<< HIGH KICKS FOR HICKS ~ MAIN ~ RANDOM MURDERS >>
MIND OPEN
SBS host George Negus criticises former Mossad chief Efriam Halevy for—get this—his partiality and closed-mindedness on Middle Eastern issues:
I understand what you are saying, sir, but I guess I could also say that somebody with your background is hardly coming at this situation with an open mind. You are partial.
Halevy responds with a similar observation, at which point Negus becomes offended:
Well, you don’t know me, sir, and I can guarantee you my mind is open on this matter.
Sure it is, George. Sure it is.
(Via Tony L.)
UPDATE. A press release from Labor MP Michael Danby, issued on July 14:
Efraim Halevy, former head of Mossad, accurately embarrassed SBS Dateline host George Negus when he criticised George Negus for the biased thrust of his questions. Halevy handled the interview well, as you would expect, but doing an antagonistic interview with an Israeli, to balance hysterical one sided graphic footage of the Dateline team sympathising with Palestinians in Gaza, is not what SBS television was funded for.
My friend the late Grisha Skolvsky, the founder of SBS, would be turning in his grave to see the lack of balance continually evident on programs like Dateline.
I challenge reporter Thom Cookes and presenter George Negus to go to Sderot and experience “Red Dawn” (the siren and bunker experience), as the 30,000 residents of Sderot have had to experience with the 1,000 Kassam missiles the Palestinians have launched since Israel’s disengagement.
George Negus leaves us in no doubt as to where the primary onus of responsibility for this tension between the Islamic world and the West should rest – firmly on the shoulders of Israel and the United States.
You cannot open a mind, that is permanently sealed.
I have found that when a person utters, I can guarantee you my mind is open , it isn’t.
Thanks for this Tim. I grew up watching George Negus on 60 minutes. I never realised he was such a bigot.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 19 at 01:00 PM • permalinkBernard Shaw on the subject of an open mind: “The open mind never acts: when we have done our utmost to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, we still. . . must close our minds for the moment with a snap, and act dogmatically on our conclusions.”
I think deciding to live rather than to die, to fight rather than to surrender, to pre-empt rather than to react - all of these fall well within reasonable grounds for “closing” the mind, in Shaw’s sense. It would be difficult to imagine a Mossad chief acting in any other way. Negus, if anything, is an even bigger boob than Fisk. The review of his book by Ted Lapkin would be sufficient to convince any man of normal intelligence never to take pen in hand again.
Negus, if anything, is an even bigger boob than Fisk
Yep. Negus is quite similar or in fact, in lock step (gosh, one could even use the 2 words, goose step) to those that post here…both recent and old. Left or Right.
This, is the part left(no pun intended)...when we have done our utmost to arrive at a reasonable conclusion...out for those of the Negus, Fisk, Cole, et al ‘thinkers’, ad infinitum.
How insulting to interview someone like that and then tell them at the end that you don’t trust anything they say. If he’s going to do that, he should do it when interviewing any politician. They’re all “partial.” Alternatively, he could just interview other journalists. That way, objectivity is guaranteed, right?
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 19 at 03:27 PM • permalinkThis Palestinian farmer who claims that “if he could, he would become [a suicide bomber] himself.” So whats stopping him? I’m sure Hamas must have a sign-up sheet of some sort. One of the many things that I have learned over the years following the Middle East is that Arabs when talking to the Western Media lie through their teeth.
Posted by Mark Razak on 2006 07 19 at 03:28 PM • permalinkI saw the interview (yes, I do flip over occasionally to see what SBS is saying). Negus was on the edge of his seat, as if the only thing preventing him from leaping up and shouting was some sort of restraint device on the chair. I honestly thought ‘ol George was gonna have an anurism.
HaLevy was the picture of calm—articulate and polite—making his points with aplomb and brevity.
