A FLY ON THE NEWSROOM WALL

Writer 1: “Here's the Henry Gates story.”

Editor: “Hm. 'Black Professor Arrested Breaking into Own Home.'
Nope. Get rid of everything after 'Arrested.' And build him up some.”

“Famous Black Professor Arrested. . . “

“Can't you do better than 'famous'?”

“Uh. Very Famous Black. . . “

“Jesus! Do I have to think for you!”

Writer 1: "Prominent?"

(Sounds of mixed approval.)

Writer 2, inspired: “Eminent!”

Writer 1: "Great! Eminent Black. . . “

Editor: “It's okay, but 'Eminent' doesn't sound much better than famous to me. Is there something stronger?”

(Writers consult thesaurus.) “Preeminent!”

“What does that mean?”

“More than eminent. The greatest of the eminent.”

(Reading) “Greatest in importance or degree or significance or achievement. With superiority or distinction above others.”

“Now that's more like it! Better than anybody else.”

Writer 2: “What makes him preeminent?”

“I have no idea. Jesus! Don't you know how things work? And spice up “Professor.”

“Scholar?”

“Yes! Preeminent Black Professor and Scholar Henry Gates. . . “
Keep it coming.”

“Distinguished!”

“Good. Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Gates. . ."

“Henry Louis Gates.”

“Junior.”

“Okay: 'Preeminent Black Professor and Distinguished Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Arrested Entering Own Home.'”

“Let's fly with that.”

(A few minutes later. . .)

Writer 2: "Chief, something doesn't make sense to me. Last week you told us to take 'Black' out of 'Black Youth Arrested on Seven Rape Charges' but today you told us to say 'Black Professor'. I don't get it. They both got arrested."

"Christ. Who let you in here?"

The Case of the Missing Rabbis

“The Washington Post, NEW YORK, July 23 -- A two-year federal probe into a money laundering operation taking place between the New York area and Israel ballooned into one of the biggest bribery and corruption sweeps in New Jersey history, netting three northern New Jersey mayors, two members of the New Jersey Legislature, a raft of local officials, five rabbis, and a Brooklyn man accused of trafficking in human kidneys, U.S. prosecutors said today.
“FBI agents arrested 44 people in a series of morning raids, creating a dramatic scene of politicians and rabbis in traditional outfits handcuffed and being marched into the federal building in Newark, and then boarded onto a bus for the drive to the federal courthouse.”
“The arrested rabbis included Saul Kassin, the chief rabbi for the tight-knit Syrian Jewish community in the United States, and the chief rabbis of synagogues in Brooklyn and Deal, N.J. “

Doesn't that seem like a story that would be relished by American television? Dozens of prominent politicians paraded in front of cameras on their way to jail, juicy eye-catching pictures of handcuffed rabbis sporting black hats, long coats, and pigtails? I expected it to be the featured story on the evening news, but I looked in vain.

Now, class, can anyone tell me why the tale was overlooked, or dare we suggest suppressed, by the usually scandal-hungry media? Hint: Note the words “Israel” and “rabbis”.

I laughed when I learned that some published accounts referred only to “religious leaders”. You can be sure that if the “religious leaders” were Christian evangelists or Roman Catholic priests we would have seen them identified as such and pilloried on every evening news program in the United States.


Courtesy of Google, we can see how journalistic excitement over this story grew!

Obama versus Israel

This blog began in November 2006 with the question,“What is being omitted from the U.S. news reports that logically should be there?” What information is being omitted or distorted? It turns out that the purpose of most such censorship and misrepresentation was to protect Israel and further of the goals of the Zionist/Israel lobby. A particularly egregious example is occurring at present.

The president of the United States is directly confronting Israel with vigorous demands – demands, not coy suggestions – that the self-proclaimed Jewish state cease certain activities which are preventing a resolution of the “Palestinian issue” and are preventing a successful conclusion of the "peace process". These activities primarily involve the Jewish “settlements” beyond the Palestinian land already stolen in the name of Israel, as well as activities within Jerusalem. The activities are illegal, and break promises made to Bush administration.

In response to the unequivocal presidential demands, the Israeli government simply says, “No.” This brings to mind the image of a petulant little child balking at a direct parental order – but is the winner so easily predictable?

Have you noticed headlines or lead-ins to television news programs which trumpet this head-on conflict? I have not seen even a mention of it on TV or in the major news services – with this exception “Israel Rejects U.S. Call to Halt Jerusalem Project”. Other reports have appeared in relatively obscure places. . . even though President Obama has made his demands in interviews and public speeches. From the 'Jerusalem Post' I classify Israel's 'Jerusalem Post" as "obscure" because it is probably unknown to 99% of Americans.

It would appear that in this serious conflict the United States holds all the cards financially, diplomatically, and militarily, and yet the Israel lobby wields tremendous power over Congress and American politicians generally. Jewish pressure groups like AIPAC openly boast (more openly within Israel than in the U.S.) that they can get anything they want from Congress. A recent demonstration was the line-up of obedient senators and representatives who parroted support for Israel's barbaric invasion of Gaza in the exact same words conveniently supplied to them by their Zionist masters.

The question is, will Obama's determination be undermined by Congress, whose hand essentially controls the flow of money to Israel? What powers can a president exercise in such an international situation? Can Obama influence his own party more than a foreign nation's pressure groups can? This is a fascinating situation which would almost monopolize television news except for the Zionist desire for a blackout.

I predict that in American public commentary Obama will now be depicted – with never a reference to his confrontation of Israel –less and less as a knight in shining armor and more and more as a questionable adventurer in tarnished tin. Such a fate befell George Bush, Sr., when he tried to pressure Israel; almost overnight George the First tumbled from the bright star of the first Iraq war into the mud and lost his chance for the reelection that had seemed certain a few days before – while probably not one in a million Americans knew why he was suddenly demoted from darling to dodo.