Posted on 07/24/2006 12:54:29 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
July 24, 2006
Bill O'Reilly got his show off to a surprising start this afternoon, with a novel theory as to why the big-city newspapers have tread lightly in criticizing Israel for its role in the current conflict. O'Reilly theorized, during his opening monologue, that the papers are fearful of turning off Jewish liberal readers.
As per Bill's theory, papers such as the NY and LA Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post have been taking big hits in readership and profitability. With Fox News Channel's ED Hill in the studio, O'Reilly continued: "liberal Jewish readers are all [those newspapers] have left" as a significant market segment. If the papers were to be too critical of Israel, it could alienate their last remaining readership niche.
It's hard to evaluate O'Reilly's statement since we can't look inside the minds of the papers' editors, and they would certainly never fess up to such a strategy. As someone who is a former liberal and still a Jew, I'd observe that I used to read the NY Times but don't anymore - except for purposes of perusing the online op-ed page to glean potential nuggets of interest for NB readers. That's a statistical sample of exactly . . . one!
But those same papers have not been hesitant to criticize Israel over the years. Is there really a sudden change of course? Or could it be, mirabile dictu, that there is surprising consensus in much of the world, even extending to portions of the MSM, that the Hezbollah thugs are a threat to most everyone this side of Tehran and Damascus?
Bill O'Reilly/NewsBusters ping to Today show list.
It makes some sense...
Yes, but are there many liberal Jews left who still care about Israel? Maybe the editors are being too fastidious.
For the record: Bill made clear that he recognizes Israel's right to go after Hezbollah. His theory was offered for purposes of explaining the papers' timidity, not criticizing it.
I can see that being true for the NYT but not the Washington Post
While BOR did include the WaPo I think he might have added 'to a lesser extent' and particularly emphasized the NY and LA Times.
Please elaborate.
Ha! I don't know why, but this struck me as really funny Mark. Even O'reilly is right once in a while.
Sort of like asking if there are many liberal Christians who still care about repentance.
If I can bring a chuckle to just one person, my day is a success ;-)
"Or could it be, mirabile dictu, that there is surprising consensus in much of the world, even extending to portions of the MSM, that the Hezbollah thugs are a threat to most everyone this side of Tehran and Damascus?"
I wouldn't be so optimistic.
There's stil Hamas, Al Quaida, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Fatah, the Wahhabists, etc., etc.
The problem is Islam.
The dispute between these collections of nutjobs is the techinique to be used to strangle us, not in the ultimate outcome.
He's not right about the L.A. SLIMES--it's always been very pro Palestinian. Hugh Hewitt has documented this many times on his radio show.
It is kind of interesting how the New Republic egged on the war against Saddam, and thend turned against Bush for actually doing it.
A lot of younger Jews are, or were, becoming quite fed-up with the Democratic plantation, and are flirting with the idea of wandering down to Republican town. Or have already done so (like yours truly).
The figures are beginning to be noticeable. Its panic time for liberal establishments. ;)
Where has Bill been??
Those paper have been criticizing Israel and their actions
That's been my impression, though he specifically mentioned that the NY Times has gone suprisingly [for it] easy on Israel in the current conflict.
"Yes, but are there many liberal Jews left who still care about Israel? Maybe the editors are being too fastidious."
As a Jew myself, grew up liberal, now conservative, I can assure you that your speculation is completely wrong. Liberal Jews are heavily supportive of Israel---and contribute heavily financially each year. Yes, I know it is a contradiction for a Jew to be a part of the anti-sematic, Israel hating left, but liberal Jews don't see things that way.
I do not care at all about the damn NYT any more. It is one of the worst papers in America.
Excellent column/coverage, as always, Mark. I appreciate how you skillfully spot and dissect important commentaries from "unusual" sources ("Today Show," for example).As for the current discussion, I'm curious if Bill will air this theory on "The O'Reilly Factor" later this evening? Might require more courage to discuss on TV vs. radio, which tends to fly a bit below the radar.
"The figures are beginning to be noticeable."
24% of Jews voted for Bush the last election. If memory serves correctly, Jews voting for Republican presidents has steadily increased over time, starting at 12% four elections ago.
What I dont understand in this day and age, why there are any liberal jews?
Something like that. A percentage in the high 30s (I'm thinking 38%) voted for Reagan in one of his elections.
There hasn't been a Republican majority from the Jewish vote since prior to FDR, but the gap is closing. And it will continue to close, since the major gains for Republicans are amongst Orthodox (lots of children, often don't vote, and generally live in Blue States) and younger Jews (often blue staters as well, and have a longer life span than that 65 year old committed Democrat). ;)
So how do they see things??? Enlighten me please.
AMEN!!!
Several reasons.
1) Jews generally live long. A lot of the original FDR voters are still around, and unsurprisingly, still vote democrat, thinking its still 1933.
2) We're damn stubborn. In fact, the only description of Jews in the Book is that we are "stiffnecked".
3) Commitment to social justice, combined with a confusion of social justice and socialism. Hence the saying that Jewish Americans earn like Japanese and vote like Puerto Ricans.