Negus’ protestations regarding the openness of his mind were so transparently falsehoods that I was ashamed for him.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 19 at 03:59 PM • permalinkO/T: Oh yeah, figured I’d do the “profile” thingy.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 07 19 at 04:30 PM • permalinkThis interview gives us a good concrete example of the difference between an open mind, and a critical mind. The open mind treats all perceptions without the filter of context. Such a mind has been rendered incapable of forming an independent judgment from the swarm of unintegrated perceptions swirling around his breezy cavity. This is why he treats his emotions as cognitive elements, thus dooming himself to fearful hand-wringing and emotional outbursts.
Independent judgment requires a reasoning mind capable of critical thought.
A reasoning mind examines the evidence of his senses, places the facts of reality thus provided within a particular context, forms concepts from one’s percepts (i.e., defines what the facts are), and thereby gains understanding and the ability to form a judgment. If the reasoning mind has made a mistake, continued attention to the facts of reality will provide the evidence of that mistake and of the need to correct one’s thinking accordingly. Once one has gone through this process of critical thought, there is no need to keep chewing on the same facts of reality. The reasoning mind is now free to move on, shift the focus of its critical thought, or work on a greater understanding of the same topic. A reasoning mind is what makes all of human progress possible.
An open mind never moves on.
“Negus, if anything, is an even bigger boob than Fisk”
I doubt it. Fisk strikes me as a dull-witted, idealistic buffoon who is thoroughly confused about the realities of the modern world and whose moral indignation is largely envy with a halo. (H.G. Wells.).
Negus, however, is a cold, calculating, utterly amoral, entrepreneur who has become wealthy from stoking the fires of controversy and preying on the bigotry and prejudices of the feeble-minded and the naïve. Unfortunately we don’t know how much SBS Television is paying Negus Media International for the Dateline hate show, only that the Australian taxpayer is footing the bill.
On the one hand we have a fool, on the other an odious profiteer. Personally, I prefer the foolPosted by Prester John on 2006 07 19 at 05:47 PM • permalinkOK, back to serious stuff.
Have a gander at this piece in today’s Australian where there’s a screech and howl from one Peter Craven about how Australian publishers rejected a chapter of the late queen Patrick White’s turgid prose. And didn’t even have the good grace to be contrite when the author’s name was revealed.
Oh, the horror of being stuck in a place like Australia! They are all philistines (and yes, Craven uses that word a few times).
I don’t think Craven’s piece is parody, but if it is, please let me know.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 07 19 at 07:33 PM • permalink‘Seven Pillars of Inanity’ -the title of a great review of a Negus book that shows why no-one should buy it. A great review Negus should be ashamed to read, but is impervious to.
It must be Negus and at least 6 other Inanes at SBS who program the crude agitprop TV we so often see there.I’ll never forget Negus near Red Square about 1993 ranting about the evil of the nearby new McDonald’s store, emoting that there HAD to be a ‘third way’ that would preserve the best of Communism! Putin must be looking good to him about now.
Now Negus’s brilliant mind is turned to finding a third way that preserves all the ‘good’ of bin Laden, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Note Negus’ unprofessional use of usually anonymous third parties to make slurs while Negus pretends to be impartial:
“a report here from one of our correspondents (quoting) a Palestinian spokesman…”
“a farmer who said…”
“people are now beginning to (ask) whether this… is part of a plan, a master plan that has been in the Israeli military minds for quite some time, long before this (Shalit’s capture).”
“magazines as reputable as ‘The Economist’ are saying that…” (well, this one isn’t anonymous, for once)
“There are many commentators in the world, with an interest in peace in the Middle East, who are suggesting that this is all about wiping out Hamas as a government.” (Note how Negus pretends that only his favored commentators -anonymous- have an ‘interest in peace’.)
“Do you accept the fact – again of reliable and responsible commentators – that what has been going on in Gaza…amounts to a war crime?” (For Negus, ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ seem to be the same animal. And why are these commentators ‘reliable and responsible’ ?)
“And you don’t accept any suggestion from other sources that (Israel is evil)…”
And after all this, Negus guarantees he has an ‘open mind’.
