The Nazional Post does it again

[chickenfeet]

Yesterday the National Post ran a story that covered most of the front page about an, alleged, Iranian law requiring Jews (and - in very small print and parentheses - other non Muslims) to wear identifying marks on their clothing. Needless to say to NP pulled no punches in comparing the Iranian government with the Nazis and even published an enormous WW2 era photo of Jews somewhere in occupied Europe wearing Stars of David. Today that story is nowhere to be seen and despite the fact that the original story has been outed all over the place as a plant by right wing Iranian exiles with links to the Pentagon all the Post has come up with is a wishy-washy story (one column though on page 1) saying that they understand the reports may have been exaggerated.

It's people like the Aspers and their lackeys at the Post who make it all too easy for anti-Semites.

Comments

[pyroclasticgrub.livejournal.com]

I feel like I should be apologizing on behalf of Winnipeg for the Aspers. I have my own beef with them that I won't get into here.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Actually, the author of the report, the Iranian-born Amir Taheri, stands by his story (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/68914.htm). There have been other reports that the measure is at the very least being considered & discussed by the Majlis in Iran (http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=33126). The owners of the National Post, and their religion, have really very little to do with it at all.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Let's be honest, even your NY Sun link admits the story was wrong. I'm sure all kinds of weird stuff is being discussed by all kinds of weird people in Iran. That's the nature of things. It takes a special kind of journalist working for a special kind of paper though to take a bunch of unsubstantiated rumour and speculation and turn it into virtually the entire front page of a newspaper.

The religion of the owners of the National Post is relevant (and only relevant) in so far as its a component of their politics which is extreme Zionism and a track record of cheer leading for the Israeli government. The Aspers' politics are relevant as, like their predecessor as proprietor of the Post, citizen Black, they have shown themselves willing to interfere in editorial policy where the state of Israel or related issues are involved. In a free country with a free press they have a right to do that. That said, I and others have the right (and perhaps the duty) to point out what they are doing.

Let's take a parallel example. There have been persistent rumours that the US Government has discussed using nuclear weapons against Iran. Would I then be justified, if I were proprietor of say, The Globe and Mail, in running a front page story announcing that the US had decided to nuke Iran and prominently featuring Japanese children with theuir flesh torn off in case anyone missed my subtle parallels with 1945? Of course not. It would be disgracefully sloppy and inflammatory journalism. And that's what the Post story was.

Conflating anti-Zionism & anti-Semitism, are we?

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Let's be honest: your saying the Post's owners politics, whatever they are, "make it all too easy for anti-Semites"? Makes me puke.

Re: Conflating anti-Zionism & anti-Semitism, are we?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I'm certainly not conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I am suggesting that Jewish owned media properties vigorously (and often mendaciously) promoting a pro-Zionist agenda makes life easier for those who would so conflate in the cause of a wider anti-Semitism. Similarly, the Aspers and the post would certainly have no qualms about presenting my distaste for Zionism and the current policies of the state of Isrel as anti-Semitic despite the fact that I am, and always have been, implacably opposed to anti-Semitism (as one might expect even if one weren't aware of lemur_catta's background).

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Oh, Good Lord, I don't even know where to start. I would barely answer anyone else here, but I like you. Anti-Semites don't need excuses. Ihey don't need things made easier, or harder, or whatever. The minute you start thinking there may be a rational ground, or aid, to anti-Semitism, you've lost the plot. And by saying the ultra-Zionist policies of the Post's Jewish owners (incidentally, that simple phrase, "Jewish-owned media", is infinitely distasteful, and sharing it with Nixon talking about the Washington Post should check you) will help anti-Semites be more so is already conferring a logical quality to anti-Semitism - and if there's logic in it, then it can be understood, etc. etc.

(No, knowing and liking actual Jews won't get you out of this one.)

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

OK. I think I agree with most of what you say and the bits I disagree with boil down to at best semantics and tactics and not principles. What I stick by though is my view that the Post story was utterly irresponsible. The facts don't support the story they printed still less the spin they put on it. At a time when war with Iran is being seriously contemplated in Washington that's particularly reprehensible.