<< MONGERER SLAMS MONGERING ~ MAIN ~ COOKED >>
RULE TEN: DO NOT REVEAL THE NINE RULES
Michael Rosenberg reveals the nine secret rules of journalism. Rule #1:
Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted; then, after the afflicted become comfortable, afflict them again. This should provide an endless supply of news stories.
(Via Dylan Kissane)
More Rules of (Modern) Journalism:
1. The Left is always right, and the Right is always wrong.
2. Anyone you disagree with shall be deemed a “Right-wing” - hence both free-market Ronald Reagan and hard-line Kremlin Communists both got defamed as “Right-wing”.
3. Aborigines never do anything wrong, ever, despite their incarceration rates.
4. Never fail to report an enviro-scare, irrespective of the facts.
5. Forget about ever being a reporter if you are a female conservative.
6. Property developers are always bad; environmental protestors are always good.
7. Give puff-ball questions to Enviromentaltists, Leftists, Feminists and Islamicists - but argue with and talk over everyone else.
8. Use the ‘polar bears on melting ice’ photo - tut, tut, Tele, you did it AGAIN today!
9. Gun-owners are always evil sickos; gun-control nuts are always saints.
10. Business is always bad, unions are always good.
11. The UN can do no wrong.
12. The views of celebrities can be substituted for actual informed opinion.
13. Everything wrong with the Middle East is Israel’s fault.
14. Everything else is George Bush’s fault.
Posted by Apparatchik on 2007 06 05 at 12:52 AM • permalinkI agree with number 3 on the original list. It seems if 90,000 people die in a pakistan earthquake, it is news for 2 days. If 9 people are killed by a US tornado, we get to see google earth images of every square foot of destruction plastered for days. The unfortunate VT shootings is another case in point - shocking, where 33 people died. How many died that day in bomb blasts in the middle east? How many died from aids in 1 african country that day? How many died from (insert cause) elsewhere?
I’m sorry my american friends, but these are facts - well, would you believe my perception, which is just as good as fact in MY mind ... :)
When I visited your fine country and read a few newspapers, I searched long and hard for international news, sports and weather.
Your papers had 5 - count them, 1,2,3,4 and 5 - on college football. FIVE pages! It had about 2 pages on world news, which largely consisted of places where the US was trying to do the right thing but being pissed on by everyone else, and the weather seemed to stop at Mexico.
Do you guys still get taught WW2 started in 1941?
....
#6, peter m:
Do you guys still get taught WW2 started in 1941?
For us it did. If others had been better able to handle their own problems prior to ‘41, there’d have been no WW2.
And as to your perception about us not being so terribly concerned with what’s going on in your favorite places, could be because they don’t matter to us.
As most humans everywhere, we tend to be most concerned about those things that interest us or impact our daily lives. Indulging in the miseries of foreign places simply to indulge in the misery of foreigners is a rather weird obsession we continually get accused of not having.
#6 peter m
When I visited your fine country and read a few newspapers, I searched long and hard for international news, sports and weather.
Consider the respective size and importance of the United States in relation to the newsworthyness of particular items.
How often do you see reports in the Tele or even the broadsheets about Fiji or Tuvalu or Samoa or PNG or East Timor or any like countries? How often do you see reports if Australian troops AREN’T there!?
Go to any of these countries and they will use exactly the same arguments against Australia as Asutralians (and other) use against the US media.
So a bit of perspective on this issue, please pete!
Posted by Apparatchik on 2007 06 05 at 01:57 AM • permalinkPete m: Actually, your journeys should be much more focused on what’s of local and regional concern, rather than gloaming onto whatever silly crap we’re up to in the US.
But, again, that’s not our problem. We have no control over our own journeys, let alone control over alls foreign type ones.
Oh, and feel free to drop that silliness about when WW2 started. It became a World War once the world got involved. Until then it was nothing more than the usual regional conflicts that were simply mismanaged by the usual suspects and allowed to grow into something monstrous.
It wasn’t until the US was attacked that the pac and euro regional conflicts were tied together into a comprehensive global conflict.
