Hacker News Reader

As I mentioned below, I find it disingenuous that people often use the term 'anti-semitic' when they mean 'anti-Israel', as if any judgement on the actions of the state of Israel automatically implies hate of Jewish people.

Not only that. Jewish people are not the only Semites. Arabs are Semites too. The word anti-semitic has totally lost all of its literal meaning, much like the word hacker.

Antisemitism has never meant racism directed at Semitic peoples in general. It has a very specific meaning. Not only that, but 'hacker' doesn't have a literal etymological meaning ('hacker' is derived from...?).

This whole comment thread has me extremely disappointed with HN.

Anti-Semitism is a term that, in the western culture, is used to mean anti-jewish. When you treat it literally, you are ignoring a long and established history associated with it. See this for much more articulate explanation than mine:

http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/12/16/arabs_and_an...

<quote> anti-Semitism is not the optimal term for anti-Jewish sentiment, among other things because there are other Semites than Jews, but it is the one we have, and comes with a long history and a well-established meaning. Rather than critiquing the term or coining a neologism to substitute for it, speakers of English should simply understand the term's history and commonly accepted definition and use it accordingly. </quote>

edit: corrected typos

This is -- pardon my french -- either the most dishonest or the most uninformed argument that has been made on this topic so far.

I don't think it's either, just a rant about how natural languages need to MAKE SENSE DAMMIT!

It's a common failure among the half-educated.

Heh! I had so far restrained myself from adding to the thread. But it tickles me a great deal to see how just an observation can fuel nay-saying and name calling. I never made a moral judgment and neither am I ignorant of the typical use of the word. But was not aware that such usage ruled out making observations that the well used and common rule of "anti-blah" does not apply in this case. Then I added another example were words sometimes do not mean what they are supposed to mean. Oh the outrage, I wonder were it comes from :).

<tongue in cheek> If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it. </tongue in cheek>

* If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it.*

I know it's tongue in cheek and all, but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently, so for the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_num...

Summary: 226 million "native" speakers of English, plus 90 million with English as a second language. I'd suggest that the canonical English accent is actually American. And whilst it is true that India will probably overtake the US in this regard in the not too distant future, they too will probably be eclipsed by the Chinese (http://www.economist.com/node/6803197?story_id=6803197) before that happens.

Regardless, the traditional anglo-saxon countries will hold sway as the main proponents of English for a long time, as aside from the US there is also the UK (60-odd million), Canada(35 million), Australia(20-odd million), New Zealand (5 million), and South Africa (50 million) to throw into the mix, giving a total of somewhere around 500 million native speakers.

Whoa! No way India has 226 million "native" speakers of English. It still would be under a quarter million. But upvoted for checking. Tongue was very much in my cheek in my previous comment, so all can rest easy :)

  but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently

I havent heard it before and that is indeed strange given that I am Indian.

:D Yup, I read it wrong... 226 000, not 226 million. Which means that India has a looooong way to go before getting to number one!

It's more like "black," which comes from a PIE root meaning "to burn," and is thus closely related to the word "bleach."

You can't look at the roots of a word and declare it "wrong" because it doesn't precisely match the original usage. That would wipe out a lot of everyday language.

Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Jewish, but some can be. Just because someone claims an anti-Israel group is anti-Jewish, don't assume that they would whitewash all Israel critics as anti-Jewish.

It's obviously not the case that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. However, it should be equally obvious that some is; surely the anti-Semites that do exist will criticize Israel. So the question is how to distinguish the legitimate criticism from the anti-Semitic criticism. I don't have an answer to this question, unfortunately. One (flawed) test that's often proposed is to see whether the criticism is proportional to Israel's wrongdoings as compared to the wrongdoings of other countries.

In any case, while I agree with what you're saying, quite often people say pretty much the same thing as a sort of misdirection to deflect criticism of their own criticism of Israel, no matter how unfair or misleading or just plain dishonest it is. If you go read some reddit comments on Israel you'll see anti-Semitism mentioned at least an order of magnitude more frequently by Israel's critics than by Israel's defenders.

I criticize the Indian government all the time. But I find it strange that for my criticisms to be taken seriously I also have to criticize all other countries equally. I may be the most anti Indian person in the world, but should that discredit my criticism if its valid ?