Negus has form on this third-party assertion technique. Remember his question to Maggie Thatcher, “Some people say you are ruthless and autocratic….” and her peremptory reply, “Name them!”. (Can’t be sure of exact wording, but it is pretty right).Negus’ clumsy ad hominem attack suggests he’d lost control of the interview; ie, he couldn’t catch Halevy out in any major way. It strikes me as extremely bitchy and unprofessional to then acuse someone of being partial. Surprise, he’s being interviewed from the Israeli perspective. I’m sure George interviewing a member of Hezbollah or the Lebanese government might perhaps illicit slight anti-israeli bias.
As for Negus saying he has an open mind on this issue, that one is worthy of a Media Watch investigation.
#35 OT, but strangely relevant.
The craven Craven defends White as “In Australian terms, he is a colossus of Shakespearean proportions”.
Poor Oz. Naah, Shakespeare is a riveting read, White bores and irritates.
Craven says the chapter rejected [50 pages!] is ‘dramatic’. That’s the problem, since White was a very, very boring dramatist too.
I saw several of his plays and it put me off more of his prose.I KNOW Shakespeare. White, you ain’t no Shakespeare.
I want a blinking font for this site…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 19 at 08:53 PM • permalink#37
I barely remember it, but he tried the same thing on Margaret Thatcher once and was completely bitchslapped.
It went something like:
Negus: “Mrs Thatcher, many people have said you are blah blah blah”
Thatcher: “Who said that?”
Negus: “mumble mumble”
Thatcher: “Who? Give me their names. Who are they? Who are these “people” you are quoting”.
She called Negus’ bluff well and truly.
#3 - He’s a prick.
In 1987, the English writer Hilary Mantel won the inaugural Shiva Naipaul award for travel writing from The Specator for her piece about spending a year in Saudi Arabia. She concluded:
I knew that the journey upstairs to my [Arab] neighbour’s flat had been, for me, a significant one. I had been offered a friendship I could not accept. It was a chance to build a bridge; but I thought, no, you swim to my side. My values were changing. When I traveled at first I used to ask what I could get out of it, and what I could give back. What could I teach, and what could I learn? I saw the world as some sort of exchange scheme for my ideals, but the world deserves better than this. When you come across an alien culture you must not automatically respect it. You must sometimes pay it the complement of hating it.
Just imagine our George getting his mind around that idea.
Posted by David Morgan on 2006 07 19 at 09:27 PM • permalinkI doubt Negus questioned the partiality of the two Pro-Arab speakers he interviewed (seperatley) last night - one a Lebanese journalist (who was updating him on reports from Al-Jazeera..another “impartial and open minded source”) and the other a Jordanian Prince who called for Israeli restraint, saying that force will not resolve the situation & destroy a terrorist group like Hezbollah…abit rich coming from someone whose country solved its Palestinian problem by masscering 11,000 palestinians 20 years earlier.
I don’t doubt that Negus has an “open mind,” seeing that his brain has fallen out.
Wasn’t Negus the chap who proclaimed, in effect, that Australia and Australians weren’t worthy of him and that he was taking his family off to live in Italy.
Later he, well, sort of drifted back. My recollection, which may be faulty, is that he pulled this sort of dummy spit not once but twice. If true, then it puts him in a special category of self indulgence and self confusion, well above that of your normal celeb para-intellectual.
Like Willessee and the late Richard Carelton, Negus is a relic of the Fraser era, I’m suprised anyone still takes any notice of him.
Posted by Consuela Potez on 2006 07 19 at 09:51 PM • permalinkBold & underlining problem fixed. The long url that was stretching this page out has been removed.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 19 at 10:02 PM • permalinkNegus is as red as a baboon’s bum, and has been for over thirty years.
Any party bandwagon that is anti US, anti West, or anti Israel, George will jump aboard.
Why do our so called national broadcasters employ all these ageing Commos?
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 07 19 at 10:41 PM • permalinkThis Negus of whom you speak makes me proud of my Australian heritage. Clearly it is a great and magnanimous country that will tolerate a bigoted dolt of this sort and allow him to remain free and squawking, on the public dime, no less. How can it be that John BushliteMcHowtlerwheatforoil, Bush’s wallaby, handshaker of Jews, has not requested that his American masters abduct this man and take him to the infidel dog Crusader gulag at Guantanamo?