So, for the record, WW2 actually did start on Dec 7, 1941.
You know, for gits and shiggles, I just decided to look at the Fall 2006 course offerings at Columbia School of Journalism. I grabbed this one at random:
Principles of Economics and Financial Reporting
Instructor: Robin Schatz
Thurs., 7-9 p.m.
Once a journalistic backwater, the business beat is now one of the hottest around, as stories about globalization, the misdeeds of Enron and Arthur Andersen and the bursting of the Internet bubble have leapt off the business pages into the public consciousness. This course will introduce the basic tools and terms of business journalism so you can start reporting business stories with confidence—and enhance your non-business reporting, as well. Over ten weeks, we’ll get an overview of the different beats business journalists cover, how they develop sources and analyze data, and you’ll meet with reporters and editors from the major business press. You’ll increase your comfort level using charts, graphs, financial reports and economic indicators and learn how to utilize online resources effectively. There will be a major emphasis on writing lively, well-crafted stories that explain business concepts without relying upon the twin crutches of jargon and cliché. <cliché>Using New York City as our laboratory</cliché>, we’ll <cliché>dig into local industries</cliché> and learn how <cliché>to ferret out</cliché> great stories about small businesses.See, in the topsy-turvy world of journalism, you apparently avoid clichés by packing them in as tight as possible. What rule is that?
I love this one…
2. Be balanced. No matter what anybody says, find somebody to say the opposite. If a scientist claims to have a cure for cancer, find somebody who says cancer does not exist. If a man says “My name is Fred,” make sure you find somebody who says “No, your name is Diane.” Etc.
Classic case was during Gulf War 2, when Coalition military spokesmen were treated with the same level of credibility as one Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. I used to say to the wife, it’s as if we were back in July, 1969 and journalists were scrambling to interview some pygmy witchdoctor, deep in the Rwandan jungle who held the view that the moon was made of green cheese rather than rock.
Of course, Mr Rosenberg should have qualified it by stating that it is unnecessary to abide by this rule if the original “fact” is devastating to the ideological enemies of the left.
#1
Why’d he leave out the most important one- remain in a state of bleary-eyed intoxication for the entire duration of your career.
That’s an old rule. The Clowns, Jugglers and Journalists Alliance of Australia has a new set of rules:
“We the unionised journalists of Australia pledge to fight the trio of evils - freedom, equality and democracy - and pledge ourselves to our Dear LeaderMark Latham,Bob Carr,Kevin Rudd, Greg Combet.”At least that what I thought the last issue of the union’s Walkley magazine said.
#11
How often do you see reports in the Tele or even the broadsheets about Fiji or Tuvalu or Samoa or PNG or East Timor or any like countries?
We Aussies are still waiting to see any reference to Islam or jihad, from our media, in regard to East Timor.
As far as the average Aussie knows, all the trouble concerns a bunch of people who don’t get on with another bunch of people.Who can blame Americans for being interested in their own culture and current affairs when the Western media’s reporting of everything else is total twaddle anyway.
#19, Mike_W:
Who can blame Americans for being interested in their own culture and current affairs when the Western media’s reporting of everything else is total twaddle anyway.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the much of the remaining audience for our own domestic dinosaur media are tourists visiting from other lands.
A good indicator that we no longer want much to do with it is the degree to which we are selling it cheap to foreign markets.
Most Australian media journos exist on one main rule: Be at least soft left and go hard on the government unless its Labor.
There was little encouragement for any of us conservatives in 1996 until election night.
Now the media mass debate every poll, hoping for an end to this “grotesque, dissent crushing, jackbooted government”.It wasn’t until the US was attacked that the pac and euro regional conflicts were tied together into a comprehensive global conflict.
So, for the record, WW2 actually did start on Dec 7, 1941.
Well, actually, the Antarctic duchy of Penguinistan didn’t participate, so technically there never was a comprehensive global World War, was there, oh mighty master of the science of logic?
