Pajamas Media’s Tilt Toward Israeli Right « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pajamas Media’s Tilt Toward Israeli Right

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Pajamas Media’s Tilt Toward Israeli Right”.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 20th, 2005 at 11:15 PM and is filed under Blogs-Tech-Science, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

44 Responses to “Pajamas Media’s Tilt Toward Israeli Right”

Richard Silverstein says:

October 26, 2005 at 3:05 PM

I find comments like one from the Stealth commenter, ‘Hey’, above to be delicious. First, because they’re over the top, histrionic, melodramatic, chewing the scenery ridiculous. Second, because they show the commenter for the wild-eyed right-winger he is.

You’ll notice that he or she’s not man (or woman) enough to admit their own identity or provide a link to their blog. What are they afraid of–coodies? Are they afraid I or one of my readers will stalk them? Pls. we’ve all got better things to do. Or are they perhaps just a tad paranoid about their opposition?

My hunch is that this is Martin Solomon’s work since he waxes so elegantly & disingenuously about his Love For Israel–but again who can tell.

I love when leftists, jews or otherwise, get offended by my support for Israel…

No, it’s not yr support for Israel. After all, one can be moderate politically or a progressive Zionist & support Israel. It’s the hateful attitudes you express in conveying that support. Yes, you love Israel in your way. But that “way” leads you to hate myriads throughout the world who you perceive (much of the time incorrectly) to be Jew-haters or anti-Semites. There is a way to love Israel and not hate Arabs or any of the other myriad purported anti-Semites you folks find hiding behind trees & under bushes.

I’m not saying there are NOT anti-Semites in this world who are worth opposing with all our might. But you, sir, go far beyond the realm of reason in unmasking alleged enemies of Zion.

…harrowed throughout history…
…under siege…
…they want to exterminate jews and drive every jew in israel into the sea…

Yeah, the Arabs are going to throw the Israelis into the sea, another Holocaust is coming, etc., etc. Don’t you guys ever tire of this out-of date-dreck? Ah, but you need such hysterical paranoia in order to hold to the extreme beliefs you have regarding Israel. If you saw the conflict as one that could be resolved by two semi-rational (at least at times) parties expressing a modest commitment to compromise, then you’d have to become semi-rational yourself & admit that the conflict can actually be solved. And you’re so much more comfortable in your hysteria.

I don’t agree that those on the Right must perforce hate Arabs though you appear to hate them (you’ll notice the commenter’s identity prevents us all from even being able to view his site to research his views on this subject). I’m certain there are conservatives who respect Islam and its adherents. But clearly none of the PJM partners do as I’ve proven here in this post.

And I certainly never said that “the only true friends of the Jewish people are on the left.” There are enemies of the Jewish people on the Right & the Left. Just as there are friends of the Jewish people among both political camps.

Despite the actual history of the world, with the wonderful treatment meted out by communist and socialist regimes…

Gee, you must’ve slept through your high school or college world history class when they taught about the Nazi slaughter of 6 million Jews. That is unless you’re counting Hitler as a socialist merely because he used the word in the name of his party. No, the Nazis were right-wingers through & through & just as much despots as the Soviets.

You are also libeling the firm, by maintaining that they have some secret backer and are not what they claim to be. I’d have my lawyers ready.

This is too rich! Me, I’m shivering in my boots with my trembling hand dialing my lawyer’s phone number! In case you hadn’t noticed dumbo, I reported that Micah Sifry indicated there was such a sugardaddy for the project. I didn’t originate the statement. And Sifry has confirmed privately to me that he has this information on good authority. So I have a good faith belief that the information is true. As for the lawyers, bring ‘em on. We’ll have a real donnybrook & my site traffic will skyrocket. Maybe you’ll even break my blog into the pages of the NY Times or Washington Post for the first time? What a nice thought.

Reply
Nathan Hamm says:

October 26, 2005 at 10:25 PM

So, either Charles Johnson has created a serious business venture which just so happens to have enlisted many of his dagger-wielding cronies in the “Israeli Right or Wrong/anti-Semites Behind Every Tree” blog community; OR he and his sugar daddy have created a venture designed to promote Israel’s far Right and dressed it in a fig leaf of ‘divergent’ blogging opinions (by including Cooper and Corn).

Then I must be some very odd sort of cover. Mine is a fairly unknown blog in most circles, so I don’t bring any kind of big name balancing credibility. I don’t really discuss Israel unless it has something to do with Central Asia somehow. I certainly wasn’t quizzed on my politics coming into the venture.

