One week ago, the L.A. Times had the reckless audacity to report that, inside Israel, there was actually some debate about the "Gaza question":

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza22-2008dec22,0,3709171.story

For Israel, the Gaza question resurfaces as hostilities resume

Monday, December 22, 2008

Israeli politicians Sunday were once again debating the question: What to do about the Gaza Strip?

This time the debate is happening in the context of Israeli elections, with all sides striving to look tough enough to lead the Jewish state in its showdown with the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza. [...]

[...] The two front-runners for prime minister, Likud Party chief Benjamin Netanyahu and Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, both issued strong statements pledging to topple Hamas. [...]

* * * * *

[...] "Whenever they shoot at Israel, Israel must respond," Livni said.

* * * * *

[...] Netanyahu said, "In the long run, we have no choice but to topple Hamas' rule. Right now we have to go from passive response to active assault. [...]"

* * * * *

[...] one prominent Israeli is proposing what most Israelis would consider a truly radical option: direct negotiations.

"Most level-headed politicians know the truth: There is no military solution," wrote Gideon Levy in the Haaretz daily paper Sunday, in an article headlined, “Talk to Hamas." [...]

- - L.A. Times 12/22/2008

* * * * *

But don't you know, quoting Gideon Levy is a no-no.

(Even though the L.A. Times marginalized Gideon Levy by noting that most Israelis would consider his views as "radical", the L.A. Times was still guilty of mentioning his views. That's a no-no.)

C.A.M.E.R.A. responded by immediately mobilizing an attack against the L.A. Times:

http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_article=1569

December 22, 2008
by Andrea Levin

Ha'aretz Radical Mainstreamed in LAT

[...] Los Angeles Times story deceptively according Levy "prominent Israeli" status [...]

- - CAMERA

* * * * *

Everybody got the message.

No other "mainstream news" outlet (unless you count Ha'aretz itself) has mentioned Gideon Levy since then.

David Gregory is yet another example of the media reducing the standard of journalism. Gregory is inept and immature. He lacks any depth.

Winsmith argues that Gregory shouldn't pester the Israeli Foreign Minister with adversarial or probing questions because the Israeli attack is so obviously justified. Setting aside the merit of that claim, it is precisely Greenwald's point that journalists cannot assume the justifiability of government actions, but must question those actions. That is how they are to discover the truth.

He then argues that the minister should not be interrogated by Gregory because Gregory is not an Israeli. I doubt Winsmith would place the same limit on Gregory were he to interview other foreign leaders. Gregory is not Iranian, French, Thai or Russian, either, but if he interviews leaders from those countries I'd like to know what they are thinking, not just what they want me to think.

To do otherwise, as Gregory revealingly explained, "is not their role."- Glenn

Black is white and pigs do fly when the pundits tell us it is so. It seems it is very much their roll, Mr. Gregorian MTP accolade.

Gregory's appointment- another inexhaustible example of politically correct indoctrination of viewing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in proper focus.

Gregory, Russet, Crystal, and all neo-con, philosophical enablers in the MSM work daily to promote the ancient tension that says non-Jews everywhere who demand their rights are a threat and less equal than "God's chosen".

The above statements are not anti-semitic dribble. Rather, it's only asking for a rational approach to the land/economic rights and struggle without the underlying appeal to theocratic dogma. Without that maybe we can determine whom should be throwing rockets at whom.

Quite interesting to see how John Ford's criticism of the American press - a criticism largely concerned with his ambiguous feelings about American history/legends in general - has come to be praise. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is the story of a man rising to political office by playing out a lie* based upon a violent act. And when, at the very end of his career and probably only a very few years short of the end of his life, he tells the true story to a press leaning on him for quite another story.

It is made quite clear that the journalist of Shinbone are interested more in some juicy gossip than anything approaching an actual story. Unfortunately they get the truth - and rather print the legend. At least they knew the difference between legend and truth, they were courageous enough to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

Could it be today's "journalists" are simply too stupid [and self-enamoured] to even realise their faults?

*Though in my opinion the lie is not his but John Wayne's character's; common consent, however, is that Wayne is the murderer.

the benighted servant class is limited to the grounds and a rear view of the premises.

Little Brother's comment seems to be implying that the quality of coverage is dependent on access. If that is his thought, I don't think access is the issue. There is enough information out there to do excellent political reporting, imo, regardless of whether the reporter is in the mansion being referred to, or halfway around the world with a laptop on his/her knees.

C.A.M.E.R.A.

Is STILL around?

I try never to miss one of Glenn Greenwald's columns. He is right about virtually everything. That said, like the excellent college professor--in a narrow discipline--he cannot connect it to a political plan of action.

Over time, he has rightly skewered the Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the media. The past two years, the Democrats have controlled one out of those four "estates." It is not his role to get into the down-and-dirty political dealmaking which moves toward successful policy. But some acknowledgement must be made that on January 20, the Democrats will control two of the four "estates." That is still not enough to run the country the way the Republicans have in the years they controled four out of four. For all the blame Democrats deserve in the last Congress, Greenwald does not connect it to the fact that the media overpowers any good ideas members come up with by using the right-wing talking points.

It would be difficult to find much analysis from Greenwald or anyone else on the political skills of Lyndon B. Johnson during the 1950s when the scare tactics of the Republicans were in full flower. But by slow plodding, LBJ was able to turn the country drastically around by the early 1960s. Someone will have to play that role soon in the modern world.

The Chicago crowd, along with the Harvard crowd may just be able to do it. But it won't be done by being "right" as Greenwald is. It will be done by somewhat unsavory deal-making, which with increased chances of publicity nowadays, will probably lead the media to "speculate" on corruption.