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2007 06 05 at 05:33 AM • permalinkrule number 2 (“be balanced”) contradicts rule number 1.
rule number 3 (“10,000 foreigners = one cute white American chick”) also contradicts number 1. It’s also sarcastic, which shows he doesn’t actually like the rules himself… either that, or he doesn’t know how to be consistent. (not one of the rules)Posted by daddy dave on 2007 06 05 at 05:33 AM • permalinklove this one:
“5. Internet, Schminternet. It will be gone in five years. People will always love reading a newspaper—and so will you, our intrepid reporter, once you accept our buyout offer.”
Posted by daddy dave on 2007 06 05 at 05:34 AM • permalink#23, lingus4:
How so? You saying WW2 was actually WW2 prior to it actually being a global conflict? If that’s the case then it could equally be claimed that what’s now called WW2 was actually just WW1 getting finished up but sadly ended up dragging out into the Cold War and then the following GWoT which has some roots in all the wars listed so far as well.
Europers tend to like to claim the global war started when they started their usual round of border adjustments and philosophical disputes but it wasn’t a World War until the majority of the world was in play.
China and europe were separate issues until the Japanese caused them all to be tied together by the attack at Pearl Harbor and bound east and west together in one massive global encompassing military campaign put together by the Allies.
There’s always someone fighting somewhere. Just because some of the players were fighting prior to this thing going global, does not mean that it was a global war at that time.
That’s my understanding of it, where am I wrong?
#29, lingus4: Dont misunderstand me to be saying that is was imperative for the US to have been involved to make it an actual World War. Could just of easily have been the French or the Brits. Both those nations had substantial colonial interests in the orient and if either of those nations or an alliance of those nations had made it their objective to destroy both the Nazi and Japanese empires simultaneously, then it would have been a global war, even without the US being directly involved.
And yeah, europers do love to whine that whine, dont they? The US got there late and missed all the best bits. Kinda like how the europers were such a wonderful help in the Pacific Island Campaign and all that fun and slaughter.
There’s an entire aspect of that war that very very few europeans even participated in.
#31 The Japanese were in armed conflict European powers long before the 1st bomb was dropped on Pearl. See Battles of Lake Khasan and Khalkhyn Gol (Japan v. USSR). Japan also invaded French Indochina in Sept ‘40. Also Japan attacked the British Colony of Malaya (see Battle of Malaya) about an hour and a half before the attack on Pearl (due to dateline issues it commenced on 8th Dec, ‘41 local time but that was before 7th Dec, ‘41 Hawaii time).
#34 Yeah the USSR story is the most interesting of all I think. What I dont understand is how the Socialist Workers Party of Germany (Nazi) and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) became right and left wing? To my mind the similarities of the two (anti democratic, imperial, genocidal, militaristic) outweigh the supposed differences (racist and collectivist). Any thoughts?
peter m has been rather decidedly squashed, but I might as well throw my two cents in: I’m wondering what newspapers you read. Most of the major dailies (the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the main—sometimes only—papers of each of the larger cities as well, most of which are owned by one large newspaper conglomerate anyway) dedicate most of the front section of the newspaper to international news. Sure it’s all parroted Reuters and AP articles, but still, it’s the international news we supposedly crave. The coverage of every dropped plate and fart that comes out of Washington is obsessive, but that’s because journalists are obsessed with the place. And I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the intense coverage of sports—I thought Aussies and Brits were just as sports-mad. As for local US news, that’s usually regulated to the back pages of section C or D. And it’s usually a week old—I don’t even bother reading the newspapers anymore to find out what’s going on in my own city; that’s what the internet is for.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 05 at 06:34 AM • permalink#35, lingus4:
Only hear-say or how ever that’s spelled. I was once told, somewhere, somewhen, that it was the marxist/stalinists who declared nazism/fascism to be “right wing” as opposed to proper “left wing” revolutionaries.
The reason was that nazism/fascism were competing socialist utopianisms that had to be discredited because the “true” scientific socialist utopianism was all encompasing and international, whereas the fascist brands were more aimed at blending of neo-paganism, pomoism, and socialism but on a selective national/racial level.
Sorry guys, but you all have it wrong, it became WW2 the moment Aussies got involved.
