Did you know the UN has only legally applied the term genocide to 3 events in history?
Do you know how journalists say “alleged” for criminals even when the crime is recorded and we can all literally see them do it?
These are all connected. They aren’t going to use a term with legal connotations. I dispute that they label the protesters as far left, or even left at all.
Now, in terms of this interview, I am still not getting the outrage. It’s about US policy, how is asking about an inflection point inappropriate? She’s literally asking “will the US finally stop supporting Israel?” She then explores that question and presses him on why he’d still support sending any weapons at all.
Did you know the UN has only legally applied the term genocide to 3 events in history?
Did you know that you only have to meet one of five criteria laid out by the UN Genocide Convention which are “‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’ These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly” [wiki]
Hiding behind it being a “legal definition” or what does or doesn’t get vetoed by the US is not an acceptable explanation for why a genocide is not a genocide. NPR doesn’t have to apply the word itself as a legal certainty in order to do a better job discussing the reality of what’s going on. NPR is not helping their legitimacy by speaking in euphemisms.
She’s literally asking “will the US finally stop supporting Israel?” She then explores that question and presses him on why he’d still support sending any weapons at all.
She doesn’t press him at all. She poses the most basic starting question and then accepts his response uncritically with no meaningful follow-up that challenges him. That’s terrible interviewing practice on a topic where we can all pretty clearly see the Israel is slaughtering civilians with US-supplied weaponry.
This is them simply having someone on to launder the facts for them and is precisely the kind of thing that’s problematic at NPR.
From the interview:
FADEL: I’m just curious what you think. As someone who has actually investigated this type of charge [genocide], is it an easy case to make?
CRANE: It’s not an easy case because you have to have that smoking gun. So, you know, I respectfully disagree with his approach on this. If you look at both parties in this tragedy that is unfolding, the prime minister of Israel has to specifically state that, I intend to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people. And I would suggest, respectfully, that that has not been said. […]
They aren’t acknowledging the genocide, they’re bringing someone on who is explicitly there to try and downgrade what is happening and make it seem like less than it is. He reveals his double standard right in the interview regarding Hamas, where suddenly his standard for genocidal intent is applied.
This despite IDF recording themselves brutalizing, humiliating and murdering civilians, making it impossible for them to flee, bulldozing cemeteries, bombing the only refuge Gazans have left, violently denying outside aid, luring Gazans out of supposed safe zones with recordings of screams and calls for help so that they can snipe the people who respond. Bombing hospitals, executing patients and family arbitrarily, leaving patients to die in their beds etc.
NPR routinely brings on guests who brush over this behavior by Israel and they do little to nothing to use those facts to challenge the narrative the guest is often trying to build or the assertions they make.
This interview is exactly the kind of two-faced horse shit I’m talking about. NPR has consistently editorialized this genocide to downplay it and then they have the nerve to pretend they’re being “fair and balanced”.
They’re describing what some other entity said, reporting it as an accusation. This does nothing to change the fact that their hosts and interviewers so often leave out critical information about this genocide and refuse to discuss it in that light, instead even now they present it as a “war”, which is certainly not.
I feel like you missed my entire point about phrasing everything as an allegation to cover themselves. I’m shocked you’re replying to what I said because what you’re saying feels like you haven’t read anything I’ve said. You also routinely cherrypick misleading quotes and ignore the follow up questions where they press the specific things you talk about.
Listen, if you want Jerry Springer-style screaming fights, don’t listen to NPR interviews. Idk what else to tell you. They aren’t going to press people 15x to get them to agree it’s genocide. One follow up question pressing them is all you get.
Who said anything about “Jerry Springer screaming fights”?
I’m saying when Israel is sniping children in the streets maybe NPR hosts should actually do their job and push back with the facts when one of their guests asserts (falsely) that genocide is too high a bar in this case because Israelis aren’t explicitly saying “We’re committing genocide”.
People have been so inundated with corporate infotainment bs that they can’t even distinguish journalism from straight propaganda.
It is their job to ensure those they interview are held to account when they misrepresent the facts and that they not slant the facts to favor some predisposed political notion they have.
You’re fixating on the specific term to avoid acknowledging the problem that I’m talking about.
I already did in the course of this conversation. Continuing to use the term “war” is one example, as I said. It is not a war, you cannot be at war with a territory you already occupy that has no statehood or military. Framing it as a war is very misleading.
And I even pointed out in your interviews how they are allowing twisting of the facts on air to go unchallenged.
Did you know the UN has only legally applied the term genocide to 3 events in history?
