On eccentric chess-players and independent journalists

The Telegraph reported yesterday, 13 Jun 2011, on the visit of Mr. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to Tripoli, where he met Col. Gaddafi, the beleaguered leader of Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573080/Col-Gaddafi-refuses-to-step-down-playing-chess-instead.html).

The sub-headline referred to the visitor as being “eccentric”, as did the caption of the accompanying photograph. Indeed, the caption also suggested the reason why he is regarded as being eccentric: he has apparently claimed to have spoken to aliens. Interestingly, the photography is attributed to Reuters TV – did that source provide the writer of the Telegraph article with the caption as well, or did he happen upon “eccentric” on their own?

Now, the visitor labeled by this journalist as being eccentric is, according to the same article, the head of the World Chess Federation, a wealthy businessman and was the head of the Russian republic of Kalmykia for more than a decade.

The article does not state why the writer thinks the President of FIDE to be eccentric, but the juxtaposition in the caption appears to imply it is because he has claimed to have met aliens from space.

Now why would this make anyone eccentric? We live in a world where people believe in all sorts of invisible Gods, and whole systems of hells and heavens for which not the slightest proof exists. Indeed, some of the fundamental claims of some of the currently dominant religions are proven to be false. Yet there are those who believe in them. Would the journalist take it upon himself to call the Pope eccentric? The Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque? The millions of poor in India who generally tend to look towards a God-figure? The journalist is entitled to his opinion, but surely a little sense of taste would not be awry?

> “He (Gaddafi) is thought to spend his time constantly on the move, driving around Tripoli, and sleeping in hospitals and religious places that Nato would never dare bomb.”

By whom? By the journalist? In that case, why not “I think he spends his time…….”? Or by two Libyans who accosted him at the bar whilst they were getting some more ice for him? Why not state that source? The “is thought” device suggests common wisdom, an almost-truth, the truth.

The Independent followed suit the next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dictators-gambit-look-whos-joined-the-chess-set-2297106.html), referring to the first President of Kalmykia as “the eccentric chess supremo”.

Cause and Effect and Attention-Seeking

The BBC, on its website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13694734), ran the following tragic headline on the 08th of June, 2011, "Man stabbed to death for £12 on birthday in Fulham".

The article describes how a young man, Mr. Krzysztos Rusek, celebrating his birthday, his thirtieth in a public park in the company of his lover and friends, was attacked and killed.

It goes on to suggest that robbery was the motive and that a total of GBP 12 was taken.

The headline, on the other hand, implies that Mr. Rusek was murdered for the sake of GBP 12. Now, it is absurd that that the attackers knew in advance that they would be able to make away with this sum. Indeed, the article suggests that the attack was carried out with intent to rob (it describes the assailants as robbers and not, say, murderers) and not necessarily to kill.

The headline is thus an example of shabby journalism, in that truth is sacrificed in order to pander to sensationalism.

An example of far from outstanding journalism

The very respectable Guardian today published a story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/06/libyan-regime-fails-fool-media) on the armed conflict (are we allowed to call it a War?) in Libya with the headline, "Gaddafi regime fails to fool media over injured child".

The sub-text read "Journalists taken to see 'bomb victim' in Libyan hospital find out child was hurt in road accident".

The story involves the Libyan government inviting journalists to observe an injured infant, probably in an effort to showcase how NATO bombs were killing children, hoping that the picture of an innocent girl in a hospital ward would appall most Westerners, putting pressure on NATO countries to stop bombing Libya. The narrative continues with the Libyan government being exposed whilst organizing a media circus around a lie – the girl was injured in a car crash.

Excellent investigative reporting, one might think, at first glance; the government won't fool us this time, lads.

However, a closer look and the story fails shockingly, on many levels.

Perhaps most importantly, even if the note on "hospital stationery" bore the truth, what of the larger issue of civilian casualties in a war? This girl was (probably) not struck by a bomb. What of the others who were? The article completely ignores this issue.

Perhaps Libyan babies aren't really that interesting

Note that the seven-month-old girl, Nasib, is completely ignored. We don't know where she is from, or where her parents are from, or whether her parents are really glad that she's survived, and if the entire family is praying for a swift and complete recovery. No one from the medical team is asked what her chances are. How did the road accident (if it indeed was a road accident) take place? Was there anyone else hurt? Were the parents in the same car?

As any reader of the UK press (the Guardian being a UK newspaper) might tell you, this sort of thing would be very conspicuous in its absence, were it to involve a seven-month-old accident victim in the UK.

Let's examine the headline again - it highlights a failed attempt at fooling the media. The media has triumphed. The media is all-powerful. Apart from being distastefully self-congratulatory, surely there are more urgent issues here that are pushed to the background?

Let us examine how they media found out they were being hoodwinked.