I believe we jumped in ‘cause the government told us that the Axis and Japanese were going to close the breweries and brothels.
Red rag to a bull, and all that. :)
Besides, everyone knows who really won the war for our side, sure, the Brits and Commonwealth had the stoicism, and the Americans the marvelous advantage of manpower and a superpower economy, even then, and perhaps the French were able to show everyone how to hold their arms up above their heads for longer. But Australia had my grandad and his brothers, with no rum, beer or whiskey.
As the old newsreels used to say, “Watch out Adolf, the AIF is on it’s way”. :)You got it in one, furrin’ devil, but I will give credit where it’s due, you boys did your part (Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway, too many examples to list).
Hope you’ve been well, Dirty Harriet has had me off the net for a while, I’m afraid that she made demands, and I am all about those sort of demands, :)
Oh, and rule #103 of Journalismoism:
Talk sh*t about sh*t, but do it in a serious tone of voice.Mate, I think she puts in as much stress as her presence takes out! We had a mate’s wedding on the weekend, and you could just about see the gears working in her head during the service. :)
I might have an interesting time ahead, I think.
Still, at least when I said, ” I might be going away again in a couple of months” she didn’t fly into a rage, so I should be happy. :)
She knows how much work means to me, but if she asked, I would walk away from it.
I’m more worried by how much time she spent at the wedding holding babies and looking at me. :)
I hope all is well in the ‘Grimmstone Stronghold’?
Oh, and rule #104:
If you are in the military, even by choice, you should be referred to in similar manner to a ‘victim’, not a volunteer. Not as one who knew the risks, and took them anyway.Back on topic.
Rule #15. If interviewing a respected leader of a mainstream religion, treat them like a crank cultist.
If interviewing the leader of a crank cult (any global warming doom monger), treat them like a revered religious figure.
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 06 05 at 08:50 AM • permalinkpeter m’s complaint is, or should be, directed at Aussie news outlets and as such is perfectly reasonable.
As for this canard about the US not joining in the fight on blood soaked European soil the second our ‘European masters’ demanded it, please remember that we fought a war of independence with the Brits and won, too bad for you Ozzies and Canadians that you never did.
Might actually have been better if the bloodthirsty Europeans had found a way to avoid the fight by nipping Hitler in the bud, as their treaties with Germany allowed and demanded.
Instead of killing the crocodile, Europe assumed that by throwing it meat, it would go away.
It should be long past time that we take the blinkers off and start asking exactly who and what aims the rhetoric employed by [Hirsi Ali] serve[s].
From an earlier post of Tim’s. What you see here is a rule of journalism in action. Whether or not a story is true is secondary in importance to the question of whose interests will be served by publishing it.
#16 Schuler:
“Principles of Economics and Financial Reporting”
Driving home tonight, after listening to the news on the radio I realised that we have not heard about the “Balance of Payments” for some time now, more than a year I’m sure. I can only conclude that they must be pretty good in our favour if no-one has mentioned them for a while.
#27 Grimmy - World War I was originally known as the Great War. I suggest that it should have been know as the Great European War. Even during World War II South America sat that one out. I see a world war where every continent is involved therefore the Cold War qualifies as World War I. Since we are invovled in another “all continents war”, this time with Islam, then this makes it World War II.
#36 Andrea: We subscribe to the Washington Times, but the only things I look at in the morning are the headlines (if the world has ended overnight, no need to go into work), the weather (if I absolutely have to go to work, will I need an umbrella?), and the Monte cartoon in the funnies section. Any in-depth news reading I do is now almost exclusively on the blogs.
One thing I find interesting. It seems that as men grow older, and especially once they’ve retired, they spend an extraordinary amount of time reading the newspapers (I don’t know if this also applies to women). My father gives the impression sometimes of reading every word of his paper. Maybe advancing age creates a desire to steep oneself in the here-and-now as a buffer to considering the looming hereafter, or perhaps people who never developed the habit of reading books just naturally turn to newspapers, with their brief “snapshots” of current events and small demands on one’s attention span. I just keep turning more and more to literature (broadly defined), and whenever I’m not dining with Mrs. Paco, prop up a book and read while I eat.
