On June 28, CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer turned to CBS reporter Bob Simon for analysis of the current Israel-Palestine crisis. What Simon offered, however, was a familiar scenario that puts the blame squarely on the Palestinian side.
As Simon put it:
We can't say how it's going to end, but there is a pattern to these Israeli-Palestinian crises which hardly ever varies. They begin with a Palestinian attack, in this case. The attack is designed to provoke a brutal Israeli response. The Israelis follow suit with that response. The response invariably radicalizes the population, makes them even more anti-Israeli, creates more suicide bombers. And the way it's going now, it looks once more like there is, at least in the Middle East, nothing new under the sun.
There's no reason why Simon's timeline of the crisis would 'begin' with the June 25 kidnapping of Israel soldier Gilad Shalit, or why that attack would be unequivocally attributed to a desire to "provoke a brutal Israeli response"--unless one wishes to erase the killings of Palestinian civilians over the past several weeks. Those deaths were mentioned by Hamas spokespeople in their statements justifying the raid, as was reported in many media outlets--including Simon's own CBS Evening News (6/25/06):
"Gunmen from the armed wing of the ruling Hamas group took part in the raid, saying it was retaliation for recent Israeli air strikes that killed a top militant and 13 civilians."
If anything, what "hardly ever varies" is mainstream media's adherence to an attack-retaliation formula that overwhelmingly places the blame on the Palestinian side, though in the ongoing cycle of attacks both sides usually describe their actions as retaliatory. As FAIR noted in an April 4, 2002 Action Alert :
From the start of the Intifada in September 2000 through March 17, 2002, the three major networks' nightly news shows used some variation of the word "retaliation" ("retaliated," "will retaliate," etc.) 150 times to describe attacks in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. About 79 percent of those references were to Israeli "retaliation" against Palestinians. Only 9 percent referred to Palestinian "retaliation" against Israelis. (Approximately 12 percent were ambiguous or referred to both sides simultaneously.)
ACTION:
Contact CBS Evening News and tell them that Bob Simon's claim that a crisis in the Mideast only "begins" with attacks on Israelis does a disservice to CBS viewers--and sends the message that Palestinian lives are less important.
CONTACT:
CBS Evening News
evening@cbsnews.com (212) 975-3247
that's from fair's 'CBS's Mideast "Cycle of Violence": Analysis omits Palestinian deaths' and i've printed that in full. it's an action alert. i wouldn't do it if were an article but i'm assuming they want the word out.
that's strange, the e-mail, for 2 reasons. 1st, c.i. set the day aside to hang out with me. (thank you. no, it wasn't necessary but it was appreciated.) flyboy was itching to go to this exhibit and when i mentioned that i was staying here and hanging out with c.i., i said, 'i bet ava would like to -' and he was already down the hall running to the guest bedroom ava's in.
i'm sure the show was lovely (ava says it was, it was photography) but i just haven't been in the mood lately to go out. i haven't been 'nesting,' i have been resting.
just to toss this out there (mike would be happy to post it i know, but he's depressed tonight and i didn't want to bother him with it), i got the test results. no more pregnancies again for me is the short story. that's the main reason c.i. cleared the day for me (c.i. denies it, i know what's what). i've had miscarriages before and it's not just that but i'll leave it at that.
it looks like flyboy and i, as much as i've tried not to rush it or label it, are a couple again after all. he told me yesterday: 'only comment i'll make is if you want to adopt, we can do that and if not, i'm cool with just you.' so that's where things stand health wise.
there should be a note going up at the common ills shortly but in case c.i. forgets, i'll note it here: if c.i. does 1 entry and it takes the entire morning, that's it. there are things c.i. does not comment on such as the washington post. on thursday the new york times did a hideous job covering a story and martha, as she usually does, noted the coverage from the post which was much better. but she didn't compare and contrast them. they needed to be. c.i. worked and worked on an entry, trashing it repeatedly. when i woke up, i was walking down the hall and c.i.'s bedroom door was open (a sign that you can enter - seriously, i'll explain that in a moment). i go in and i hear c.i. in the bathroom just puking. i figured it was a bug or something. no c.i. had gotten so frustrated with the whole thing and trying to write around it that it was puke time. i said, 'don't worry about it.' c.i. tries not to comment on the post (members know why). that day, if you're covering iraq (c.i. was) there was no way to avoid it.