> But a member of the medical staff slipped a note written in English on hospital stationery to a reporter, which was seen by Reuters, that said: "This is a case of road traffic accident. This is the truth."

How did the media know that this person was a member of the medical staff? Did they check ID and employment records? Or was he wearing a whitish-sort of uniform? Or because he had his hand on a piece of "hospital stationery"? How strictly controlled is access to said hospital stationery? How do they know that the note is to be believed? Apart from the fact that he wrote "This is the truth", of course.

Assuming that the girl in this particular case wasn't really hurt by a bomb, but in a car accident, may we assume that NATO bombing is not to blame? What if the driver became nervous at the wheel because he heard a bomb explode in the distance and imagined that he might be hit soon? What if traffic was not properly controlled because the war situation had shifted resources away from traffic control? What if the girl will die because there aren't enough doctors to treat her, or medicines, because of the interrupted supply chains?

>” The government says that 700 civilians have died in bombing raids, but have offered little evidence to support the claim.”

Well, what evidence did they offer? Or is this a figure of speech, and absolutely no evidence was forthcoming? That's good, we want our journalists to probe, to ask for proof. What would have sufficed? 700 dead bodies? But they could have drowned whilst on a pleasure cruise to Italy or something, so 700 dead bodies with autopsy reports, perhaps? But the government might be faking those, so 700 autopsy reports from independent doctors. That ought to do the job. They have a war going on over there, and seven-month-old girls hooked up to (some sort of unidentifiable) medical equipment, so it might take a little bit of time. The key question in this context is: do standards of truth in the war-zone apply universally? Would we believe the statistics of the government of Australia? Better still, may we believe them, in a similar case? And whilst we are trying to figure out the truth, ought military action to be put on hold?

A member of the government is quoted:

> "We want to be as credible as much as possible."

Our journalist ignores this question-begging statement.

How a truth is born

The posh media today is neither independent nor particularly critical.

Background: In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India observed that so-called honour killings were a slur on the modern Indian nation. The judgement itself was worrying in that it appeared to validate extra-judicial confessions, extended the meaning of certain common words, and displayed a shocking lack of logic and ignorance of the demarcation of power between the legislature and the judiciary (More at http://promotingfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-penalty-judicial-response-to.html).


The Washington Post ran the story too, on the very next day, i.e. 10 May 2011, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-top-court-recommends-death-penalty-for-honor-killings/2011/05/10/AFRk2IeG_story.html).

The story is attributed to the Associated Press; authorship is anonymous.

But surely, a watchful editor at the Washington Post would have been concerned with this statement:

> "While there are no official figures, an independent study found around 900 people were killed each year in India for defying their elders."

A study by whom? Surely, we don't accept the quoting of statistics without provenance?

Does the figure include teenagers who drive their parents' car in spite of being told not to ("wait till you're 18 and have a license" and all that sort of thing), and get killed in an automobile accident? The language employed, "killed for defying their elders", does not exclude this and other similar cases.


The Telegraph, whilst referring to a separate "honour" killing incident (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8515426/India-mothers-accused-in-honour-killing-of-two-brides.html), five days later wrote:

> "While there are no official figures, an independent study found around 900 people are killed each year in India for defying their elders."

This is exactly the same sentence published by the Washington Post. There is no attribution to the Associated Press. Nor is here the provenance of the study disclosed.

And so a dubious (in that it is too general, and unattributed) claim becomes reinforced, and acquires the attribute of being independently verified.

It would be hard to fault a post-graduate student in France from using this statement in an academic work, given that there are two easily-accessible, apparently independent sources - one in the UK, one in the USA. The academic paper would be cited by an official responsible for policy, or by a politician back in India responsible for legislation.

And so yet another truth of our modern information age is created.

The Indian Press and a Lack of Style

This recent article in the Hindustan Times on Elections in India (http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-can-boast-of-four-women-CMs/Article1-696946.aspx) illustrates the poor sense of style displayed by the Indian media.

> With Mamata Banerjee and J Jayalalithaa set to capture power in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu respectively, India could for the first time boast of four women Chief Ministers.

Why "Mamta" Banerjee but "J" Jayalalithaa? Why is one of these ladies stuck with an unexpanded initial? What possible excuse could they have?

Prefer "..boast of as many as four.." to "..boast of four..", for one assumes that the number 4 in itself is not the source of the boast, but is meant to evoke a sense of great numbers.

> BSP supremo Mayawati has singlehandedly secured power in the largest state of Uttar Pradesh four years back and her victory at that time was seen as a defining moment in Indian politics.

Prefer "Mayawati had singlehandedly secured" to "Mayawati has singlehandedly secured", given that a past event is being referred to.

