I originally posted a reaction to Albach's column. Although I have been asked for an explanation, I won't give one. The title of this blog is "a personal account..."
I am not trying to use this in a professional capacity. What are blogs for if not people's reactions to what is printed in the media?
When I decided to be a journalist, I accepted that what I put in print is going to be read (hopefully) and praised and criticized.
I did not become a journalist to reaffirm my views.
Likewise, I did not become a journalist to evangelize my views.
The opinion pages are for people like Albach who want to do political commentary. As a huge supporter of the First Amendment, that's where opinions should be. Bear in mind that comments and reactions will not always be what you want them to be. If you are looking for reaffirmation, join a niche paper. Work for a liberal publication where your audience will agree with what you write. And that's fine.
All opinions are valid.
I have been asked for a calm reaction to Albach's column.
I thought it was inappropriately timed. Albach claims to see no connection between the Holocaust and criticism of Israel, but this is only from his perspective. Many Jews do see the connection. The way I feel, and many supporters of Israel feel, is that Israel is put to harsher criticism than other countries.
No, I don't hate Indians, I was making an analogy. I'll change the analogy if someone was offended. I hate to see that I may have offended someone I have respect for.
There's a holiday coming up: Israeli Independence Day. I think this day would be a very appropriate day to criticize Israel's legitimacy.
If my opinion is going to be muted by my fellow writers, that's fine. I prefer to stick to the news section.
But I still retain the right to have an opinion, whether or not it's deemed justified by others.
2 comments:
I'm glad to see you did not deleat the "mission acomplished" post. That shows that you have intergity.
Now all that remains is reposting the original post. Part of being a person of honor, forget all the ethics of journalism and blogging (I still despise that word!), just to be a person of honor, you must stand behind what you say. Re-post it and stand behind what you believe. If you no longer believe it, then say so.
And I know you don't hate Indians, I was trying to show you how absurd it was for you to take a line like "I'm no jew-hater" from a comment to his artical and conclude that Banks is a hate monger. That was quite a quantum leap.
That said, I think you are still not quite getting the point of the column. Banks is not against Israel. He was questioning our forgien policy and furthermore questioned why it is taboo to talk about Israel. Thus far, I have not heard any reason for why the topic is off limits.
There is nothing either of you need to defend, rather you guys just need to air it out and try and understand what the sides are and why things are the way they are in this part of the world.
The title of this blog is "a personal account..." I am not trying to use this in a professional capacity. What are blogs for if not people's reactions to what is printed in the media?
Well, I don't consider my blog professional either (and the percentage of bloggers who actually get paid to blog is pretty miniscule), but I personally think that's irrelevant to the question of a blogger's duty to their readers, which is no different from any writer, especially one who comments about politics and foreign policy. That anyone can write a blog is both a strength and weakness of the medium. Unlike opinion pages, there is no arbitrary point of control over who has a voice (as you've pointed out). But that also means that there will be many who don't take the responsibility that goes along with voicing a public opinion (e.g. the faked Iraq photos from Turkey). Although there is no central point of enforcement, how you conduct yourself online does affect your reputation. I do think this post was a great step (I've seen many bloggers just completely ignore their comments, and I look down upon that practice).
Yes, I agree with the First Amendment and that all opinions are valid and deserve to be heard (including both yours and Banks's). In no way did I intend to indicate yours was invalid or was attempting to mute it. But I would say that deleting your post (and presumably Banks's comments on that post) would be more akin to muting an opinion than anything else I've seen in this debate (of course, if Banks threatened you with repercussions, then that's another story -- but then again, I can't tell what happened).
Yes, Israel is pretty harshly criticized, and I think part of that stems from the fact that they have a strong ally in the most powerful country in the world. Some criticism is uncalled for (for example, the claims of Jenin being a massacre). But I think the settlements deserve criticism, which is what I recall Banks's column singled out.
As I said, I agree with his point that critics of America's pro-Israel foreign policy are often labeled anti-Semitic. I've run into that myself on message boards, and yet I think I have a pretty moderate view, tending to refrain from the blame game because it's counter-productive (if anybody, Britain is the one that deserves any blame for promising the same land to two peoples). And I agree that Israel has a right to exist -- but that the Palestinians (like the Kurds) also deserve to have their own states. So I do take exception to the fact that this opinion will sometimes get me labeled an anti-Semite (I'm a Natalie Portman fan, for crying out loud), and I will always label such attacks as the ad hominem fallacies that they are.
Anyway, the debate has plenty of controversies to explore (and I do think you have valuable opinions to contribute to it or else I wouldn't be here). But I think Banks's point is not that controversial (although perhaps the timing was, as you point out).
Post a Comment