4) Emphasis on education. And we all know universities are liberal indoctrination grounds. Although the impact seems to be weakening. Particularly for Jews, who have come under attack for supporting Israel and faith.
5) Respect for elders. Seriously, this is a big one. Older members of the family can sway people considerably.
6) Faith has weakened for Reform and many Conservative Jews. Meaning many now see themselves as liberal before Jewish.
7) Blue staters. A majority of Jews (maybe not a HUGE majority, but a sizable majority nonetheless) are urban blue staters, and I guess its partially a cultural thing there.
8) Traditionally, the Democratic party has been (or at least been seen as) generally pro-Israel. This is changing.
9) A strange and shameful love affair with Clinton. *sigh*
10) Denial. "This is just a fad. It will pass."
11) Traditional fear of Christians and conservatives. Traditional sources of persecution. Long cultural memory means there is a very serious cultural aversion to these things, even if things are genuinely different now.
Funny how my very liberal CATHOLIC uncles in Detroit have subscriptions both to the Old Gray Skank and the WAPO then.
Exactly.
Many of them have confused socialism with social justice.
Anyways, they think they are building a better world, and they see Israel as an integral part of that better world.
Imagine big, rose-coloured glasses. Imagine rejecting everything that might point to regression (progress is inevitable! hurrah!). Imagine fear of, and disdain for, people seen as still living in the past. Be these conservatives, religious people in general (even other Jews, although these are tolerated to some extent), nationalists, pragmatic realists, etc.
Don't change the headline from that posted at the source. If you have to make an editorial comment in the thread title, put it in parentheses. Thanks.
More idiot analysis from that shallow nitwit pseudo-conservative. Secular liberal Jews from the upper west side of Manhattan would probably rank Israel's survival as 14th out of 19th on their list of priorities.
Does OReilly ever read the NYT ? Theyre alway taking the Palestinians side over Israel's.
Ask Mitch Albom.
That may be true, but he'd better have some serious Tom-Sowell type demographic data or the racist charges will be flying his way!
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also
2006israelwar or WOT
..................
Unlikely given circulation sizes, though impossible to know. Personally, I often wonder about the ranting about the circulation declines for the NYT as well.
|
Ranking
|
Daily Newspapers | Total Daily Circulation |
| 1. | USA Today | 2,222,745 |
| 2. | Wall Street Journal | 2,083,660 |
| 3. | New York Times | 1,126,190 |
| 4. | Los Angeles Times | 843,432 |
| 5. | New York Daily News | 688,584 |
| 6. | Washington Post | 678,779 |
| 7. | New York Post | 672,731 |
| 8. | Chicago Tribune | 586,122 |
| 9. | Detroit News/Free Press | 557,959 |
| 10. | Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News | 527,726 |
|
The New York Times |
|||||
|
Circulation Volume |
|||||
|
DAILY |
|||||
|
MARCH |
Home |
Single |
Other |
Total |
|
|
1998 |
660,931 |
390,015 |
59,197 |
1,110,143 |
|
|
1999 |
679,390 |
396,450 |
59,134 |
1,134,974 |
|
|
2000 |
708,974 |
364,055 |
76,547 |
1,149,576 |
|
|
2001 |
724,200 |
338,015 |
88,832 |
1,151,047 |
|
|
2002 |
726,105 |
362,089 |
106,297 |
1,194,491 |
|
|
2003 |
709,881 |
323,166 |
97,693 |
1,130,740 |
|
|
2004 |
688,645 |
310,155 |
134,963 |
1,133,763 |
|
|
2005 |
687,366 |
286,820 |
162,247 |
1,136,433 |
|
Many liberal Jews are critical of Israel. What harm would be done by the big newspapers to criticize it? I really don't think there would be harm done.
Kind of. Recently, 1980-39%, 1984-31%, 1988-35%, 1992-11%. Bush I had an impact.
If the Jews turn on it there will be no more Democrat Party. Blacks are hopelessly brainwashed so they will go down with the ship.
well, more Baker than Papa Bush. too much Baker State Dept. although plenty of folks will argue that Papa's world view is closer to Baker than Reagan... the history is left for debate.
It's funny cause it's true. :)
Perhaps, but it was Papa Bush's administration, and the remark was tolerated. Pat Buchanan as the spokesman for Republican morality didn't help either.
There are some jewish specific reasons there no doubt, but most look like the same ol reasons many liberals stay liberal. I wish there was a code to crack to break through, but it just comes down to keep fighting to reach people and never give up.
Is #9 referencing Monica or was she in some way a metaphor beyond herself?
I laughed too, so you're one up! I think you could apply the credit to tomorrow.
...et moi Aussi. The most interesting one, I thought, was the Washington Post, which recently ran an editorial to the effect that Israel is just a big mistake, trying to throw a bunch of European Jews into the Arab Homeland; might as well send the kikes elsewhere. I can't recall the fool's name, but what a sad comment on the Lefty Jews of D.C., Va., Md. that the Post is still bought by them.
The Jewish paper, but not the Wasp one.
Like liberal Irish Catholics, they are more liberals than members of their ethnic group. For each, liberalism is what informs their lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.