> Jayalalithaa was out in the cold for the last five years in Tamil Nadu as also at the Centre, had her sweet revenge on Karunanidhi's DMK despite setbacks in the last two Lok Sabha polls and would be ruling the state for the next five years.

A clumsy sentence, on account of omitted commas.

The very next sentence is:

> Jayalalithaa's single point campaign plank was to end the "family rule" of the DMK in the backdrop of the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

Curious that "her" is not employed, instead of the proper name, given that the preceding sentence started too with "Jayalalithaa", and no other female person was named in either sentence.

> ..Shashikala Kakodkar of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party was Chief Minister of the then Union territory of Goa for most part of the seventies.

Prefer "most of the seventies" to "most part of the seventies".

> Congress' Anwara Taimur was in the top executive post of Assam for a year in early eighties

"An year", of course, and not "a year".

Prefer "in the early eighties" to "in early eighties".

The writer, in the same article employs "in the early sixties" and "in early seventies". He, or she, therefore, is neither consistent not correct.

> Since those elections in 1998, Dikshit is holding forte in Delhi.

Probably "fort" instead of "forte". Presumably, holding fort is her forte.

The shirking of intellectual duty

A recent book review in Foreign Policy (http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/11/pakistan_a_hard_country) does not appear to have been written by someone who is both non-partisan and academically sound.

The reviewer praises the book, calling it "comprehensive":

> This insightful, comprehensive portrait of Pakistan is the perfect antidote to stereotypical descriptions of the country

However, the reviewer admits, later, to the book having missed some key areas:

> There is surprisingly little on the U.S. drone program in Pakistan's tribal areas, one of the most controversial subjects in the context of strained U.S.-Pakistan relations...Lieven's discussion of the Pakistani economy is also limited...

The reviewer than labels these and other omissions as being of a "minor" nature. The drone strikes, "one of the most controversial subjects", by the reviewer's own account, and the national economy are labeled minor, in no very deft fashion.

The reviewer wishes to end on a positive note:

> ....an intuitive, intelligent, and invaluable text.

Is this the reviewer's (unconscious, perhaps) love of alliteration, or does the text satisfy on all three fronts?

What does "intuitive" mean?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive".

So, the reviewer knew really what the writer was leading up to, even before having read the text? The writer came up with conclusions and presented premises that the reviewer was previously comfortable with? Is this the reason for the positive review? Intelligent and invaluable because you reinforce my world-view.

The OED also suggests that a secondary meaning exists, but chiefly in the context of computer software, "easy to use and understand". Was the book accompanied by a list of key pages that reviewers ought to read? Were sections relevant to reviewers highlighted?

Or did the writers intentionally use easy language, making the book accessible also to non-native speakers of English?

> It is to Lieven's credit that he allows Pakistanis to express their own understanding of the nation's predicament through extensive direct quotes. This narrative device helps uncover the logic behind traits that may seem indecipherable - or even suicidal - to the outsider; the barbaric rulings of western-educated tribal chiefs, the apathy of civilian law-enforcers in the face of militant attacks, or the average Pakistani's appetite for conspiracy theories about the U.S. and India.

Direct quotes are fun. They make an account appear authentic. The reviewer suggests that direct quotes help uncover the logic behind indecipherable/suicidal traits. Is the reviewer attempting to ascribe a "logic" to these very unpleasant traits? To justify them?

> The subtlety and fluency with which Lieven deconstructs the quirks of Pakistani society may lead some to write him off as an apologist for the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why can nothing be further from the truth? The reviewer does not inform us. (The next sentence about the book containing dire warnings about Pakistan's future is not a particularly novel idea) Indeed, it would appear that the reviewer has recognized that the author might be seen as an apologist for Pakistan, especially after having "known" the country for more than twenty years (as the reviewer informs us), does not wish this to happen, and attempts to nip such thinking in the bud.

> His resounding message to the Washington is to avoid incursions into Pakistani territory by U.S. ground forces, even in the event of a terrorist attack with Pakistani origins on American soil.

Superfluous definite article in "the Washington".

And why is this a "resounding" message? It would appear that the reviewer is trying too hard.

So what's the recommendation? That the US, with the world's largest military, and a history of wars in foreign countries, should not exercise any military option at all, after having been attacked? Does not appear to be awfully realistic. Or that the US should employ drones, the USAF and navy to attack terrorist installations in Pakistan?

An unusual reaction to the tragedy in Japan

The Economist (www.economist.com) sent out this message from the editor (Editor Highlights 17 Mar 2011) titled "The fallout" about the tsunami in Japan and warned governments against giving in to the popular backlash against nuclear power.