Crossie—Japan was involved in WWI, seizing German territories in the Pacific. Major sea battles took place off South America. There was heavy fighting in the Middle East and Africa.
Paco—another reason to avoid reading newspapers as you get older: I hate reruns. When humanity starts making some interesting NEW mistakes, call me.
And I thought there was NOOOOO Rule 6?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 06 05 at 10:25 AM • permalinkWell, okay, I mean except for reruns of Benny Hill and any episode of Three’s Company where Joyce deWitt gets groped. Let’s not get crazy here…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 06 05 at 10:27 AM • permalink#58: Or, for that matter, the War of Jenkin’s Ear..
Incidentally, for a fascinating novel on the above subject (written in the form of the ficitonal memoirs of Horace Walpole), check out Odell and Willard Shepard’s novel, Jenkins’ Ear (1951).
Richard mcenroe: whatchoo got against Rerun?
Paco: for the best in local news, at least of my part of the swamp, I recommend
Local6.com. The headlines are always… special. Right now it’s leading with “Police: Photos Of Naked Boys Wrestling, Girls Leads To Arrest.” And there’s my personal favorite of the day: “Mom: Girl Fought Off Man With Kick To Groin.” Now you know why Florida is such a tourist draw.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 05 at 01:13 PM • permalink#62 Andrea: Oh, I’ve always got time for that stuff! That’s real life. In my neck of the woods, the big news is that the brand new $27MM jail that was recently completed in Loudon County is only half as big as it should have been. I’m thinking of turning my basement into a couple of barred cells and renting it out to the authorities (Mrs. Paco can make like Aunt Bea and take them a lunch basket every day).
Andrea. Nothing at all. Ever. And with God’s good grace it will stay that way.
Or you can read my new play, “Your Arms Too Short to Reach Around…”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 06 05 at 03:24 PM • permalinkNot to mention original enrollment in the United Nations (June 1945) was limited to those countries which had declared war on Germany and Japan before the end of hostilities.
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 06 05 at 03:44 PM • permalinkI am so sick of this late to the war crap from the people who started it, or worse yet, from people who were colonies of the people who started it, and so were immediately dragged into it. It is perverse.
I include Britain and France among those who started the war since they had plenty of opportunity and just cause to raid the Rhineland and put an end to Hitler before he really got going. Instead, they figured that if they sold out Poland and Czechoslovakia, they could achieve “Peace in our time”
#68.
Yeah, moptop, “they” did it. Damn “they”, damn “they” to hell.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2007 06 05 at 05:40 PM • permalinkmoptop - I thought the point was the start of the war, and no-one has mentioned anything about the US being “late”. I am damned pleased you guys came into it at all - helped save my country! We are just talking about historical facts being taught differently depending on your country - eg Japan apparently doesn’t teach anything about their war crimes anymore.
Andrea - the hotels carried USA Today, NYT, Washington Post and a local paper. My point was limited to your national paper carrying such a great weight of 1 sport over 5 pages of its 7 page sport section. I agree to expect more from local papers is wrong, and that is not what I intended to have you think.
I tried responding twice last night but Telstra decided to stuff up everyone’s net connection, twice, just as I hit the post button. Talk about frustrating!!
My same point goes for our local media - we rarely get to hear about overseas news - eg Darfur is probably thought to be the new getaway spot for the rich and famous. If it isn’t in the womans weekly, it just cannot be important.
Interesting point on not invading Germany to stop ww2 before it started. I guess it is called respecting another country’s sovereignty - what the world expected Germany to do!
Interesting point on not invading Germany to stop ww2 before it started. I guess it is called respecting another country’s sovereignty
Uh, OK. Germany lost WWI. They signed a treaty that they would not re-arm, they flouted that treaty. France had the military power and the right under the armistice, the Treaty of Verseille AKA “The peace to end all peace”, to invade the Rhineland and stop Germany from building its military machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarization_of_the_Rhineland
I guess scoring cheap rhetorical points is more fun that learning history. It is your God given right, after all.An analogy to the Rhineland incident and the treaty of Verseille would be the agreement that Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War, which he flouted continually.
