"World Opinion" Is Worthless (Its A Statement Of Media Moral Cowardice Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 08/01/06 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.

Supporters of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah Movement hold a poster of Abbas during a rally in support of his call for a referendum in the main square of the West Bank town of Ramallah, Monday, June 5, 2006. Just hours before a deadline, Abbas on Monday said he will not back down from an ultimatum to the Islamic Hamas group to accept a plan implicitly recognizing Israel. Abbas has given Hamas until Tuesday to accept the proposal, which calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Accepting the proposal would require Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction, to implicitly recognize the existence of the Jewish state. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) "World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;

or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;

or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union;

or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;

or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;

or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;

or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;

or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide;

or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;

or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;

or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.

On the other hand, we learn that "world opinion" is quite exercised over Israel's unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah -- a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, "world opinion" was just livid at American abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.

Why is this?

Here are four reasons:

First, television news.

It is difficult to overstate the damage done to the world by television news. Even when not driven by political bias -- an exceedingly rare occurrence globally -- television news presents a thoroughly distorted picture of the world. Because it is almost entirely dependent upon pictures, TV news is only capable of showing human suffering in, or caused by, free countries. So even if the BBC or CNN were interested in showing the suffering of millions of Sudanese blacks or North Koreans -- and they are not interested in so doing -- they cannot do it because reporters cannot visit Sudan or North Korea and video freely. Likewise, China's decimation and annexation of Tibet, one of the world's oldest ongoing civilizations, never made it to television.

Second, "world opinion" is shaped by the same lack of courage that shapes most individual human beings' behavior. This is another aspect of the problem of the distorted way news is presented. It takes courage to report the evil of evil regimes; it takes no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. Reporters who went into Afghanistan without the Soviet Union's permission were killed. Reporters would risk their lives to get critical stories out of Tibet, North Korea and other areas where vicious regimes rule. But to report on America's bad deeds in Iraq (not to mention at home) or Israel's is relatively effortless, and you surely won't get killed. Indeed, you may well win a Pulitzer Prize.

Third, "world opinion" bends toward power. To cite the Israel example, "world opinion" far more fears alienating the largest producers of oil and 1 billion Muslims than it fears alienating tiny Israel and the world's 13 million Jews. And not only because of oil and numbers. When you offend Muslims, you risk getting a fatwa, having your editorial offices burned down or receiving death threats. Jews don't burn down their critics' offices, issue fatwas or send death threats, let alone act on such threats.

Fourth, those who don't fight evil condemn those who do. "World opinion" doesn't confront real evils, but it has a particular animus toward those who do -- most notably today America and Israel.

The moment one recognizes "world opinion" for what it is -- a statement of moral cowardice, one is longer enthralled by the term. That "world opinion" at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way.

[Small-L]

Good point, Jim. When Kerry and the left speak of "World Opinion," they're talking about the opinion of the world media; and most of us recognize that the media in no way represents the opinion of the man on the street. French media, German media, and UK media are no different than US media--they all stem from the same socialist/liberal/intellectual-elitist world view; and while they claim to be unbiased, are enamored with their own importance and their own intellect that they can't see their own biases.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

those who are fighting for decency will be able to fight better once they loosen the chains of "world opinion".

"World Opinion" is simply journalistic opinion, hyped by journalism. Journalism can properly be spoken of as a unitary entity for the simple reason that journalists obey the "eleventh commandment" - "Thou shalt not question the objectivity of a fellow journalist."

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[Old Professer]

Prager is a man of high principle and strong moral conviction and is rightly outraged; those against whom he rails are not so much pragmatists as they are opportunists, for opinion is informed by publication and the publicists are those in charge; our alliances are often emotional in nature and even when history proves that there are indeed bad guys and good guys, in war, they all soon look the same.

If the Jews gave up all the land and assimilated into kindred cultures, the war would but begin anew as we see among the different sects in Iraq now that no greater overarching threat holds old enmities at bay.

No peace will grace the world as long as there walks a single man whose enemy's name is written in his birth ceremony.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Journalism is the "bad news" business.

All you have to do to understand journalism is to recognize that

• Journalism is a single entity. All journalists obey the "eleventh commandment" (Thou shalt no question the objectivity of a fellow journalist), so all journalists go along and get along and nobody says any journalist isn't objective. That is the MSM's definition of a "journalist."

• Journalism is talk, and it promotes itself at the expense of people who people who do.
  • You neeed water? Journalism will report bad news about the water company if it can.
  • You need Electricity? Journalism will report bad news about the availability of electricity and will even promote environmentalism to threaten the electricity supply.
  • You need security? Journalism will criticize the police for either "brutality" or incompetence, or both. Ditto for the military.
  • Ditto for food.
  • Ditto for automobiles.
  • Ditto for gasoline.
  • Ditto for health care.
• Journalism is superficial because of its short deadlines.

• Journalism is arrogant in claiming to be objective, and in claiming to speak for "world opinion." And in publishing polls claiming to speak for American opinion.

IOW, there is no reason why we should defer to the pretensions of journalism. And there are serious reasons that journalists should be sued. Particularly broadcast journalists.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[300winmag]

It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way.

As in the case of the Clintons claiming world opinion of America was at its high under their regime?

They've never explained how "world opinion" went so bad between January 20, 2001 and September 11 of the same year. How could George Bush have been so busy alledgedly undoing all good the Clintons had done, and yet nobody noticed at the time? Yet it was drastic enough to distress islamic nutjobs to crash four packed airliners into specific parts of the American landscape.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping. BUMP! BUMP!

[NZerFromHK]

""World Opinion" Is Worthless - Its A Statement Of Media Moral Cowardice"

FYI.

[ChessExpert]

This is an outstanding article. If there is an award for best article of the year, this one might get my vote.

I very much appreciate his list that follows the sentence. The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

These 20th century atrocities are not mentioned nearly enough. Dennis Prager draws many excellent conclusions. I would like to add one more, from Professor Rudolph Rummel. Rummel estimates that for every soldier who died in the heat of battle, four innocents have been killed in cold blood by their own government. Prager’s list gives some of the worst cases of government murder of civilians. War may be hell, but tyranny can be worse.