable. These sell-outs were monsters, to be sure, but unlike our modern counterparts, they at least had a modicum of decency to declare their new faith, convert and sever their relations with the people they betrayed.
Excellent. Very true.
Thanks. Not as excellent as your, "I can say Beinart is an ass in a lot less than 140 characters," though. One-liner zingers are quite sufficient for the Beinart and Friedman types.
The cowardly Jewish turncoats of old had some regard for religion–their own or its grotesque perversion by Hellenes or Arabs. n nThe current crop of Jewish turncoats have only the most superficial understanding of Judaism, are hostile to Christendom that hosts them and are cravenly respectful only of Islam that threatens them. n nHang one or two and the others will find something other than Jews, Israel or their conflicted and troubled identity to write about. n n nTurncoats are cowards by definition. A Beinart or Friedman properly beaten to a pulp would silence the lot.
Lest this sound like I am advocating violence against journalists, let me haten to add that the Beinarts an Friedmans are merely small time opportunists Jewbaiting for dollars. I do not advocate their beating or assassination. n nPunk Sulzberger, now there's a guy meant for hanging. In fact the entire editorial board of the NYT hanging by piano wire from lampposts in Times Square would be cause for celebration.
You were speaking metaphorically, of course. n nThough we should wait to hear how Biden would phrase it.
Jews do dominate the media–press (what's left of it), Hollywood, and TV. In both ownership and content-production, Jews are way overrepresented. "Not that there's anything wrong with it." n nMost of these characters are secular or Reform, and their politics is slightly pink, which the writers at this site don't like. But don't blame the poor goyim for that.