In a stunning Washington Post article, Richard Goldstone, the UN chief of investigating Israel and Hamas's conduct during the 2008 war, completely retracts his previous report, where he claimed Israel deliberately targeted civilians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html) . In response, Israel and various Jewish organizations are pressing the UN to rescind the report. After all, if the author himself disagrees with the conclusions, then why should such a report stand?
Now lets be honest here. We all know that the UN Human Rights Council is full of inveterate Israel haters. They are not going to invalidate any literature that supports their doctrine of evil Israelis killing Palestinian babies. If Israel did not target civilians and they admit it, then all their holier-than-thou announcements hold no water and they know so. BUT what is interesting to me as a student in Media and Politics is how the media portrays the U.N.
For the most part, the media portrays the UN as a respectable international institution. But, it has not been like that for many years- and not just in its treatment of Israel. Why is it when that something/someone gives off an air of legitimacy, the media respects it? The media can be scathing sometimes, for example local US media can be very incisive against the U.S. government. Why should the UN get off easy? The media should treat the UN like any other organization and bring its failings to light.
And unrelated, but an interesting idea of how organizations should use terms in their public relations dealings is this blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/goldstones-retraction-and-the-new-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/AFMYIM9C_blog.html
I think her idea is really interesting. If Jewish organizations started calling the BDS movement anti-Semitic, would people take them more seriously?
No comments:
Post a Comment