But knowing that would make your little smugasms just that much harder to come by, wouldn’t it? After all, whose interest would be served by you knowing your history? Little Johnny Howard’s, that’s who.
Canada and Australia were dragged into the war immediately because both were colonies of Britain at the time. It is a fact.
#12 I think Canada holds the record for being the least existing of places in the world, Northern or Southern hemisphere.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 06 05 at 06:53 PM • permalinkEast Timor was the world’s worst case of genocide in modern times (in population terms) and the Australian media treats it like a minor difference of opinion.
And re American media, what non-American’s don’t get is the USA has a very diverse media. Only the UK comes close.
If you want foreign news, you buy the NY Times or one of a number of specialized publications.
Peter M: USA Today isn’t a real newspaper.
By the way, I’m pretty sure that Americans have never been taught that World War 2 “started” in 1941. We were taught that it “officially” (for want of a better word) started in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and the UK and France declared war. We are taught that 1941 was the year the US entered the war, after Pearl Harbor. By the way, World War 2 is really big with history buffs over here. And one of the major cable stations here, The History Channel, is often called “the World War 2” channel because they seem to concentrate on that particular war more than on other historical events.
The idea that Americans are ignorant about history is a common canard, but it’s actually not true. We do tend to focus on “favorite” eras—we have a lot of buffs, more than people with a good general knowledge of world history.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 05 at 09:39 PM • permalinkThe idea that Americans are ignorant about history is a common canard, but it’s actually not true.
Like the - equally untrue - canard that American news is more parochial and “local” than news in other countries. It’s not. News is parochial the world over, always has been and always will be.
A scandal involving the local mayor or a feelgood story about a local kid with a serious illness trumps international politics every day of the week, anywhere.Posted by daddy dave on 2007 06 05 at 10:20 PM • permalink#73
moptop:
Canada and Australia were dragged into the war immediately because both were colonies of Britain at the time. It is a fact.
For someone professing a history knowledge superiority, some more care is needed here. They were not colonies “at the time”, but HAD been former colonies, at the time. This includes WW1.
So if Japan drop their “defence only” consititution, should Australia and USA invade it to disarm Japan? What if they were defending themselves from a Russian threat by invading some Russian islands off their coast?
Andrea - I agree re USA Today - weird looking thing as well! I recall the bit about how WW2 history is taught being shown here in some 60 minutes type show - this was quite a while ago. I’ll take on board your comments and do not wish to tar everyone with such a general comment.
1 of my posts that I didn’t get to make last night included this:
“I cannot name 1 country that has done more for the world in military or welfare terms in modern times than USA, so don’t think I don’t appreciate this.”
But the original point is still being overlooked - if 5 people die in the US from a tornado, we see blanket coverage, google earth images etc etc. But the same day 100 people could have died in flooding in bangladesh, and it is lucky to make the “breaking news” reel. I am here talking about Aust media and their priorities being out of whack. It seems to be lazy journalism - so easy to copy paste the US media feed, than actually do some reporting.
Your concept of intervention is a bit skewed, isn’t it?
The situation with Japan now and Germany then are more like mixing… apples and oranges aren’t even far enough separated to be of valid use.
Germany then was the same militarist “central european empire” design and concept that had been in play in WW1. It was dressed up as a different sort of pig but it was the same pig in a different dress and everyone then knew it and had a damn good idea of what was coming.
They sat on their hands and did nothing until it was far far far too late to do anything but get themselves rolled up, rolled over and rolled under. France fell, Britain was kicked off the continent and confined besieged on its home island.
The alarm bells had been ringing but were willfully ignored. It was cowardice, plain and simple cowardice that drove the constant string of appeasement and capitulation to the nazi germans and hitler.
France and GB suffered greatly for it but brought it on themselves.
Germany had been in open and flagrant violation of the treaty ending the previous war and France and GB had every right and every reason and every justification to go in to germany and grind that puissant hitler and his human garbage nazis into muddy puddles.