I got thrown off by the terminology "anti-Semitic criticism". From the context it seems to mean: criticism by an "anti Semitic" person, you probably meant "criticism that has no truth in it". Why cloud matters then, with terminology that is already too loaded to begin with ?

Well, are you Indian or Pakistani? The unspoken condition of that test (which I already stated is imperfect) is that the person not have a direct personal connection to that country. I wouldn't necessarily call a Palestinian preoccupied with criticizing Israel anti-Semitic; I'd be a little more inclined to wonder about the motives of, say, a Belgian.

George Clooney is an American of Irish descent. Does his interest in Sudan (to which he seems to have little "personal connection") make you wonder about his motives?

No, it doesn't. There's a genocide on the order of millions going on there. Not really a fair comparison to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And for the third time, I don't think it's a good test and I don't really like being put in the position of defending it. My mention of it was descriptive, not prescriptive.

Yes, occupying and imprisoning an entire nation with military force and keeping them in poverty is in a totally different league than genocide.

>From the context it seems to mean: criticism by an "anti Semitic" person, you probably meant "criticism that has no truth in it"

Sorry, my other comment skipped this question. What I mean by anti-Semitic criticism is criticism motivated by anti-Semitism, and, separately, criticism that attempts to exploit the emotional weight of the Holocaust (e.g. "the Zionists are the new Nazis" or subtler variations thereof).

The former of these might be legitimate criticism in some cases, yes, but tends not to be, and even when it is, bear in mind that most people are totally clueless about the world. If Joe Sixpack hears ten times as much criticism of Israel as Saudi Arabia, he'll assume that Israel is much worse than Saudi Arabia, even though this is clearly not true (unless you happen to be a Wahhabi Muslim, I guess). I remember hearing of a survey conducted in China where Chinese on the street were asked how big they thought Israel was and some answered that it was probably about as big as China. I can't find it, but I did find an article where the Chinese ambassador to Israel describes something similar: "I explain to [other Chinese] that Israel only has seven million residents – barely a small town in China," he says. "They find it hard to believe. I understand them." (source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3961612,00.html)

while they worked for BBC, they were unbiased; but the moment they started working for AJ

The BBC is generally regarded as being anti-Israel: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-fights-to-sup...

When people say a news source is "unbiased" they really mean "agrees with me".

But you see, everyone has problems with BBC. Israeli think it's anti-Israel, Putin says it's anti-Russian. In reality though it's simply not pro-Israel or pro-Russian. Just telling the truth infuriates lots of people.

It is possible to be both anti-Israel and anti-Russian, y'know. The idea that the BBC is any more "truthy" than any other news source is laughable; they're all run by humans after all. And the BBC recruits most of its staff through one route, the media section in the Guardian, which no-one would claim is anything other than a left-wing paper. It could, for example, balance it out by recruiting 50% via the Graun's big rival, the Daily Mail, but it doesn't.

So all news sources are equally truthy? There's no such thing as perfect objectivity, but there are shades of gray.

You need to look for a news source that is financially incentivized to do "just the facts". Organization such as Reuters, AP, AFP etc sell "raw news" to TV stations and newspapers, which then put their own editorial on it. The same Reuters feed goes into the BBC as goes into Sky News. So if you really care, just read Reuters and make up your own mind.

But just because analysis implies some point of view or bias doesn't mean it's not valuable. I'd rather get a variety of editorial viewpoints than just straight facts for which I may not have sufficient context.

After all, Reuters would never doctor a photo, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controve...

They caught him and they fired him...

Standard procedure in the industry - the Times have the Educational supplement, the Graun have the MediaGraun (Sky, for example, also pushes the majority of recruitment requests through it. I'd also argue that the T is the more direct competitor.). Much is also put in trade papers like Broadcast.

>It could, for example, balance it out by recruiting 50% via the Graun's big rival, the Daily Mail, but it doesn't.

I don't think hiring through a tabloid newspaper would help the integrity of the company. You could have at least said the Telegraph.

The Mail is as far to the right as the Graun is to the left, the Torygraph is centre-right. Not to mention that the Graun is s tabloid now...

The Guardian is not a tabloid newspaper. The Telegraph is a broadsheet.

The Guardian is also not as far left as the Mail is right, although that is objective and could be debated all day.

I think you mean subjective. Unless like the typical Graun reader you believe that it's everyone else that's biased...

