| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/14/2006 02:40:25 PM · #1 |
| Not starting a rant, but wanted to post the LINK to a New Yorker thing that I thought was a good read. Some might enjoy... |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 05:49:38 PM · #2 |
Interesting and well written.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2006 07:07:52 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by ergo:
Not starting a rant, but wanted to post the LINK to a New Yorker thing that I thought was a good read. Some might enjoy... |
I liked the red word "fact" that appeared under the article name. Made everything more real for me. ;) |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 07:59:44 PM · #4 |
| Alot of speculation backed up by conspiracy theories. Not saying its not true just no hard facts all he said they said. And you wonder why here say is not submissable in court. |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 05:08:58 AM · #5 |
I would note (for those who might otherwise be misdirected) that "Fact" is just the section of the magazine!
I agree that it is in part speculation, and sources are not named: but then that is the nature of investigative journalism. You have to trust the journalist to do a reasonably thorough job. This is why cases of the photo tampering cause such alarm: we need to be able to trust the reporting of serious journalism.
However, this kind of analysis more closely reflects the various involved nations' interests than some of the simplistic "bomb the terrorists" argument espoused by some.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 05:26:19 AM · #6 |
I'm biased because I've been reading it for years, but I think if there are only a handful of media sources that are "trustworthy," The New Yorker would be one of those.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 09:16:00 AM · #7 |
| The Ney Yorker ranks up there with Fox, CNN, Reuters, Dateline and all the rest. Journalist are supposed to report the facts. All we see today is editorials |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 09:50:22 AM · #8 |
I have a problem with the facts of the first sentence. Didn't this start when Hizballa killed 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnap two others?
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 10:20:16 AM · #9 |
From what I was able to read it ALL makes perfect sense and seems to be well in line with the logic and policy displayed by both The US and Israel.
I don't doubt a word of that article. With or without facts to back it I would be my bank account, that every angle of each party involved is pretty much as stated. |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 11:25:02 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I have a problem with the facts of the first sentence. Didn't this start when Hizballa killed 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnap two others? |
Arguably, the conflict started with an Israeli raid into Palestine a couple of weeks earlier. But yes: the conflict with Hezbollah started with the Hezbollah raid that captured two and killed three Israeli soldiers, then another five Israeli soldiers when Israel crossed the border into Lebanon as part of an immediate counter strike.
Originally posted by coronamv:
The Ney Yorker ranks up there with Fox, CNN, Reuters, Dateline and all the rest. Journalist are supposed to report the facts. All we see today is editorials |
What are "the facts"? Is it ever possible to report solely "facts"? I don't think that has ever been the case. Even information such as "numbers killed" is subject to interpretation, when people start disputing which deaths "count". People must interpret the events around them and translate them into words: the translation is always an interpretive process that will result in the reporter reporting experiences and information obtained from a particular point of view.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2006 12:05:23 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would note (for those who might otherwise be misdirected) that "Fact" is just the section of the magazine!
|
I misled or misdirected no one. The layout of a magazine is in direct control of the publisher. The place where the word "fact" appeared was interesting to me. Subliminally, many people may have be misdirected.......... ;) |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 12:08:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I have a problem with the facts of the first sentence. Didn't this start when Hizballa killed 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnap two others? |
Many Arab countries believe it started in 1948. Scholars and historians believe this all started a few thousand years ago. We can discuss this for a thousand more years and things will be about the same. |
|
|
|
08/15/2006 01:04:14 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I have a problem with the facts of the first sentence. Didn't this start when Hizballa killed 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnap two others? |
Arguably, the conflict started with an Israeli raid into Palestine a couple of weeks earlier. But yes: the conflict with Hezbollah started with the Hezbollah raid that captured two and killed three Israeli soldiers, then another five Israeli soldiers when Israel crossed the border into Lebanon as part of an immediate counter strike. |
And arguably Israel's raid into palestine a couple of weeks earlier was in response to yet another kidnapping... We could go back thousands of years as to who started what. I'm only pointing out that the article failed to mention that the terrorist killed 8 in the process of taking the 2 hostages and in my mind that is a pretty important fact that the media seems to like to leave out. Israel's retaliation is not just for the two taken hostage, it's also for the 8 dead.
But at least we do agree that hezbullah did kill eight soliers while taking two hostages. Too bad the New Yorker didn't get that news.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2006 06:11:16 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm only pointing out that the article failed to mention that the terrorist killed 8 in the process of taking the 2 hostages and in my mind that is a pretty important fact that the media seems to like to leave out. Israel's retaliation is not just for the two taken hostage, it's also for the 8 dead. |
I think that one of the main reasons given for the war by Israel has been the recovery of the survivors, not revenge for the deaths of the other 3 or 8. The article treats the inception of the war in summary - it is not an analysis of the rights and wrongs, nor how the war started, but rather the possible motives of the players on the grand scale. I don't think that the failure to refer to the details of the initial assault compromise its integrity in this regard.
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I misled or misdirected no one. The layout of a magazine is in direct control of the publisher. The place where the word "fact" appeared was interesting to me. Subliminally, many people may have be misdirected.......... ;) |
No offence intended! I am sure that all of their factual articles (as opposed to "fiction" or "The Talk of the Town") are similarly labelled, so yours is a criticism of their labelling generally rather than this specific article (I don't feel strongly about this myself either way).
|
|
|
|
08/17/2006 06:47:28 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
No offence intended! I am sure that all of their factual articles (as opposed to "fiction" or "The Talk of the Town") are similarly labelled, so yours is a criticism of their labelling generally rather than this specific article (I don't feel strongly about this myself either way). |
None taken! ;) ;) ;) Since you can't see my very expressive face and body language I use smileys often to indicate humor. ;) ;) ;) As for criticism of the article, it was more observation. ;) ;) ;) Just didn't want anyone to think I was misleading. Now, I will lead you down the garden path, given a chance. ;) ;) ;)
Considering my domicile I seldom read the magizine in question and certainly wouldn't want it known that I did. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;P |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 11:30:27 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by ergo:
Not starting a rant, but wanted to post the LINK to a New Yorker thing that I thought was a good read. Some might enjoy... |
If the article is sourced accurately, then it certainly provides depth and insight into the action and strategy. We may have learned more than we intended. Hope we are attentive to its teachings. Sometimes the best plans are derived from modifying an initial "test".
Regarding collateral civilian casualties; they are a part of war. Those who cannot accept collateral civilian casualties (when used as sheilds by the enemy), should examine their willingness to accept enslavement at some future date. I fully understand that some are true pacifists and are willing to be enslaved for their belief of anti-war. I pray that you may never experience it.
For the hawks, care and diligence is required for every life lost. A high price indeed for any state action.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2007 01:09:58 PM · #17 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 01:20:51 PM EDT.
