Israel and the Middle East

[DanOregon]

Sadly, I don't see a "point" to the the entire thing. You go back to when Israel was created following WWII, the European powers created the state with no thought to the consequences. I guess I just don't understand the benefit to anyone at this point. Palestinians, Arabs, Jews. There are no "winners." There are no solutions. The enmity is part of the DNA of the region.

 

[Azrael]

So here is a different kind of interview. I'd describe it as Not only sympathetic to Coates but to the conceit of the essay, which is, again, that it is purposefully imbalanced because the Israeli perspective has had enough airing.

Here's how the interview with Alex Wagner ends.

Host: "You know, it's like, something happens in the world and society when you put a new book out and I know it isn't without - a lot of people have a lot of thoughts on it, it's an essential read right now, it's so great to have you writing non-fiction again. We love when you write fiction and movies and comics and all the rest, but great to have you on the program."

Coates: "Well, hopefully we'll get more Palestinian voices and you won't need me. You won't need me to do this. I'll be happy to give it up."

Host: "The wheel turns slowly, my friend. Until then, you are a great interlocutor for the cause."

Thoughts on the journalism here?

Wagner as bad as Dokoupil, but editorializing in the opposite direction. (At least in primetime, MSNBC has become the anti-Fox. I'll say though, that I now expect this kind of bias in cable news.)

But the legacy network news divisions - and their morning shows - hew to the older standards, which accounts, I think, for the CBS troubles.

That Israel has built an 'apartheid' state is not a new idea by any means, so some of the shock or upset around Coates's book is poorly informed or performative.

Coates is correct about the failure of journalism in covering Israel.

 

[Azrael]

What, did she say the quiet part out loud?

Until then, you are a great interlocutor for the cause."​

Like you, I'm curious what Wagner means when she says "the cause."

 

[LanceyHoward]

I suppose it depends how you feel about Coates being interviewed on a morning show about such a provocative essay. It's 100 pages long, from a book called The Message - certainly a religious-sounding title - and the essay is notably, purposefully one-sided.

So what if the essay is one=sided? Lots of books are deliberately one-sided because the author is attempting to sell his point-of-view. Do you advocate that the only books that are written attempt to be balanced? If an interviewer wants to challenge the book fine, due it through questions, not editorial statements.

And, if Dokoupil was interviewing an author who was taking a pro-Israeli point-of-view would he have started with a statement about Israeli bombing campaigns killing Palestinian children?

 

[Alma]

Wagner as bad as Dokoupil, but editorializing in the opposite direction. (At least in primetime, MSNBC has become the anti-Fox. I'll say though, that I now expect this kind of bias in cable news.)

But the legacy network news divisions - and their morning shows - hew to the older standards, which accounts, I think, for the CBS troubles.

Journalism is journalism, isn't it, regardless of the channel on the dial?

Coates is correct about the failure of journalism in covering Israel.

Failure as of when? After all, Coates' essay is getting a lot of coverage.

 

[Azrael]

Journalism is journalism, isn't it, regardless of the channel on the dial?

Ideally, sure.

In a vacuum or a laboratory all journalism would be the same. Disinterested.

But we don't live in a vacuum or a laboratory. We live in a world of McCormicks and Hearsts and Murdochs, Sulzbergers and Sarnoffs, Sinclairs and Bezos and everything / everyone in between.

Failure as of when? After all, Coates' essay is getting a lot of coverage.

With its thumb on the scale for one side or the other, I think the failures of mainstream US journalism when it comes to Israel likely go back to the 19th century.

 

[Alma]

So what if the essay is one=sided? Lots of books are deliberately one-sided because the author is attempting to sell his point-of-view. Do you advocate that the only books that are written attempt to be balanced? If an interviewer wants to challenge the book fine, due it through questions, not editorial statements.

