Skip to main content

View Diary: I Don't Accept the Validity of These HRs (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My try... (0+ / 0-)

    Let's get beyond that you selected to translate only the information that blamed Israel or tried to link Israel -- leaving us to wonder whether the rest wasn't newsworthy or just something you weren't interested in telling people about.

    Let me instead try to posit a hypothetical: Let's say you found a fatwa against someone controversial, maybe a latter-day Rushdie who ruffled some feathers. Why would you post a translation -- effectively just spreading the reach of the fatwa? If you're not offering any comment, then it looks like you're just trying to bring the fatwa to greater notice. What good would that do, unless you'd want the fatwa to reach someone who might carry it out? Is it newsworthy? If the fatwa issuer wants people to spread the news that way, aren't you being irresponsible by doing that?

    If you don't want to offer editorial comment about the validity, a disclaimer would do -- explaining that you're not endorsing the statement, but offering it because the fact that it's being said is newsworthy, notwithstanding how dangerously provocative and absurd it seems. Otherwise, it really looks like you're endorsing it.

    That's especially true when you lead the headline with the claim about Israel's involvement  followed by dashes that lead to the information that it was said by the Turkish PM (looking like an afterthought and certainly not the main point of the diary). If you weren't trying to put the idea into people's heads that this might actually be true -- that you really just wanted folks to know that Erdogan was saying this -- then I'll chalk it down to a hasty, ill-considered post on your part. I've certainly posted diaries that were completely misunderstood. On the other hand, if you did want to put that idea in people's heads then I stand by the HR. This site (and any site) should not be promoting fantastical, bigoted and highly provocative rants.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 12:53:16 PM PDT

    •  Most of the rest of what he said was about (14+ / 0-)

      his party and his government and not really newsworthy to a US audience.

      As to disclaimers - that is one of the main reasons I wrote this post, a general disclaimer for the time being.

      The title was clumsy but I corrected it when angry marmot pointed it out.

      Also, 'fantastical, bigoted and highly provocative rants' shouldn't be promoted as you state, but I wonder how many of the people who read my earlier post would have been aware that the PM had made these statements if I had not written that post.

      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 01:06:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why post a translation? So that we know... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, denig, War on Error

      that the Prime Minister of Turkey is a conspiracy-mongering anti-semite, that's why.

      You can't think of any other reason to draw attention to someone's racist words beside promoting and disseminating them?

      How about the frequent stories on the front page that tell us what racist politicians say about Barack Obama?

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 01:11:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lemmee see here, InAnatalya is damed if he or she (12+ / 0-)

      includes editorial, and damned if he or she doesn't.

      And if the premise is that she wants us to know that Erdogan is saying antisemitic stuff, thereby causing the wise to add salt when they read about what he said elsewhere and perhaps at another time, and certainly on the reported matter,  this deserves HR because what the fatwa in the example does is both of two things, the first being notification to the world that a stunningly stupid fatwa has been issued, and the second is notification that the fatwa has been issued, for those who believe in fatwas and their legal power, and what InA has allegedly done is both notify the world that Erdogan has said something really foul to some readers here, and in so doing and notifying repeated the foulness.

      This is foolish. You can't report wrongdoing if you have to report what the wrongdoing was?

      This is espeially silly when applied to InA, whose good postings over a long period of time have been the exception rather than the tacky rule in IP.

      I hope the commenters also remember that if they want this sort of a rule for InA, it also applies to them.

      •  You're being obtuse..... (0+ / 0-)

        One can report wrongdoing, in a any case. But, if all one is doing is repeating and disseminating the libel, one isn't reporting the wrongdoing. One is complicit in it.

        Look, people used to go apeshit every time a reporter wrote about batshit crazy birther conspiracies and the like without providing any counterpoint that there is no evidence or that it is contradicted by the evidence -- the argument being that the press reports were creating the impression that there might be any actual controversy.

        There's no reason why posters here should be held to a lesser standard than we've demanded from others.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 01:34:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So is it your view that anyone who reports that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, JesseCW

          another has said anything you personally consider antisemitic in any of its parts is complicit in that antisemitism because they reported it without condemning it? Condemning it in language you approve of? Else they must be HRd, because if the disclaimers are not there, then the stuff is HRable because so awful nobody at all should be allowed to read it?  If a Senator you liked made the same remark, would you take the same position when someone reported it. And will you take the same position as to reporting of  derogatory remarks by pols against Palestinians, Egyptians, Turks, Arabs or Muslims?

          •  Again, you're being obtuse (0+ / 0-)

            Either you're deliberately being a dick, or you're just finding it easy to ignore what I've actually written.

            I HR'd a diary because it carried this headline:

            Israel Is Behind the Military's Removal of Morsi in Egypt - Turkish PM Claims
            The text simply included this charge along with an aside that Erdogan also said the Brotherhood was protecting churches, while the military burned them.

            This is conspiratorial drivel. I could post a diary that restates 9/12 nonsense, and it would be HR'd until it was taken down.  Would it change that if I included attribution for the claim instead of purporting to have written it myself?

            There's a difference between reporting that there is news because someone said it, and casting it as a possibly true thing that was said, and happened to have been said by this person. It's all about how it's presented.

            You can go to a neo-Nazi site that is full of things that Hitler and Goebbels said. Is that reporting? Perhaps InAntalya didn't mean it the way it came across, but it still came across that way.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 02:12:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So I take it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cotterperson, JesseCW

              you won't remove the donut?

              What a surprise...

              When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

              by litho on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I haven't been offered a reason to (0+ / 0-)

                The diarist has never said anything to dispel my impression that she was offering the charge for serious consideration.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 02:35:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Here's her response (0+ / 0-)
                "The reason I wrote the post was that I believed that the PM's statements were something that people here would want to be aware of and that his statements would most probably not be covered in the US media."
                That reads like a non-denial denial.

                Did she believe that people would want to be aware of these statements because the claim would be earth-shattering if true? Something the US media would ignore because they don't report such explosive truths?

                Because it reads that way. .....Or

                Maybe she believed, because the claim is offensive and dangerous, that we'd want to know that someone who holds an important office in a large country -- a regional player -- is saying something so outrageous. I'd applaud that, if she's wiling to say that.

                But, her non-denial denial still seems evasive -- as if she doesn't want to admit that her reasons for posting it have more to do with the content of the charge than who was making it.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 02:43:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Reading this thread (7+ / 0-)

              And the thread in the other diary, it seems you might consider that you are the one being obtuse. An awful lot of people are trying to point out the unfairness of your HR, and you just keep beating the same dead horse - that you can't accept the diary was straight reporting without knowing what was in the diarist's heart and mind in deciding to report it.

              In my reading of it, and the other comments, I see two pertinent things that you seem to have missed.

              1. Any of us should find it useful and worthwhile to know what the leader of Turkey is saying about the situation in Egypt. Nobody should have to "justify" why they thought a report on his remarks would be of interest.If you don't know why, you need to do some work on your own heart and mind, and quit worrying about he diarist.

              2. InA has made several comments about opinion and analysis, saying that it might be included when s/he can, but it won't always be. One also says "read between the lines".  Now, it seems to me that only the most obtuse would miss the possiibility that someone living in what has become a fairly turbulent part of the world, on the border of some of the most complex and vexing issue of our foreign policy, is in a position where it might not be safe to express an opinion or give an analysis of some things. Yet you seem to have missed that possibility, and continue to berate and harangue, demanding what may not be personally safe for InA to give you.

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 03:37:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Good grief, just apologize & drop HR (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          Thou dost protest too much

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:32:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site