I agree that most of those affiliated share political views. But I think that if some liberal bloggers started such a venture it’d skew heavily left too at the outset. And for the exact same reasons–already existing loose networks coalescing and conservative aversion to having anything to do with “such horrible people.”

Personally, I took it as an opportunity. The liberals who are going to hate me already do, and the hardcore lefties who like me aren’t going to stop for this. My politics are my own, and being part of PJ won’t get me to start posting on Israel, the Middle East, or even US politics. To chalk this whole venture up to some kind of conspiracy and characterize folks like me as dupes is just silly.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

October 26, 2005 at 10:49 PM

I reviewed all the blogs featured at the PJM site including Nathan’s. I found his to be the only one I could actually take seriously. From my brief review, it appeared that he had a serious scholarly/journalistic intent. Plus, as he says above he doesn’t write about Israel or Palestine. That’s why I chose not to include his blog in my review.

But I assure Nathan he is the exception to the rule. And I’d also guess that Simon/Johnson et al see Nathan’s participation (like Corn’s and Cooper’s) as a feather in their cap since his blog has 1,000% more authenticity and sourcing than their own.

Nathan: there already is a liberal-counterpart to PJM called the Huffington Post. I don’t find overly ideological progressive hacks there as one does find [the obverse] at PJM.

And as Nathan admits, he’s more of a peripheral member of PJM & I’m sure not privy to whatever arrangement financial or otherwise which Roger Simon & Charles Johnson might’ve made with other parties (i.e. a sugardaddy). In order to find out more, we’ll have to wait to see if Micah Sifry’s reveals more about what he knows about PJM’s backing.

Reply
Nathan Hamm says:

October 26, 2005 at 11:30 PM

From my understanding of my role, PJ is not at all like the Huffington Post. If there are going to people doing exclusive blogging at PJ, I’ve not heard about it (but I’ve not paid much attention). I may be receiving a check from the company, but I still consider myself to be self-employed as it were. They get to use my content and advertise on my site, and I get some green.

I’d love to see more out of Sifry than “I’m guessing it’s someone who believes x, y, and z backing the operation.” But still, it doesn’t worry me all that much. I can think of plenty of institutions I like though I think their backers are absolute political loons.

All of the talk of a big, evil conspiracy is just getting a little tired, especially where it’s getting rubbed off on everyone involved. And though you mentioned that some of us are just peachy, that’s the way these posts always come off. (Especially when Michael Totten gets thrown in there. I know the guy. I’m slightly conservative myself, and I’d have to place him noticeably to the left of me.)

Reply
Dave says:

October 27, 2005 at 7:49 AM

“Don’t you guys ever tire of this out-of date-dreck?”

The only “out-of-date dreck” I am tired of is you, Silverstein.

Reply
HARD RIGHT says:

October 27, 2005 at 9:58 AM

Neocon Pajama Jammy Jam

B-Ho’s got a big announcement today. And, well, you know how I love those. The big news today is that a new internet venture called Pajamas Media is getting off

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

October 27, 2005 at 8:34 PM

The only “out-of-date dreck” I am tired of is you, Silverstein.

Gee, Dave is back. Too bad all he has to offer is tired one-liners instead of substance & discussion of issues.

If you’re tired of me buddy no one made you come here. You can go back & play with your pajama partygoers over at yr place & never have to hear a word that dissents from your comfortable self-enclosed world view.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

October 27, 2005 at 8:50 PM

All of the talk of a big, evil conspiracy is just getting a little tired,

Nathan: I didn’t use the word “conspiracy,” you did–TWICE. Perhaps you’re thinking of someone else who’s raised some objections to PJM. But you should be more accurate before you sling criticisms at me.

I said that many of the PJM bloggers featured at its site were extreme right wing pro-Israel types. I quoted Sifry who said that he has a source claiming there is a sugar daddy who deliberately wants pro-Israel bloggers included as part of the project. That’s it.

That being said, I certainly think that Johnson has an agenda & wants to advance his strident right-wing anti-Muslim/pro-Israel views & he sees this project as an excellent way of doing so. It may be that there will be a few bloggers at the site worth reading. I’m not saying the site will be all-Sharon all-the-time. But it will have a distinct tilt in that direction deriving fr. those blogs I feature above.

If you say Totten is to your left then you are considerably more than “slightly” conservative (though your conservatism is much more calibrated than some of yr other partners). The posts of his I’ve read are apologias for Bush Mideast policy (& I’m not talking about his Israeli-Palestinian policy which at times is cogent & creditable).

I’m certain that you know of Michael Ledeen & what scum he is. Can you honestly say you feel good about sharing a site with him?

