;.cMedia bias, general theory, anti-Israel
;.l1,6,60,66,1,0,10,75,192,2,15,20,25,127,10,0,
;.l2,15,75,192,2,20,25,127,15,0,
;.l3,20,75,192,2,25,127,20,0,
MEDIA BIAS
TO:    David Bedein, Israel Resource, Bet Agron
       David bar-Ilan, re: Eye on Media, Jlem Post
FROM:  Steve Amdur, Kibbutz Haon, Jordan Valley, 15170 Israel.
       Telephone:  972-6-6656-572; FAX:  972-6-6656-554
DATE:  2 Oct 96
RE:    General theory of anti-Israel media bias
REF:   
CC:
------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     
	Intifada I (12/87--9/94) was the First World Media War;Israel lost it.   One hopes Israel won't make the same mistakeswith Intifada II (9/27/96--  ). 

	Demonstrations are essentially staged media-events; they areonly ostensibly demonstrated petitions for redress of grievance,and only ostensibly spontaneous popular expressions of feeling.
                 
	The demonstrations  of the USA anti-Vietnam-War movement wereaddressed via the USA Media, primarily TV, to the USA electorateand legislature as ethical/rational protest against policies ofthe LBJ Administration.                    
	The Intifada was addressed via the International Media,primarily TV News (of which CNN became predominant), to theEuropean and USA citizenry and decision-makers.   Europe, and to alesser extent the USA, have strong economic/realpolitik reasonsfor siding with the Arab bloc 
l2
(itself largely hostage to the potential of Arab terroristsfor assassination and disruption,)   
l3
(a factor which also influences the political positionof European nations, especially Italy, and to a lesserextent France, which also seeks to re-establishinfluence with the Arab bloc)
l1

against Israel;  a sucessful anti-Israel media campaign createsthe pre-requisite perceived climate of public opinion 
l2
("Conventional Wisdom", to use Newsweek's phrase; Cf. TNR's"Zeitgeist Watch" ca. 1990) 
l1
in which Western governments can implement anti-Israel realpolitikat the price of ethics.
                 
	The basic tactic of the Intifada was a simple:  make martyrson Prime Time TV News.  That is:  children and youth in civillianclothes were sent out to throw stones at Israeli military patrols,with the intent of provoking lethal fire.

	In contrast to the anti-Vietnam-War demonstrations, whichprimarily presented rational and ethical arguments 
l2
(despite attempts by anachronist socialist/neo-Communistgroups to superimpose ideologic arguments, and apart from the1968 et seq. attempts at civil disruption by extreme factionswhich may have been influenced by agents provacatuer)
l1
the Intifada used Images not merely as the medium, but as themessage.  That is, the PLO had brilliantly identified and addressed a subliminal popular cartoon-consciousness in theservice of a pseudo-mythology.  
l2
(The Nazis would seem to have done that too.)
l1
	
	The intifada was a malign cartoon-fest, a contest of imagesin the service of unacknowleged national mythologies, primarilythe mythology of the USA, which held the crucial power-units.
	Intifada I was a simple successful Cartoon Campaign -- thePalestinians succeeded, but sending out unlimited quantities ofadolescents ("pure uncut boy", as Wm. Burroughs put it ) to throwstones at soldiers armed, inititially, only with lethal weapons,in order to get shot in  large numbers in time for Prime Time TV,which has become the major international cartoon-show.   That wasof course reversign the David/Goliath myth.
	It played to two USA Cartoon-mthologies:  Keeping Score andRooting for the Underdog.  The USA, dominated by football andother spectator sports, likes to keep score -- in this case, offatalities -- note how the count of fatalities dominates USA news-- and to root for the underdog. 



	For corrupt tyrants, eg the PLO, their populace isexpendable.


	Another factor that comes into play here is:  when bastardsget rich, they try to pass for gentlemen.  Yuppies join the PeaceCamp for the same reason they wear tweeds and earth-colours.  
	At least, it's politically correct upwardly mobile to tellIsrael to make peace -- those who support a strong Israel are onthe defensive -- although when it comes to one's own country,those who support a reduction in military strength are on thedefensive.