Skip to main content

View Diary: Mondofront: Now with Gilad Atzmon (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Three issues: (6+ / 0-)

    First, given the manner in which you frame the narrative in your title ('Mondofront') I suspect that we're unlikely to find much dispassionate evaluation of the propriety of citing materials from Mondoweiss.

    Second, if I'm reading between the lines of the final paragraph correctly ('the real value is in the content from non-Mondofront sources'), then is the suggestion that references posted here on dKos should link to the original sources rather than through secondary links at Mondoweiss?

    Third, I think we need to be extremely cautious to differentiate among the editorial position of a site, the views of individual authors contributing to a site, and the views represented by commentary on a site. There is a real potential here for broadly sweeping accusations of guilt (of antisemitism) by association. I don't really have a vested interest in Mondoweiss (I follow links there very rarely) but I do believe strongly that if we are to develop dKos policy re Point #5 of the letter on antisemitism, we need to err on the side of allowing more content here and discussing the propriety of individual pieces rather than dismissing content out-of-hand on the basis of antisemitism by association.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:20:00 AM PDT

    •  Generally speaking (12+ / 0-)

      I think it is always best to use a primary source when a secondary source links to it. This isn't Mondo-specific.

      While your third point has some validity, I also think it's important to differentiate between a blog run by one or two people, and, say, a newspaper. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, for example, is a reliable mouthpiece for the right. Their news section is far less objectionable.

      Mondo, OTOH, doesn't have different sections, and doesn't pretend to be an uncritical news source with a wholly separate opinions section.  Indeed, they call themselves "a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective." So they admit that they have a specific perspective, and while I find any link between Philip Weiss to the words "progressive" or "Jewish" to be somewhere between tenuous and laughable, it is perhaps to their credit that they don't hold themselves out as a Ha'aretz or NYT. Moreover, they have four principal aims, as noted on their site:

      It has four principal aims:

      1. To publish important developments touching on Israel/Palestine, the American Jewish community and the shifting debate over US foreign policy in a timely fashion.

      2. To publish a diversity of voices to promote dialogue on these important issues.

      3. To foster the movement for greater fairness and justice for Palestinians in American foreign policy.

      4. To offer alternatives to pro-Zionist ideology as a basis for American Jewish identity.

      Now, these aims are certainly no crime (literally or figuratively), but they aren't the aims of an operation with separate news and opinion arms.

      Unapologetic Obama supporter.

      by Red Sox on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:28:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When the editor of a site (13+ / 0-)

      posts an interview he did with a Holocaust denier, that's not "antisemitism by association." That's antisemitism by antisemitism.

      Welcome to Galt's Gulch. You have died of dysentery.

      by zemblan on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:32:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But that's why I (9+ / 0-)

      consider the Wall Street Journal a right wing rag - their news coverage is actually pretty good - it's their editorial/opinion page that raises my blood pressure.  Sites are what the contributors make of it.

      And for the record, after what I've seen of that site, it's vile.

    •  good point... (12+ / 0-)
      Third, I think we need to be extremely cautious to differentiate among the editorial position of a site, the views of individual authors contributing to a site, and the views represented by commentary on a site. There is a real potential here for broadly sweeping accusations of guilt (of antisemitism) by association.

      to me, it seems that the criteria has been met though in that the editorial postion, individual contributors and comments contained all show a disturbing pattern of not guilt by association - but guilt, literally.

      "You can make a profound intellectual statement just by basing your efforts on silliness." -- Donald Roller Wilson

      by canadian gal on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:40:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Speaking just for myself (12+ / 0-)

      I have a real problem remaining dispassionate when it comes to tolerance of or propagation of Holocaust denial. Nobody here would even dare quote David Duke, Rense or for that matter Stormfront. But when there are a few Jews involved, as on Mondofront, it becomes acceptable?

      The problem with that, aside from the obvious, is the logical fallacy that Jews ipso facto can't be antisemitic. That's nonsense; of course they can. There are homophobic gays and misogynistic women. That's like saying that Phyllis Schlafly should be considered a legitimate source here on matters relating to feminist issues.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 12:54:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well that is definitely right (8+ / 0-)

        Just because a few Jews say something is not anti-Semitic when the community overwhelming endorses that it is, does not negate that something is anti-Semitic.

        Schaffly is a great example of something like this. Or someone like Herman Cain or Alan Keyes in the African American community. There are a few people who for whatever reason relate to or accept the prejudices of their oppressors as legitimate.

        This is the case at MondoFront, where Phil Weiss and Co. buy into meme's of the anti-Semitic community because of some feeling of guilt over Zionism and Israel. They buy into the anti-Semites description of Jews.

        It happens.

        DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

        by volleyboy1 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:04:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The difference is that the proposal to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brecht

        put Mondoweiss off-limits on dKos is directed toward a collective. Blankfort? Pretty awful stuff, from what I've seen linked here. So then propose a list of authors / contributors whose antisemitism should disqualify them as individuals, and that list can be subject to discussion. A broadly-sweeping, guilt-by-association proposal to place all content from Mondoweiss off-limits simply doesn't sit well with me; not because I'm a regular reader of the site (as I said above, I rarely visit there), but because I have a fundamental problem with censuring a collective for the opinions of individuals. It's too general an indictment, and too ripe for abuse. Will it take more time and effort to identify individual authors and discuss them as individual cases? Of course. However, as I also said above, when proposing to limit 'speech' (understood here as limiting references to outside sites) I believe it better to err on the side of caution and admit more than less...

        Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

        by angry marmot on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 01:39:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you're wrong there (9+ / 0-)
        Nobody here would even dare quote David Duke, Rense or for that matter Stormfront

        Rense has been quoted here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

        The user remains unbanned because he took out the Rense reference, apparently upon being warned.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site