Would like to add my gratitude to Pedro the Ignorant for taking me back to the ancestral island with evocative phrases such as “red as a baboon’s bum.”
Posted by crittenden on 2006 07 19 at 11:11 PM • permalinkTalking of pilks…did anyone see the painful appearance of Loewenstein on Lateline last night? What struck me most was his immaturity as a thinker. Transcript here
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 07 20 at 12:26 AM • permalinkSome minds are best opened with a Barrett…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 07 20 at 12:38 AM • permalink#53: The bizarre headline to the transcript, written post-program, of course, says it all: ‘Pro-Israel lobby: helping or hindering policy making?’
Ted Lapkin starts out defending the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ and ends up having to defend the very existence of Israel. Do you support the existence of Israel? is the question that every member of the commentariat who opposes Israel’s efforts to defend itself will ultimately have to answer, as today’s Australian editorialises.
Thanks for this Tim. I grew up watching George Negus on 60 minutes. I never realised he was such a bigot.
I realised he was a prize turd 20 years ago when he ws reported in Women’s Weekly as saying that he wasn’t going to tell his newborn daughter (he had recently acquired a lemon cheesecake, having decided the old tart was stale) about Santa because that was a lie and it was better to be truthful. Prat.
Posted by walterplinge on 2006 07 20 at 01:22 AM • permalink#50 How can it be that John BushliteMcHowtlerwheatforoil, Bush’s wallaby, handshaker of Jews, has not requested that his American masters abduct this man and take him to the infidel dog Crusader gulag at Guantanamo?
Well, um, to be honest, we lost that Official Directive sheet when we lost Stoop Davy Dave. We suspect SDD is dallying somewhere in the Outback with the directive folded up and stuffed into his shoe.
So let’s just say it’s “in the works”. I appreciate if you wouldn’t mention this to Karl. Cuz, he has a lot of other pressing matters on his mind.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 20 at 06:07 AM • permalink#58 Oh…uh, sorry bout that Wronwright. How uNYTactful of me. Well, when Stoop figures it out, allow me suggest the cell next to the one St. Mom is hungerstriking in as this terrible time of Angloppression drags on.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 07 20 at 09:18 AM • permalink#46—thanks, Andrea! Why don’t you just hang onto that Zulu spear hereafter; I’m sure wronwright will be glad to give it to you as a reward for your tireless service here.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 07 20 at 09:28 AM • permalinkHell no. I’m going to steal back my spear. The woman gots to sleep, she’s got to go to work. She can’t be there watching it all the time. I’m patient, I will wait for the right time. Then STRIKE!
I intend to take Bertha too. Hell, I might just unload Andrea’s household of all valuable articles.
I hope she stocks 2 ply.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 07 20 at 12:45 PM • permalinkSome Paddy McGuinness gems from the latest Quadrant editorial. On the appointment of Mark Scott as MD of the ABC:
“So the ABC remains in safe hands. There is no revolutionary, no ideologue, no hot-eyed burning reformer, to disturb its ageing and placid dissemination of the small-l liberal platitudes and soft leftism of the last thirty years. The loony feminists, the look-at-me homosexuals, the ecumenical searchers for the meaning of life, the anti-Catholics, the advocates of Papuan independence, the supporters of Fidel Castro and similar Third World dictators and murderers, the America- haters, can rest secure. So can the Howard-haters, long protected by McDonald at the ABC. After all, Scott has allowed the Age to dispose of any semblance of balance, not even pretending to occasional balance on the opinion page (but, like the SMH, never in the news or letters pages).
Why the tolerance of the Howard-haters? Why does McDonald, one of the PM’s closest friends, not get upset by this? Perhaps simply because he knows, as Joh Bjelke-Petersen knew in his day, that every hyperbolic outpouring of hate and prejudice by the ABC is votes in the ballot box for the Coalition side.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=2092
Wron: for your comfort, the one-ply with the texture of fine sandpaper will be provided.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 07 22 at 10:49 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
One should not have such an “open mind” that one’s brain falls out.