but after the entry went up, we went to the gym and worked out, which was a lot of fun, for a change. (c.i. is not competative in the gym, c.i. is focused and sometimes too focused for some 1 as prone to laziness as me.) then c.i. went back to the computer and did the 2nd entry. i didn't note that. i thought we were both showering, going on to breakfast.
i said, 'what is this?' and i meant it. there's no 'you must do 2 entries each morning.' really, quit knocking yourself out. that was my advice.
so hopefully, that will soon happen - if an entry takes the time c.i. has allotted for it (c.i. does not miss a workout - seriously), then that's all that will go up in the morning.
to grab the open door. when we all lived together in college, i several times made the mistake of going into c.i.'s room in an attempt to say, 'hey, what's going on? want to do something today?' only to be cursed out. and once i had something thrown at me.
i was shocked the 1st time. elaine laughed when i told her i certainly hoped c.i. intended to apologize for that language (we were much, much younger and you didn't often hear words like that, especially from a friend). elaine explained to me, 'c.i. wasn't even awake. there will be no apology because there will be no memory of it.' and that's true. if the door is closed, do not go in. that's always been the rule. (and it's a good 1 except for some 1 like myself who always thinks i come 1st - well i do, don't i? - i'm joking.)
i have had to wake up c.i. over the years for different reasons. if you have to, get ready for the abuse because it's very rare that c.i. is going to greet you with a smile. instead you'll get a string of swear words and when they fade, a few minutes later, c.i. will wake up and say, 'oh, thank you for waking me up.'
c.i. knows it happens, enough of us have pointed it out over the years.
but you can't control what you say in your sleep. (just to clarify, it's not a conversation - it's not a sentence, it's just every form of the f-word and any other curse word you can think of streaming out of c.i.'s mouth. the 1st time i tried to wake up c.i. up was the 1st time i ever heard anything other than 'shit' or 'shitty' from c.i. so i was more than shocked.)
i'm just going to make this fun a post, a chatty post. here's elaine's secret from college, she would grind her teeth. she had to get a thing at some point to put in her mouth. c.i. said, 'why don't you just tell youself to stop it?' seriously. elaine tried that before going to sleep and it stopped. she didn't need the guard. (or maybe she got used to college stress. but i think it was the telling herself, 'i will not grind my teeth tonight' that did it.)
mine? i don't know. i think my most annoying habit was starting a book on something, eastern religion, affirmations, whatever, and immediately telling every 1 they had to do it. elaine and c.i. would play along and then get mad when i stopped reading the book, and moved on to something else, without informing them.
elaine loathed the affirmations. 'why am i talking to myself in the mirror? am i the evil queen in snow white?' she was so serious. she'd tried to get out of it (i could be quite insistant back then) so i'd said i'd do it with her. we were both at the mirror and i was so serious and so focused (like c.i. during a workout) and just determined to get her to do the affirmation, whatever it was, and she was so serious when she said that, mid-affirmation, that i had to burst out laughing.
sometimes i felt like the only sane person. for instance, i was the only 1 who didn't sleep walk. elaine would sleep clean. i'm not kidding. you'd hear some 1 scrubbing the floor and go into the bathroom or kitchen and you could carry on a conversation with her but she was completely out of it. then she'd just go back to bed (leaving the mess behind, which i, for a change, had to clean up). c.i. was really bad about screaming nightmares. you'd hear it and wonder what to do. c.i. would usually walk into a corner and wake up around the 3rd or 4th attempt to walk into the wall.
there was 1 early morning where c.i. made it completely across campus. but most of the time, c.i. would just stay in 1 spot (c.i.'s bedroom).
