The ABC again publishes semi-literate "cheap" opinion rather than pay for knowledgeable commentary
The Wikileaks document dump elicits a language-mangling frenzy from Antony Loewenstein, who sees the documents as providing a "litany of information". Another Loewenstein clanger refers to the "utterly spinelessness" of Amazon for shutting down the Wikileaks site.
It's no wonder then that the ABC has published Loewenstein's superficial and less than lucid analysis of the impact of the Wikileaks release, in which he refers to the "litany of documents that prove Israel and the US looking to spy on Palestinian officials and gather information such as frequent flyer and credit card numbers."
The guy can't master the use of "litany" yet he's frequently published as providing "analysis". That's out ABC, sourcing cheap opinion rather than knowledgeable commentary.
It's no wonder then that the ABC has published Loewenstein's superficial and less than lucid analysis of the impact of the Wikileaks release, in which he refers to the "litany of documents that prove Israel and the US looking to spy on Palestinian officials and gather information such as frequent flyer and credit card numbers."
The guy can't master the use of "litany" yet he's frequently published as providing "analysis". That's out ABC, sourcing cheap opinion rather than knowledgeable commentary.
Labels: Antony Loewenstein
posted by Anonymous at 7:31 PM |
3 Comments:
A litany of documents that prove the US is spying on a state who's government is listed as a terrorist group.. yawn!
I do like this line..
Many in the Israeli press are pleased that the documents prove that US-backed autocrats support the hardline Israeli stance on attacking Iran. Why a supposedly democratic nation like Israel would want to be in bed with one of the most brutal regimes in the world, Saudi Arabia, has gone largely unremarked.
Some how in Lowensteins twisted logic, if two states think its a good idea to disable a rogue state's nuclear capability, that means those two states are in bed together!
Ants seems to gloss over the statement that the cables prove Israel correct about Iran (and therefore, him wrong). Why is this 'largely unremarked'?
I'm interested to know why Israel is only 'supposedly' democratic? Just a smear word, perhaps? Does the word "Israel" always need to be accompanied by an adjective to indicate your loathing for that country?
Why does Ant's litany of errors (BTW, correct use of the word, Ants) about Israel go largely unremarked (except by JFB)?
What Loewenstein ignores (either deliberately or more likely because he's an idiot) is that the Arab states are more worried about Iran than they are about Israel.
This doesn't suit Loewenstein's argument that Israel is the root of all evil. Even the useless Arabs, the biggest military failures of the last half-century, can work this out, yet "analyst" Antony can't. Or won't.
Loewenstein on the ABC's website:
"there is no evidence that any WikiLeaks releases have harmed a soul, something even acknowledged by the US government."
Oh really?
"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak,"
--Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder in The Grauniad.
It's unclear whether Loewenstein is being deliberately dishonest, again, or stupid, again, or he meant to restrict that comment to the current leaks, for which it's entirely likely nobody would have died.... Yet. Either way, it's a wholly undergraduate bit of writing.
Post a Comment
<< Home