Oh, he asked a question. That part was left out of a previous post, but after the "backpack of an extremist" line, the CBS reporter said the following:

"And so I found myself wondering - why Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I've known a long time, read his work for a long time, very talented, smart guy - leave out so much? Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by so many countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terrorist groups that want to eliminate it? Why not detail anything of the first or second intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits? And is it because you just don't believe Israel, in any condition, has a right to exist?"

After Coates answers, here's the second question the CBS reporter asked: "But if you were to read this book, you would be left wondering, why does any of Israel exist? What a horrific place, committing horrific acts, on a daily basis. So I think the question is central and key, if Israel has a right to exist? And if your answer is no, then I guess the question becomes: Why do the Palestinians have a right to exist? Why do 20 different Muslim countries have a right to exist?

The first part of Coates answer, and this is notable: "My answer is no country in this world establishes its ability to exist through rights. Countries establish their ability to exist through force, as America did. So I think the question of 'right to,' - Israel does exist. It's a fact. The question of its right is not a question I'd be faced with with any other country."

In a sense, the interview cuts right to the gist of his essay. It's an one-sided essay. It's purposefully so. Israel is portrayed in a difficult light. Why? Coates says why - I did not quote that answer here but it's online - and then, when pressed to explain his thoughts on the very existence of Israel, Coates provides his philosophy on that, too - "countries establish their ability to exist through force, as America did."

That these things transpired in a slightly heated way, rather Coates sitting down for extended minutes with Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah to give more relaxed answers, is more a function of a 7-minute morning show interview than anything.

 

[Alma]

Ideally, sure.

In a vacuum or a laboratory all journalism would be the same. Disinterested.

But we don't live in a vacuum or a laboratory. We live in a world of McCormicks and Hearsts and Murdochs, Sulzbergers and Sarnoffs, Sinclairs and Bezos and everything / everyone in between.

Sure but it's like we're saying whatever Alex Wagner is trying to say there with "for the cause" is more understandable journalistically because it's cable news?

The line got virtually no attention on social media. (Maybe because few people saw it.) I just picked an interview on YouTube that wasn't a comedian (Stewart, Noah) to use, found that, and, by the end of it heard "for the cause."

The CBS interview got a lot of attention, and I think here's why: Because it didn't foll ow the script that people expect CBS or ABC or NBC morning shows to follow in which an author is invited to promote his book. He is instead asked, aggressively, to defend his central thesis. I can't imagine it's what Coates expected - though he was quick on his feet - and we know it's not what CBS wanted.

 

[Azrael]

Sure but it's like we're saying whatever Alex Wagner is trying to say there with "for the cause" is more understandable journalistically because it's cable news?

I'm not saying that at all.

I am saying that between the hours of 8 and 11 PM Monday through Friday on MSNBC and FoxNews we have come to expect left/right opinion journalism/agitprop.

If Alex Wagner is activism, what's Hannity?

 

[Alma]

I'm not saying that at all.

I am saying that between the hours of 8 and 11 PM Monday through Friday on MSNBC and FoxNews we have come to expect left/right opinion journalism/agitprop.

If Alex Wagner is activism, what's Hannity?

An idiot. Who's defending him? Also, he didn't interview Coates. Wagner did.

 

[Azrael]

An idiot. Who's defending him? Also, he didn't interview Coates. Wagner did.

MSNBC is to Fox as Wagner is to Hannity.

From 8 to 11pm it's the cable news primetime opinion page.

It's not necessarily journalism.

It's activism.

 

[Azrael]

And is it because you just don't believe Israel, in any condition, has a right to exist?"

ASo I think the question is central and key, if Israel has a right to exist? And if your answer is no, then I guess the question becomes: Why do the Palestinians have a right to exist? Why do 20 different Muslim countries have a right to exist?

Israel does exist. It's a fact. The question of its right is not a question I'd be faced with with any other country."

Coates is correct here.

"Does Israel have the right to exist?" is a non-question. (In the same way "Israel has the right to defend itself" is a non-answer.)

Both are meant to end a conversation, not encourage one.

That Dokoupil found a way to ask the same non-question twice is telling.