what else do they both have common? they are pacers. big pacers. i'm the slug bug. i'd be sitting in a stressful moment, they're all over, wearing out their shoes, wearing out carpet, back and forth, back and forth. elaine tends to walk in straight lines, c.i. tends to circle. if they're talking (to me or each other) during their pacing, they also gesture with their hands a lot.
elaine says she can't cook, which is a lie. she can. she knows how to make desserts. she was taught various desserts (from scratch) as a child. she doesn't make them now, for a number of reasons including weight concerns i'm sure (she's as thin as a rail). but all i ever had to do was clear the table. if we were eating in, c.i. would fix the main course, elaine would handle the dessert. i remember 1 time going through the cabinet because we had company coming over that had just called and c.i. was fixing somethng quick and elaine was asking me what was in the cabinets. there was some baker's chocolate and a few other things like that. i told her that and said i'd go out for dessert (in those days, you tried to have a meal if company came over to eat) but elaine said 'chocolate mousse' or something like that. and she was heating chocolate in a pan and doing all this other stuff and by the time there was a knock on the door, we were good to go.
if you asked them about each other, elaine would cite c.i.'s passion and c.i. would cite elaine's peacefulness/calm. they really are bookends. (though elaine will tell you she feels far less tranquil these days - who can, considering the times we live in?)
what else? i'd be drinking soda constantly. (in college.) elaine would always have iced tea. c.i. would usually have water. by usually, before it was the thing to do, c.i. would have to drink those 8 glasses of 8 ounces of water a day. my mother thought c.i. was a diabetic the 1st time they met. my mother was offering us something to drink and c.i. said 'just water, please.' we were all sitting in the kitchen and had driven a lenthy drive. c.i. would get up and refill the glass repeatedly and my mother's eyes just went wide.
when c.i. finally had to use the bathroom, around the 5th glass, i explained we'd been driving and c.i. had to drink 8 glasses of water, something about the skin. we both rolled our eyes. but now it's common. (and i should have noticed that while i had breakouts and even elaine - who has wonderful skin - would sometimes have break outs, c.i. never did. no sleep? no problem. where's the water?)
what did elaine have to do? she would not enter a room without checking a mirror. not out of vanity. but to make sure she didn't have anything on her face. if you went somewhere to eat, she'd stop in the entrance and fish out her compact to check before walking into the main room.
if she were facing a firing squad, she'd probably ask for a mirror to check that she didn't have any lipstick on her teeth mid-way to the wall.
i'd love to tell you i always check a mirror before entering a room. i don't. i do drink water, a lot of it, post-college. i also still drink sodas. my favorite right now is diet cherry coke.
what else? i always tanned. those 2 wouldn't. freckles and sun damage were their concerns. (elaine will slather on the sun block all next week when her current boyfriend, flyboy and i go on vacation.) (my consolation is a sun screen. but i always tan nicely. that doesn't mean i don't have and won't have sun damage. i've just been lucky that i always go golden. some people can try to tan and just get red each day. my skin does go the golden brown that every 1 tries for and i got lucky there.)
oh, my point was fair. so we came in from the pool this afternoon, c.i. and myself, to listen to randi rhodes. i was really excited and i think c.i. was as well. we knew randi would talk about the war. we turn on the show and what do we get? sam seder.
we listened long enough to need ear plugs. can someone please get him to speak like an adult?
if you're going to be on radio, you need a voice. he always sounds 2 seconds away from saying, 'my you look lovely today, mrs. cleaver.'
so that was out. i wanted to watch tv (i'm a slug). c.i. wasn't into that so i pointed to various dvds piled up and waiting to be watched. we went through them and 1 was a speech norman solomon had given about his book, so we watched that together. his most recent book, war made easy. it was a really interesting speech (and there were questions after).
i like norman solomon's writing. he's smart, very smart. i made the point that he might want to update his hair and c.i. said, 'no, it's a classic look for him now. shut up, or he'll end up getting the anderson cooper.' scary thought. his hair is his trademark. (and it's a nice head of hair.)
