At Low Point of Media Reporting
by Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, Sicht vom Hochblauen, 4 October
2017, English translation by Milena Rampoldi, ProMosaik. In fact, German media
have a “particular” responsibility to finally free themselves of Israeli lobby
pressure and talk about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, as would be expected
of “genuine” journalism.
2017, English translation by Milena Rampoldi, ProMosaik. In fact, German media
have a “particular” responsibility to finally free themselves of Israeli lobby
pressure and talk about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, as would be expected
of “genuine” journalism.
I very well
remember the weekly rallies of Pegida which failed to make any proposals, but
just created blind hatred. The AfD party came from its lap and got its voter
potential because of the numerous unsatisfied and excluded Germans. What
happened in Europa much earlier, was also experienced, even if to a lesser
degree, in Germany.
What is particularly alarming about this is that those right-wing populists
support the “Jewish State” and venerate it as bulwark against Islam. They had
already already been on a pilgrimage to Israel to support the Jews against the “Islamic
terrorist threat” by forming an anti-Islamic front. And it is not without
reason that today for the right-wing extremists the “Jewish State” is the
outpost of the “Judeo-Christian Western World” which must be protected from the
common enemy Islam and Muslim citizens. Consequently they made lots of friends
in Israel who In fact shared their objectives.
remember the weekly rallies of Pegida which failed to make any proposals, but
just created blind hatred. The AfD party came from its lap and got its voter
potential because of the numerous unsatisfied and excluded Germans. What
happened in Europa much earlier, was also experienced, even if to a lesser
degree, in Germany.
What is particularly alarming about this is that those right-wing populists
support the “Jewish State” and venerate it as bulwark against Islam. They had
already already been on a pilgrimage to Israel to support the Jews against the “Islamic
terrorist threat” by forming an anti-Islamic front. And it is not without
reason that today for the right-wing extremists the “Jewish State” is the
outpost of the “Judeo-Christian Western World” which must be protected from the
common enemy Islam and Muslim citizens. Consequently they made lots of friends
in Israel who In fact shared their objectives.
What we can
see today, is the result of many failures by the media who ignored the burning
problems and promoted this dangerous movement. For a long time now the “Jewish
State” has been moving away from democratic values by developing into a more
and more racist Apartheid State ignoring and determining media and official
politics with certainty of its power because it is financially and politically
supported. Critics of the “Jewish State” and BDS supporters are also strongly
opposed.
see today, is the result of many failures by the media who ignored the burning
problems and promoted this dangerous movement. For a long time now the “Jewish
State” has been moving away from democratic values by developing into a more
and more racist Apartheid State ignoring and determining media and official
politics with certainty of its power because it is financially and politically
supported. Critics of the “Jewish State” and BDS supporters are also strongly
opposed.
When it is
about the reporting on the “Jewish State,” all journalists and the media tiptoe
around the “minefield.” As soon as a journalist dares to write a non-compliant
report the reaction comes from the Israeli Embassy or from the President of the
Central Council of German Jews who is actually Josef Schuster, acting as the
German mouthpiece of the “Jewish State.”
about the reporting on the “Jewish State,” all journalists and the media tiptoe
around the “minefield.” As soon as a journalist dares to write a non-compliant
report the reaction comes from the Israeli Embassy or from the President of the
Central Council of German Jews who is actually Josef Schuster, acting as the
German mouthpiece of the “Jewish State.”
At this
point, let me tell you about a typically German panel discussion organized by
the German Israeli Society (Deutsch-Israelische-Gesellschaft DIG) at the site
of the radio-television Berlin Brandenburg rbb. This event exactly exposed this
issue, even if were in a different way than was the organizers’ intention.
point, let me tell you about a typically German panel discussion organized by
the German Israeli Society (Deutsch-Israelische-Gesellschaft DIG) at the site
of the radio-television Berlin Brandenburg rbb. This event exactly exposed this
issue, even if were in a different way than was the organizers’ intention.