Reply
Nathan Hamm says:

October 28, 2005 at 5:48 PM

Nathan: I didn’t use the word “conspiracy,” you did–TWICE. Perhaps you’re thinking of someone else who’s raised some objections to PJM. But you should be more accurate before you sling criticisms at me.

Richard, we’re not dancing, so there’s no need to prance around this way. You strike me as a sharp guy, so I can only assume you are trying to get me to back off in the face of some sleight of tongue. I’m simply being concise in distililng down a series of your charges. You suggest that someone of a particular ideological bent is funding the site presumably to get out a particular message. You further argue that I and a handful of others on the site were brought on as cover–that we are dupes. Forgive me for boiling this down to you thinking there’s a secret plot involving a few individuals in the offing.

I’m certain that you know of Michael Ledeen & what scum he is. Can you honestly say you feel good about sharing a site with him?

As comfortable as I am sharing a country with being on the same radio show as Kos tonight. Or as comfortable as I am sharing the country with folks I disagree with. What I don’t go in for is treating people like lepers for their political beliefs. Ledeen, like many ideologues, is not my cup of tea. But I generally don’t call people I disagree with “scum.”

If you say Totten is to your left then you are considerably more than “slightly” conservative (though your conservatism is much more calibrated than some of yr other partners). The posts of his I’ve read are apologias for Bush Mideast policy (& I’m not talking about his Israeli-Palestinian policy which at times is cogent & creditable).

Like I said, I know him. When I say he’s to the left of me, I’m talking about the totality of our political opinions. You apparently only take into consideration one’s foreign policy views. I think you’re misreading Michael, but I’m not going to convince you otherwise.

Personally, I think Roger and Charles are looking to make some money. As I’ve already pointed out, this isn’t like HuffPo where we will be logging in and posting exclusive content (at least I’ve heard nothing of the sort). The content will reflect the members’ content. If more people came in from the left, the content would reflect that.

Reply
Jeff G says:

October 28, 2005 at 6:16 PM

for my being “self-congratulatory” in my post. I think Jeff’s getting carried away with his rhetoric. The post doesn’t congratulate me or anyone else. It casts a critical eye at bloggers like Jeff and, poor boy, he doesn’t like that.

Actually, I could care less that you cast a “critical eye.” But that’s not what you’ve done. Instead, you’ve selectively quoted. Sure, I’m pro-Israel. But I spend very little time commenting on it. Instead, I spend a lot of time doing satire or linguistic / rhetorical analyses.

I suspect you looked at my name and figured I fit your sad little narrative.

Listen — you want to be critical of me, fine, do it. But do it honestly. Instead we get an ill-conceived post that likely won’t convince anyone other than those who are predisposed to thinking the world is made up of Jewish conspiracies — an who like to cite Jews saying such so that they can claim they’re not anti-semitic.

You’re a useful idiot, Dick. That’s it. And I just ask that if you want to engage me on on a particular issue, do so, rather than try to use me a piece of some grander conspiracy of which I am not a part.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

October 28, 2005 at 8:51 PM

Nathan:

Richard, we’re not dancing, so there’s no need to prance around this way.

Geez, I hope I don’t “prance” when I “dance,” not a pretty sight.

You appear to have an academic background in central Asian studies while my own is in literature. So you’ll have to forgive my focus on language, words & their meaning. It’s important to me. I make no claim that I’m the most precise, thorough or brilliant thinker in the world. But those things [language, etc.] are important to me & you’ll have to bear with that.

I can only assume you are trying to get me to back off in the face of some sleight of tongue.

I don’t follow. You used the term “conspiracy” & made it appear as if I was accusing PJM of being one. I pointed out that I never used the term & then clarified what I did mean. I have no idea what you mean by “sleight of tongue.” If you mean that I want you to back off using the term “conspiracy,” I merely ask that you be more precise when you attribute ideas or attitudes to me. As far as I’m concerned, using the term “conspiracy” is not precise or “concise.” It may characterize your true feelings & that’s fine. But look for some other PJM critics who’s actually called it a conspiracy & vent your feelings at them or else vent your feelings at me based on what I actually said.

You further argue that I and a handful of others on the site were brought on as cover–that we are dupes

Again, I did not say you were a dupe. I said that Charles Johnson and his cronies were taking advantage of the participation of more serious bloggers as a sort of window dressing which allows them to say (as they have disingenuously) that their enterprise has no particular ideological slant and contains divergent views.

Forgive me for boiling this down to you thinking there’s a secret plot involving a few individuals in the offing.

Now you’re being too cute by half. I said nothing about a “secret plot.” Now, you’re implying that you were not off base in “boiling down” my thinking to that phrase. Again, if I want to “boil down” my thinking I’ll do it myself. I’d ask you not to do it for me especially if you distort my intent.