I think it's called a "Berliner"....

Right. They are also taking turns at being anti-Sudanese, anti-Iranian, anti-Indian and anti-US. Just pick your preference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

How are those mutually exclusive?

I agree with the thrust of your comment in general; however, you're mistaken on one point:

>the staff was almost entirely made up of BBC MiddleEast service people. So while they worked for BBC, they were unbiased; but the moment they started working for AJ, they became biased and completely untrustworthy!!

The BBC is well-known for anti-Israel bias, and there have been investigations to that effect. Here's an article about a long-running legal battle to get the BBC to disclose a report on its ME coverage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/11/balen-report-bbc...; here's some background info on said report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balen_Report.

Edit: I honestly don't care about my HN karma, but I am curious to know why this was downvoted. I provided relevant information in a civil manner. I'd really feel better if someone could provide an explanation other than that people are using HN downvotes like reddit downvotes now. :/

I notice that your comment has been downvoted, so lest you think so, it is not me. I followed your links, and what I found is this: A media corporation refuses to disclose a report on an internal investigation on how it conducts its affairs. Yes, it bothers me that a public service body is stonewalling about an internal report. But when I transfer the setup to US say, it is not what I would call, unheard of.

I am certainly willing to concede, that it is not transparent, but isnt calling them to possess a "well-known" anti-Israel bias exaggerated ?

Well, I was trying to err on the side of caution with my sources, and I may have overdone it. There are more direct articles but from less reputable sources, like this one [1]. I don't know how to justify that something is well-known; Bing has 12 million hits for "bbc anti-israel" (without quotes), if that helps.

BTW, the BBC is a public organization, not a private corporation. It's estimated that they spent 200,000 pounds to keep the report from being disclosed. I don't know why they'd spend that kind of money to hide a report that didn't reveal bias - though I'm open to alternative explanations.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-451138/Report-BBCs-a...

>Do you think Americans are that stupid that they won't see antisemitism? Do you think we're little children who can't think for ourselves?

Well that's the thing, perhaps those who have had the opportunity to carry Al Jazeera decided not to on the prediction that it would not be watched, and decided to avoid any financial loss by not taking the risk.

>Plus: when Al Jazeera started, the staff was almost entirely made up of BBC MiddleEast service people. So while they worked for BBC, they were unbiased; but the moment they started working for AJ, they became biased and completely untrustworthy!!

No one ever said the BBC was immune from being biased. You're right, it's unlikely that the same people automatically went from being non-biased to biased, so if Al-Jazeera is biased, that just means the BBC had been biased all along.

"Do you think Americans are that stupid that they won;t see antisemitism" Do you think we're little children who can't think for ourselves."

Yes.

To imply that the media has no influence on the general mass of population is ignorant at best. There is a reason most governments censor the media, seed the media with favorable information or outright ban them: they move people to action.

> when Al Jazeera started, the staff was almost entirely made up of BBC MiddleEast service people.

And many people believe that the BBC is biased when it comes to covering Israel.

For example: http://honestreporting.com/bbc-responds-to-flotilla-inquiry-...

True, but pick any notion and there would be some people who believe that. The question is whether the belief is correct or not. Correctness is hard to determine in the absolutes. It is a skill that adults usually acquire to a lesser or greater degree from experience and corroboration.

Since it's a difficult skill, like it or not the identity of the group espousing the belief does play a role in coloring the credibility. It is one of the multitude of variables by which human's judge potential correctness. My personal coefficient for BBC is higher than most of US cable news (and honestreporting.com as well). The coefficients are issue specific too, though there is a certain issue independent component that different issues inherit from the base.

It so happens that there are issues that I care about, for which there are no US main stream source that has significantly positive coefficient. It is for (not uncommon) situations like this that I need alternative sources like Al Jazeera. In addition to un-affiliated blogs

Quite an intelligent response. I appreciate it.

If you're looking for a solid US based news agency, I would suggest PBS news. They have a pretty high 'coefficient' in my book. They've been covering the various Arab riots quite extensively.

Main site: http://www.pbs.org/newshour

Nightly news: http://video.pbs.org/program/979359630/

That may be; but the point is: no one is calling for banning the same BBC here (in the US). Here we accept BBC with open arms, NPR and PBS carry BBC news. I was calling out this double-standard.