Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Journalistic Appeasement, With a Precedent

    Posted by David Foster on August 7th, 2014 (All posts by )

    The London Times has refused to run an ad featuring Nobel Prize winner and Holocaust surviver Elie Wiesel.  The ad, which has already run in several US newspapers, is headlined  “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’ turn.”

    (via Pam Geller.  The whole ad can be seen here.)

    The London Times said it refused the ad because “the opinion being expressed is too strong and too forcefully made and will cause concern amongst a significant number of Times readers.”

    Hmm…reminds me of something.  Yes…

    In 1939, photos of dispossessed Czech Jews wandering the roads of Eastern Europe were made available to the Times.  Geoffrey Dawson, then the editor of this publication, refused to publish them:  it wouldn’t help the victims, he told his staff, and if they were published, Hitler would be offended.  (Source:  William Manchester, The Last Lion: Alone, cited in my 2006 post here and  with an extended excerpt from the book at this interesting post on appeasement.)

     

    10 Responses to “Journalistic Appeasement, With a Precedent”

    1. MikeK Says:

      Dawson was not the only journalist lord who shut down Churchill. So did Max Aitkin. THey all wanted to avoid offending Hitlerh

    2. veryretired Says:

      They’re not just trying to avoid offense, they are terrified that the Islamic crazies they have invited in will burn down their paper and kill them and their families.

      The same people who are “fearlessly” reporting all the news that’s fit to print are watching atrocities all across the Islamic world and trying desperately to pretend it isn’t really happening.

      You can smell the flop sweat across the Atlantic, and certainly across the Med.

    3. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      We have similar things over here. If you want to find out anything that might not be obeisant to Buraq Hussein, you have to go to foreign media. Because we abuse a common language in different ways, it is usually the Brit press. For instance, the recent celebration of African dictators at the White House was not covered by our State-controlled media at all, and the news came from the Brit DAILY MAIL.

      Subotai Bahadur

    4. pst314 Says:

      You cannot hope to bend or twist
      Thank God! the British journalist.
      But seeing what unbribed he’ll do
      There really is no reason to.

    5. pst314 Says:

      “They’re not just trying to avoid offense, they are terrified…”

      And yet they and their leftist friends in academia and the arts are the ones who most shape public opinion. If they chose to, they could shape public opinion and eventually reverse government policy on immigration and the tolerance of Muslims who are hostile to British culture and government.

    6. MikeK Says:

      “they could shape public opinion and eventually reverse government policy on immigration and the tolerance of Muslims who are hostile to British culture and government.”

      But those are brown people and the essence of goodness.

    7. David Foster Says:

      A lot of Israelis are pretty brown, and a lot of Palestinians are pretty light. I think it’s less about skin color than about attitude toward Western culture.

    8. East Anglian Says:

      Yet the moment any Englishman – from small city newspaper columnist to minor five minute celebrity – makes the slightest noise about immigration it is organisations like the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Israel supporters in media (Stephen Pollard, who used to write columns for The Times, the bloggers at Harry’s Place, etc) and in government itself who lead the public witch-hunt against the uppity heretics. If British Jews are upset about the consequences of a large Islamic community on British soil perhaps they should lend a helping hand to members of the indigenous population trying to do something about it. When it comes to immigration and Britain’s very influential Jewish community even being neutral would be a vast improvement.

      BTW The Times is owned by News Corp. led by Israel supporter Rupert Murdoch. As a former subscriber from the pre-Murdoch days I can assure you it started to go downhill the moment the sleazy Australian, though officially American, became involved.

    9. Jonathan Says:

      Perhaps those left-leaning British Jews are like many American Jews who give great weight to memories of the past in which Jews were often discriminated against and blocked from immigrating. Thus they tend reflexively to oppose immigration restrictions. I don’t agree with them as times have changed and I think they are missing the bigger picture, but I don’t see anything more complex than that in their attitudes.

    10. Death 6 Says:

      However, increasingly those progressive Jews are lining up against Israeli defense while safe and sound right here (for now). The point about progressives being at heart anti West is well taken. Many of these self-styled progressive Jews are much more culturally Jewish than religiously Jewish. Much as Harry Reed is fundamentally culturally Mormon rather than theocratically Mormon. They are ideologically progressive rather than religious in any secular way.

      Mike