so there was that then, this evening, there was some 1 who dropped by from broadcast news and i ended up bringing up the issue of the coverage of the palestinians and got a reply like 'well aren't you a fair action alert.' i said, 'for your information, i am signed up for their action alerts.'
i didn't know they had 1 on this until i checked my inbox tonight.
between the 2 events, we listened to music. and snacked. i snacked on everything. do people eat in california? seriously? c.i. set an official dinner time due to my complaining 1 night about being hungry. most of the time every 1 gathers and talks and when food gets mentioned it's 'yeah, let's eat.' meanwhile, me still on eastern time, my stomach's growling and all i'm thinking about is food.
it's been a lot of fun. i wish elaine was here (and told her that on the phone tonight). i hadn't called her during the week really at all. we all called her wednesday night and screamed into the phone 'wake up you sleepy head!' that's because alexander cockburn was on talking to laura flanders and we knew elaine would be trying to listen but sleepy. (it was what, 3 hours difference?) so we called her and she answered on the 3rd ring, obviously asleep.
until tonight that was the 1st time i'd called. i have the worst time figuring out the time difference. i'd be out by the pool thinking i should call her 'when she gets off work' and then i'd realize hours later, 'she was off work, you idiot.'
i don't think we've ever gone so long without speaking. i annoy every 1 i know with calls. (and i called t repeatedly but she keeps a late schedule. elaine's on a stricter schedule.) i'll call and say 'hi, just 1 thing' and talk for 5 minutes, then call back hours later with another thing. (i'll also talk forever on the phone.) so it was really weird. i wrote her a letter at 1 point and c.i. said, 'by the time this gets to her address, you'll both be on vacation'. so i scanned it and e-mailed it to her as an attachment.
i've missed my lainie but i haven't been lonely. besides flyboy and c.i., ava, jess and ty are here. kat's always stopping by and thursday she took me to see some natural sites. i don't mean nudie beaches. i just can't remember what all we saw or the names for it. at 1 point i had to say, 'not another place until we get something to eat' because, seriously, do people eat out here?
i've popped in and out to visit c.i. but it's been years since i've spent so many days in a row out here. when the immigration rallies were going on, i only spent 3 days out here (most spent 8 or 10) because i had a family event i had to get back to.
it's been relaxing and stimulating. there are always people showing up (that's why elaine avoids c.i.'s at christmas, it's packed - thanksgiving is packed but it's like standing room only at christmas).
sherry e-mailed about books. i actually read joan mellen's hellman and hammett which was really interesting. i have her jfk book which was my intro to her (you need to read it!). but i saw this book on c.i.'s bookcases (in the biographies - it's like a library, the shelving system, and kat says it's library of congress not dewey decimal). that was actually very interesting (and i recommend it). i know the movie julia and that's really it other than the children's hour (the play hellman wrote). i think i've seen the little foxes with bette davis but i've never seen the play performed. it's been very relaxing - though i took a pass on jess' offer to show me yoga. (which he's known from childhood. no offense to those who practice yoga, including jess' parents, but i went through that phase in college and it lasted 2 weeks on me.)
sherry asked about robert w. mcchesney & john nichols' our media not theirs: the democratic struggle against corporate media? want to note what the press can do (and has done), read the book. i'm not talking about abc or the new york times. in fact, i felt it was refuting victor navasky's comments on against the grain wendesday. (kat wrote about that here.) at 1 point he said that movements sometimes create great magazines. i think great magazine's create movements. and, since the nation started in 1865 or so, i'd think that would be his opinion as well. otherwise, why keep publishing when new movements have come along so, therefore, great magazines? 1 other thing, and kat and i discussed this but i don't think she included that (it was a rush post for her because c.i. had set the dinner time for me, the hungry, insistent eater) but navasky was going on about how there was no 1 view in the magazine. excuse me, but the magazine has regularly trashed those who have questioned the warren commission. there has been no 2 minds (or 3 or 4) on that topic.
on katha pollitt's book, we're hoping to do a book discussion this weekend at the third estate sunday review on it and possibly 1 other book so i'll wait on that. (i did enjoy it and do recommend it.)