It was an
uncertain round table discussion titled “The image of Israel in the German
media.” In the end they were “entre nous,” because only supporters of the “Jewish
State” had been invited: the “steel helmet Jew” Michael Wolffsohn, the chairman
and managing editor at BILD, Julian Reichelt, and the two editors-in-chief of
ARD and Deutschlandfunk DLF, Rainald Becker and Birgit Wentzien.
uncertain round table discussion titled “The image of Israel in the German
media.” In the end they were “entre nous,” because only supporters of the “Jewish
State” had been invited: the “steel helmet Jew” Michael Wolffsohn, the chairman
and managing editor at BILD, Julian Reichelt, and the two editors-in-chief of
ARD and Deutschlandfunk DLF, Rainald Becker and Birgit Wentzien.
The so called
“experts” of the Israel lobby invited to this event speaks volumes. The
vice-chairman of the DIG made the welcoming speech, in which he criticized the “tendentious,
anti-Israeli” media reporting, “emotionalizing“ one party and added that
politics were also involved. So it is time for the German media to recognize
itself as the “fourth estate” and debate how to deal with Israel.
“experts” of the Israel lobby invited to this event speaks volumes. The
vice-chairman of the DIG made the welcoming speech, in which he criticized the “tendentious,
anti-Israeli” media reporting, “emotionalizing“ one party and added that
politics were also involved. So it is time for the German media to recognize
itself as the “fourth estate” and debate how to deal with Israel.
Then Gesine
Palmer, a leading “Christian Zionist”, and Protestant theologian, who also
studied pedagogy and Jewish studies, criticized the “Jewish State” by
mentioning that it had more to offer than violence and terror. However, in this
context, she forgot to mention the constant existence of occupation and settler
terrorism which must never to be forgotten. This policy, recognized as a
violation of international law, and consisting of the oppression of a people is
unique.
Palmer, a leading “Christian Zionist”, and Protestant theologian, who also
studied pedagogy and Jewish studies, criticized the “Jewish State” by
mentioning that it had more to offer than violence and terror. However, in this
context, she forgot to mention the constant existence of occupation and settler
terrorism which must never to be forgotten. This policy, recognized as a
violation of international law, and consisting of the oppression of a people is
unique.
In fact it is
already overdue to talk about this issue again, as the reporting about the “Jewish
State” only consists of omissions and tendentious understanding of Israel.
already overdue to talk about this issue again, as the reporting about the “Jewish
State” only consists of omissions and tendentious understanding of Israel.
It is
understandable that this event was well-attended because in the meantime these
facts have also been noted by the general “media consumer.” As friends from
Berlin who visited this propaganda event told me, the discussion was just the
mirror image of the more than sad journalism of our time. It was a unilateral
and extremely unsatisfying evening. When the “steel helmet” Wolffsohn not just criticized
the “lack” of empathy, but also – even more shameful – the “unilateral” reporting
and “manipulation” and in particular the correspondents working in the “Jewish
State.” And then the worm had turned!
The atmosphere in the room was stretched to breaking point and was in danger of
exploding, but nobody dared to openly oppose what was being said.
understandable that this event was well-attended because in the meantime these
facts have also been noted by the general “media consumer.” As friends from
Berlin who visited this propaganda event told me, the discussion was just the
mirror image of the more than sad journalism of our time. It was a unilateral
and extremely unsatisfying evening. When the “steel helmet” Wolffsohn not just criticized
the “lack” of empathy, but also – even more shameful – the “unilateral” reporting
and “manipulation” and in particular the correspondents working in the “Jewish
State.” And then the worm had turned!
The atmosphere in the room was stretched to breaking point and was in danger of
exploding, but nobody dared to openly oppose what was being said.
Then the DIG
presidential member and journalist Daniel Killy accused their colleagues of
lacking sensibility and expertise because they chose the wrong terms that
called for “negative” associations.
