Following my revelations yesterday that Murdoch’s Australian isn’t too keen on robust debate regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict (and censored my commissioned article on Jimmy Carter’s book), Crikey today features some predictable responses:
Nick Cater, The Australian’s Deputy Editor (Weekend), writes: Re. “The debate The Oz doesn’t want to have” (yesterday, item 4). Antony Loewenstein is correct to point out that the debate triggered by Jimmy Carter’s latest book is an important topic which has been overlooked by every newspaper in Australia except The Australian. But Antony is incorrect to suggest that his voice is being silenced. The Australian’s opinion pages under Tom Switzer’s stewardship provide a forum for rigorous and intelligent debate. The number of pieces submitted each day far exceed the space available ensuring healthy competition among contributors. We set the bar high and on this occasion Antony’s piece failed to clear it. I also part company with Antony on his assessment of Geoff Elliott’s piece on the Carter debate in The Weekend Australian’s Inquirer section (January 27/28). Elliott captured the essence of the Carter controversy – the use of the word apartheid in the context of modern Israel – in a fair and balanced feature. The Australian encourages open and frank discussion of the Zionist issue and it would be false to claim we only cover one side of the debate. We ran two of Antony’s pieces after the publication of his book last year together with an extensive review. We were the first newspaper in Australia to pick up on the London Review of Books essay “The Israel Lobby” by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. We ran a number of comment pieces and an extensive extract from the book itself. More recently we ran Elizabeth Wynhausen’s piece assessing the influence of the Jewish lobby in Australia. The Australian’s decision to post a senior correspondent to Jerusalem shows our commitment to informed coverage of Israeli and Middle Eastern affairs. The debate over the issues raised by Carter and others will continue in The Australian.
Sharon Lapkin writes: Re. “The debate the Oz doesn’t want to have” (yesterday, item 4). So, here he goes again. Antony Loewenstein complains yet again that the Jewish lobby is gagging him. Despite being commissioned by MUP to write a book and appearing on numerous radio and television shows (and yes, in Crikey regularly) he continues to claim that he is discriminated against because of his anti-Zionist views. From where I sit, I see him being given a soapbox to promote both his book and his views on many, many occasions in many different modes. Could it be that The Australian simply didn’t consider his work up to par? He claims that it published his opinion pieces three times in 2006 and yet he cries foul now because it didn’t publish something else he wrote. It’s time Loewenstein understood that freelance journalists don’t get every piece they write published. Sometimes editors change their minds and sometimes they don’t like what journalists produce. To point his finger at the Jewish lobby every time the newspapers don’t publish his work is a reflection on his own inability to take the criticisms and rejections on the chin like a professional. It really is time Mr Loewenstein stopped throwing tantrums (and knives) every time someone doesn’t publish or approve of his work.
Lapkin’s comment is about as relevant as her name-sake’s rants (perhaps they breed these figures in an IDF torture chamber.)
Cater’s response appears pretty reasonable but completely ignores the issue. To claim that my Carter article “failed to clear” the high standards set by the Australian is hilarious, and patently untrue. Sources inside the paper tell me so. Also, Crikey inadvertently omitted a key passage from yesterday’s column:
I had my suspicions [why the article was censored], including the fact that I had slammed Cater’s partner, Rebecca Weisser, for her series of factually inaccurate pieces in late 2006 about alleged anti-Israel bias at Macquarie University.
The bottom line is this: every paper has a right to determine what appears in its pages, but once an article is commissioned, and spurious reasons are given for its removal (especially on a subject like Israel/Palestine), we know the real agenda at work. The Australian has often presented viewpoints on the Zionist lobby that no other local paper has touched, and for this it should be commended. But if it wants to be taken seriously (which is difficult, as it still defends the Iraq war, as it supported Indonesia’s Suharto all those years ago), ignoring the gross human rights abuses of Israeli oppression merely contributes to greater hatred of the West.
Carter is full of shit.
First, he ignores that the piece was commissioned. And ff indeed, the issue of space is legitimate, then why are they commissioning more pieces then they require?
This is such a common theme among Israel’s amen corner, When they don’t like a piece or what someone has to say, they don;t address the argument, but simple accuse their target of poor scholarship.
They did it with M&S, dismissing the entire theses over some small issue, and subsequently insist that all other issues raised do not deserve attention. In the Case of Kimmy Carter’s book, Desrchowitz and Horowitz dismissed the book a piece of plagiarism (amusing coming from plagiarist extraordinaire Desrchowitz).
When Carter said he would correct one passage during this Brandeis speech, Desrchowitz was left with little to rebut and admitted that he was otherwise in agreement with Carter. So Desrchowitz was dismissing Cater’s whole book on the grounds of poor scholarship, when in fact, he only had a problem with the wording of one paragraph.
This just goes to illustrate how empty and shallow the critics are.
I think you mean Cater?
It wasn’t the passage about “Jewish-only roads” was it? LOL - coz I know that one caused a stir!
Personally, I often sense there is an undeclared war raging in newsrooms around the world (WaPo and NYT are the most obvious examples). One day perhaps we will learn what really goes on in these places. For example, why does the normally-decent SMH still publish crap by Gerard Henderson? Is it just for revenue, and if so, who is paying them? Do they think the public enjoy such manafuctured “debate”? Is this their idea of being “balanced”? Or is it a pay-off to unseen political pressures?
For example, anyone else notice how ABC or SBS News frequently follows up an evening of stories that are highly critical of the Bush or Howard governments with some much softer stories the next night? Is this self-censorship, self-preservation, or darker forces at work?
I hope to see Antony’s piece published by a more reputable news outlet. And I hope this sort of controversy only serves to generate even more interest in this important issue.
PS: I was very disappointed when Tim Dunlop was lured into a news.ltd blog and I have reached a point where I will not even click on a story from The Australian if it is available elsewhere (and even if it isn’t, mostly). The argument for a complete boycott of the Murdoch empire deserves serious consideration.
PPS:
You have to wonder if he was laughing as he wrote that. These journos are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, VERY cynical bunch.
Sure, and Bush’s appointment of John Bolton to the UN showed the USA’s commitment to international law.
I think she stole that line from Bush 41.
Sorry, it was of course Reagan, that other God of right-wing thinking.
Ant
Perhaps it is your basic misunderstanding of the conflict. You know, your belief that the Pals have a “right” of return, that Israel is required to move back to the 1949 Green Line and all your other fantasies?
In fact Carter’s lie about history, law, and even his own meetings are an absolute disgrace.
Viva,
Funny, we keep hearing about all these lies, plagiarism and mistakes in Carter’s book, yet none of his critics have actually been able to list what they are.
Like Norman Finkelstein illustrated in a recent speech, when confronted with obvious but incovenient truth, Zionists love to perpetuate the myth that the issues surrounding the Palestine/Israeli conflict are more complicated than they really are.
Welcome to the Orwellian world of the fundamentalist Zionist, who’s essential argument comes down to the notion that Israel’s existence is incumbent upon Israel being able to perpetrate human rights abuses and flout international law.
I’m not sure if ‘viva peace’ realizes the extent to which Israel’s existence is utterly dependent on US foreign policy. I think that unless the Israelis can overcome their deep racism, their well-armed and basically hideous little state is doomed.
Weisser’s articles are factually inaccurate and poorly written - but they will always be published in the Australian because she sleeps with the Editor. Simple as that.