You clearly know very little about Michael Ledeen–who he is and what he’s done. Either that, or you don’t care about his egregious deeds. Just a smattering of his statements are available above. Do you mean to tell me you’d say there’s no difference between Kos & Ledeen? As far as I know, Kos has not advocated “beating up” on countries smaller than our own just for the hell of it (seems we were doing a bit of that at Abu Graibh now weren’t we?). Kos hasn’t been in the middle of negotiating sleazy international weapons deals for rogue nations. Kos hasn’t been an ardent advocate for one of Iraq’s sleaziest–Ahmad Chalabi. I could go on.

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business”

You probably chalk this brutish talk up to a guy who’s being overly dramatic. If this and Ledeen’s other depredations don’t disturb you, then I hate to say it but it sounds to me as if you have very little moral perspective on the suffering that ideas like this cause to real people. In that case, the two of you will be very happy together.

I generally don’t call people I disagree with “scum” either. But in this case, it’s a description Ledeen so richly deserves.

The content will reflect the members’ content. If more people came in from the left, the content would reflect that.

Have you asked Charles & Roger who they’ve invited “from the left” besides Cooper & Corn? The only way the content can become diverse politically is if the founders decide they want it to be. I see no evidence that they’ve made a serious attempt to have any balance. They don’t have to–that’s their perjogative. But if their choice is to have the balance they currently have, then they can’t credibly argue that they have no ideological slant.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

October 28, 2005 at 9:08 PM

Jeff: I’m not sure what Jeff’s accusing me of. I went to his blog & reviewed a number of posts he’s written about Israel and found the passage I quoted. Did I misquote you Jeff? Is there some context I was missing? If so, go ahead & tell us. Instead all you can muster is: “Actually, I could care less that you cast a “critical eye.” But that’s not what you’ve done. Instead, you’ve selectively quoted.”

I didn’t “selectively quote” you. I quoted an entire passage leaving nothing out. If you’re all lathered up about it maybe you should’ve thought first before you wrote such a gross and offensive “humorous” take on “exploding Arabs.”

I spend a lot of time doing satire…

Yes, the passage I quoted from you is “satire” all right. Satire that is patently offensive to the majority of human beings (though not to you because when you were born God must’ve forgotten to hand out seychel (“judgment”).

Oh & I guess calling me “Dick” is meant to be satire too when that is not the name I go by? Funny, funny. If I called you “Jeffie” or “Goldy” what would that prove other than that I hadn’t gotten emotionally much beyond the 6th grade and that I was an ass. Since you have attempted such assinine “satire”, what does that make you?

Reply
Nathan Hamm says:

October 28, 2005 at 11:19 PM

Well, two of us distill your broader comments to posit there being a conspiracy here. I appreciate your desire for precision in language. I share it. I don’t think that my characterization of… well, your entire post… to mean that there’s a conspiracy. Perhaps you can just chalk it up to an unfortunate consequence of our wicked conservatism, but Jeff and I both seem to agree that you are positing a conspiracy though avoiding the word. (And I’m sorry, but I really do take you to be charging that those of us not interested in Roger’s and Charles’s purported political objective in the business to mean that we have been duped. After all, to be quite clear, I was not “invited” in any sense I understand the meaning of the word.)

As for Kos and Ledeen, I take them both to be ideologues who, on occasion say reprehensible things. We could go off into a whole discussion of my views on foreign policy (boils down to morals being something we should shoot for while realizing moral perfection is a childish myth), but why go off on a tangent. But don’t underestimate the impact of Kos’s ideas on people. Your post, while I would never dare to trace it back to Kos himself, is part and parcel of a disturbing attitude in modern American liberalism as practiced by Kos–a gleeful embrace and championing of political apartheid. But, my point is that, as distasteful as I find Kos, I don’t find my having been on the same radio show as him this evening to reflect on me personally any more than Ledeen and I receiving a check from the same company does.

As far as membership goes, from what I understand as someone whose contact with PJM has been more or less reading emailed updates and sending in forms as requested, the desire right now is to prove viability. As I mentioned before, no one sent me a personal invite and the initial members are to a great extent self-selected. As a somewhat conservative person (or someone who cares about making money) myself, I wouldn’t hold up the launch of my business until I achieved what those who despise my beliefs to be proper ideological balance.

Reply
Richard Silverstein says:

October 29, 2005 at 12:17 AM

Hey, I care about making money too (though I don’t make much). Does that make me “conservative?”

Kos and the big bloggers are making money as well & they’re not “conservative.” I’d be a tad more careful with the labels…

Reply