I think that this more than appalling event was extremely pathetic for both
invited representatives of the broadcast stations. Becker and Wentzien defended
themselves against sweeping criticism, but their defense was less than devout
and insubstantial. They tried to justify their reporting.
presidential member and journalist Daniel Killy accused their colleagues of
lacking sensibility and expertise because they chose the wrong terms that
called for “negative” associations.
I think that this more than appalling event was extremely pathetic for both
invited representatives of the broadcast stations. Becker and Wentzien defended
themselves against sweeping criticism, but their defense was less than devout
and insubstantial. They tried to justify their reporting.
Then “colleague”
Killy of DIG asked for “linguistic specifications” from the chief editorial
team, and for a “list of terms editorial teams should avoid or restrict” in
their Israel reporting as this would be a very effective step.
Killy of DIG asked for “linguistic specifications” from the chief editorial
team, and for a “list of terms editorial teams should avoid or restrict” in
their Israel reporting as this would be a very effective step.
BILD
editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt asked for more “empathy” because of the “special”
responsibility of German national-socialism.
We see this “special” responsibility every day in the newspaper BILD! With this
“sensitive attitude” German journalists make themselves complicit in the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine, and this is irresponsible!
editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt asked for more “empathy” because of the “special”
responsibility of German national-socialism.
We see this “special” responsibility every day in the newspaper BILD! With this
“sensitive attitude” German journalists make themselves complicit in the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine, and this is irresponsible!
In fact,
German media have a “special” responsibility to break free from the pressure of
the Israel lobby and to report about Palestine as it is to be expected “genuine”
journalism.
German media have a “special” responsibility to break free from the pressure of
the Israel lobby and to report about Palestine as it is to be expected “genuine”
journalism.
How can
editors-in-chief of public media and newspapers stoop to such a low level, by
working according to such dictatorial targets and accepting them without any
opposition just to keep their jobs? How bad does the situation need to get
before they show open resistance?
I am asking myself how we can positively report about a “Jewish Apartheid
State,” by considering what happens every day. I would say they should leave
their jobs. I have been dealing for many years with this unpleasant issue, and
have experienced a deteriorating situation when I think about German media and
Israel.
editors-in-chief of public media and newspapers stoop to such a low level, by
working according to such dictatorial targets and accepting them without any
opposition just to keep their jobs? How bad does the situation need to get
before they show open resistance?
I am asking myself how we can positively report about a “Jewish Apartheid
State,” by considering what happens every day. I would say they should leave
their jobs. I have been dealing for many years with this unpleasant issue, and
have experienced a deteriorating situation when I think about German media and
Israel.
What is daily
reported in serious foreign newspaper, from the liberal Israeli newspaper
Haaretz to various British, English-speaking, and Scandinavian newspapers, is
not echoed in German newspapers.
reported in serious foreign newspaper, from the liberal Israeli newspaper
Haaretz to various British, English-speaking, and Scandinavian newspapers, is
not echoed in German newspapers.
It has always
been common practice that representatives of the Central Council of Jews, the
Israeli embassy, and the international organizations represented in Berlin romp
about in editorial offices and broadcast stations. In the past it was about background
conversations, while today it is openly celebrated and brazenly influenced
reporting. In addition, journalists are continuously invited by Israeli
government and the institutions connected with it. However, in comparison with
today, in the past it was possible to hear a voice of criticism. At the moment,
we are at a low point of media plausibility, which is a dangerous development.
In the long run media consumers do not let themselves be fooled.
been common practice that representatives of the Central Council of Jews, the
Israeli embassy, and the international organizations represented in Berlin romp
about in editorial offices and broadcast stations. In the past it was about background
conversations, while today it is openly celebrated and brazenly influenced
reporting. In addition, journalists are continuously invited by Israeli
government and the institutions connected with it. However, in comparison with
today, in the past it was possible to hear a voice of criticism. At the moment,
we are at a low point of media plausibility, which is a dangerous development.
In the long run media consumers do not let themselves be fooled.