Do you know how journalists say “alleged” for criminals even when the crime is recorded and we can all literally see them do it?
These are all connected. They aren’t going to use a term with legal connotations. I dispute that they label the protesters as far left, or even left at all.
Now, in terms of this interview, I am still not getting the outrage. It’s about US policy, how is asking about an inflection point inappropriate? She’s literally asking “will the US finally stop supporting Israel?” She then explores that question and presses him on why he’d still support sending any weapons at all.
edit: here is literally an article on NPR talking about the meaning of genocide in this context: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214341050/prosecutor-weighs-in-on-whether-what-s-happening-in-gaza-is-genocide
Here’s another where they discuss Israel as an apartheid state: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/01/1077291879/israel-apartheid-state-amnesty-international
Did you know that you only have to meet one of five criteria laid out by the UN Genocide Convention which are “‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’ These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly” [wiki]
Hiding behind it being a “legal definition” or what does or doesn’t get vetoed by the US is not an acceptable explanation for why a genocide is not a genocide. NPR doesn’t have to apply the word itself as a legal certainty in order to do a better job discussing the reality of what’s going on. NPR is not helping their legitimacy by speaking in euphemisms.
She doesn’t press him at all. She poses the most basic starting question and then accepts his response uncritically with no meaningful follow-up that challenges him. That’s terrible interviewing practice on a topic where we can all pretty clearly see the Israel is slaughtering civilians with US-supplied weaponry.
This is them simply having someone on to launder the facts for them and is precisely the kind of thing that’s problematic at NPR.
From the interview:
They aren’t acknowledging the genocide, they’re bringing someone on who is explicitly there to try and downgrade what is happening and make it seem like less than it is. He reveals his double standard right in the interview regarding Hamas, where suddenly his standard for genocidal intent is applied.
This despite IDF recording themselves brutalizing, humiliating and murdering civilians, making it impossible for them to flee, bulldozing cemeteries, bombing the only refuge Gazans have left, violently denying outside aid, luring Gazans out of supposed safe zones with recordings of screams and calls for help so that they can snipe the people who respond. Bombing hospitals, executing patients and family arbitrarily, leaving patients to die in their beds etc.
NPR routinely brings on guests who brush over this behavior by Israel and they do little to nothing to use those facts to challenge the narrative the guest is often trying to build or the assertions they make.
This interview is exactly the kind of two-faced horse shit I’m talking about. NPR has consistently editorialized this genocide to downplay it and then they have the nerve to pretend they’re being “fair and balanced”.
They’re describing what some other entity said, reporting it as an accusation. This does nothing to change the fact that their hosts and interviewers so often leave out critical information about this genocide and refuse to discuss it in that light, instead even now they present it as a “war”, which is certainly not.
I feel like you missed my entire point about phrasing everything as an allegation to cover themselves. I’m shocked you’re replying to what I said because what you’re saying feels like you haven’t read anything I’ve said. You also routinely cherrypick misleading quotes and ignore the follow up questions where they press the specific things you talk about.
Listen, if you want Jerry Springer-style screaming fights, don’t listen to NPR interviews. Idk what else to tell you. They aren’t going to press people 15x to get them to agree it’s genocide. One follow up question pressing them is all you get.
Who said anything about “Jerry Springer screaming fights”?
I’m saying when Israel is sniping children in the streets maybe NPR hosts should actually do their job and push back with the facts when one of their guests asserts (falsely) that genocide is too high a bar in this case because Israelis aren’t explicitly saying “We’re committing genocide”.
People have been so inundated with corporate infotainment bs that they can’t even distinguish journalism from straight propaganda.
It is not the job of any journalist or publishing house to label something a genocide.
That responsibility belongs to the ICJ and UN.
Journalists report reality, they do not shape it.
It is their job to ensure those they interview are held to account when they misrepresent the facts and that they not slant the facts to favor some predisposed political notion they have.
You’re fixating on the specific term to avoid acknowledging the problem that I’m talking about.
Can you link to a single instance of NPR misrepresenting the facts to benefit the Netanyahu regime, or are you just talking out of your ass?
I already did in the course of this conversation. Continuing to use the term “war” is one example, as I said. It is not a war, you cannot be at war with a territory you already occupy that has no statehood or military. Framing it as a war is very misleading.
And I even pointed out in your interviews how they are allowing twisting of the facts on air to go unchallenged.
It was at this point, that he finally understood your argument and got frustrated.
I guess continue to only get your news from the Grey Zone or other sources who are willing to confirm your biases.
I don’t really give a fuck what you read or think.