Militarism is almost extinct in Japan now. Japan is hardly even willing to do what is required to defend itself, let alone pose any real threat to its neighbors in a reborn pacific empire sort of way.
Of course, as has been recently demonstrated, I tend to forget bits and pieces over the years since my schooling so…who knows, maybe we should invade Japan now, just to be on the safe side.
Or, maybe you guys play the main on this one. Japan is somewhat closer to y’all.
“We were taught that it “officially” (for want of a better word) started in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and the UK and France declared war.”
Yup. You were taught that by a horde of Eurocentric historians who simply have no interest in the Chinese theater of the war. The fact that they aren’t interested in the fighting that raged in China from 1937 until 1945 can be verified by reading just about any standard western history of the war.
You’ll be lucky if there’s a hundred words in there about the Chinese theater even though huge armies were involved and millions of people were killed.
WWII started when Germany invaded Poland?
Not!
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 06 at 03:11 PM • permalink“Do you guys still get taught WW2 started in 1941?”
Nah. We were taught the same hogwash you were probably taught: that WWII started when the Europeans started slaughtering each other (China and Japan apparently being on some other world…until the Japanese attacked the western nations, that is).
I actually believed it too…until I started educating myself.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 06 at 03:17 PM • permalinkDave Surls… down boy. Have a nice glass of water. And a Valium.
Now that you are calmer, perhaps you will note that I put quotes around “officially” (just like here). And actually, the conflict in China has been generally referred to “conflict leading up” to World War 2—at the time the “Eurocentric” part of the world wasn’t openly involved.
One can actually say that World War 2 never really “started,” but was a continuation or a resuming of previous wars, but we have to have a starting point somewhere, or else we might as well just refer to the history of the world as one big, constant war. Which it is, but humans need to organize their thoughts and this device of dividing events by time, place, and other labels is one of the ways we do it. It’s not a contest—China didn’t “lose” because people don’t generally say that World War 2 was started when their country was invaded by Japan first.
And like it or not, the US is a Western nation, and we are Western-Civ-centric—or we were. Please don’t help the Multicultists in their quest to change that.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 06 at 09:21 PM • permalinkBy the way, I don’t have to be “taught” history any more—I figured out a long time ago that I’m not a baby bird—I can find things out all on my ownsome. As a matter of fact, it was my history teacher American Civil War buff father who taught me that, when he got me a library card when I was four years old. He also taught me that what I learned in school wouldn’t be so much as the tip of the iceberg as a faded, scratchy picture of an iceberg that someone had been using as a beer coaster.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 06 at 09:27 PM • permalinkI’m perfectly calm…and I think my points are perfectly valid.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 06 at 11:38 PM • permalink“One can actually say that World War 2 never really “started,” but was a continuation or a resuming of previous wars, but we have to have a starting point somewhere…”
IMO, July 1937 is a lot better start point than September 1939.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 06 at 11:54 PM • permalinkAccording to historian John Keegan, WWI and WWII are best seen as one long conflict with a pause for housecleaning and reloading…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 06 07 at 10:26 AM • permalinkAnyway…
On the subject of journalism, and the odd ways of journalists, they posted a link to this over at LGF the other day, and I thought it interesting because it shows how much the MSM bias has changed in regards to Israel over the past 40 years.
They were always biased, but in those days it was in favor of Israel and the West.
Worth a read.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 07 at 12:46 PM • permalinkIMO, July 1937 is a lot better start point than September 1939.
Well, I think my bank account looks much better with a million dollars in it, but I can’t find very many people who agree with me.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 07 at 09:50 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Why’d he leave out the most important one- remain in a state of bleary-eyed intoxication for the entire duration of your career.
Or even never let facts get in the way of a good story.
and what about qualification and ability are irrelevent- if you frame up well and have good teeth and hair, you’re a Tv journalist; if you’ve dulcet tones that’d arouse a bison, you’re a radio journalist. If you can write accurate, coherent, logical well parsed prose but have a head like a robbers dog, you’ve no place in this caper matey. Try blogging.