"Some natural disasters change history; Japan's tsunami could be one. For the moment, the country is still coming to terms with the scale of the calamity, trying to contain the accident at the damaged nuclear plant and restore normality to suffering people. But in the longer run, it is just possible that some good may come of this catastrophe. Past natural disasters in Japan have been followed by big changes of direction, and the country is sorely in need of change. For the rest of the world, the biggest question Japan's tsunami throws up concerns nuclear power. The accident at the Fukushima plant will only increase its unpopularity, and thus the reluctance of politicians to support it and bankers to finance it. We urge the world not to turn its back on a technology that has so far been much safer than coal, and offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels that is cheaper than most renewables."

(highlighting not in original)

> But in the longer run, it is just possible that some good may come of this catastrophe

This is facetious, at best, for anything will have "some" good come out of it, in the "longer" run. For good measure, the editorial adds the word "possible". It can be argued that one of the surviors would have gone to poison a water reservoir, thereby has the tsunami saved many lives, which might otherwise have been lost, by killing this horrible (possible) perpertrator.

At worst, however, it dismisses the human element of the very current and developing tragedy of Japan. Why? Because of the distance from the Headquarters of the Economist? Because the readership of the Economist is, generally, non Japanese?

> For the rest of the world, the biggest question Japan's tsunami throws up concerns nuclear power.

Really? Again, notice how swiftly the dead, dying and homeless victims are brushed aside. The rest of the world needs to focus on energy policy - and ignore people dying. Because Japan is so far away?

Would the Economist have shown the same detachment if this tragedy had occured in London, or in New York? Or are we to care only about western-christian civilization?

When journalists dabble in the dark arts

A recent article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/antisemitism-hatred-wont-go-away) decried the resurgence of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the journalist felt compelled to use hoary propaganda techniques. Was it to no avail that the philosopher had declared that a poor defense of the truth is detrimental to it? Countering anti-Semitism in the manner of this journalist does not promote liberty and tolerance.

• In the space of a few days, a range of assorted eminences have dropped their guard and given voice to the Jew-hating demons in their heads.

This is rather emotional language and suggests that the journalist does not particularly care for academic distance from the subject at hand. Does the journalist’s world-view regard humans beings controlled by angels and demons? Does the journalist recommend the cultivation of exorcism studies? Is the journalist assuming a universal belief in some cosmos where the journalist’s God or Gods hold court with a range of angels, demons and other other-worldy beings?

Notice also the equating of “anti-Semitism” with “Jew-hating”. Let us look at the Oxford English Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0754270) for the meaning of the word Semite.

Semite, noun, a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

So, the word Semite does not confine itself to the Jews. The term ant-Semite (defined by the OED to be "hostility to or prejudice against Jews") in the context of this article may and should therefore be replaced by anti-Judaism. This is not a particularly novel idea, as even casual Internet searches will reveal. However, it is an important one, for now we are beyond one level of complexity and countering anything that supposedly counters anti-Semitism appears to be in poor taste.

• The latest subscriber to that centuries-old canard may turn out to be Julian Assange......
• Assange later issued a denial.....

So where does that leave us? Did Assange or did he not? Our journalist does not appear to try to find out the truth. He is content to let others do the accusing for him (note the “may” in the suggestion above) and happy at his own sense of fairness for he also mentions that the accused did deny it. But fairness demands more. It demands that the journalist put the expense-account to good use and investigate what happened. If the journalist does not bother doing that, then we might anticipate the next Guardian article saying, “The Sherriff of Nottingham might have encouraged the burning alive of Jews last Friday, saying that they really finally need to pay for the death of Our Lord. The Sheriff’s office, however, denies that any mention of Jew-burning took place and also holds that it does not advance any religious views.” For this sort of juvenile gossip-mongering, the expense-account may be dispensed with.

• So far only John Galliano has paid with his job, the "transgressive" designer dropped by fashion house Dior after delivering a drunken rant in a Paris bar to two women he took to be Jews: "I love Hitler," he began.

The “only” bit above appears to suggest that the journalist believes it to be meet and right that Mr. Galliano has lost his job. But also of interest is the fact that it was a “drunken rant”. What is the way forward for us as a society, according to the journalist? That all bars ought to have video cameras where we might ensure that everything people say under the influence of drink be recorded, posted on the Internet and examined by employers the next day to see whether there are any grounds for dismissal. If one insults one’s boss, for instance? Or suggests that one wouldn’t mind meeting Jones from Accounting in a dark alley, after having had a couple of pints of real ale? Perhaps job interviews ought to include binge drinking sessions where the truth comes out, in vino veritas and all that sort of thing?

But more worrying about the “only JG has paid with his job” and the previous “a range of assorted eminences have dropped their guard” is that the journalist appears to sport a mindset reminiscent of the Roman Church during the Inquisition – that we are all sinners, that there must be more sinners who are hunted out and burnt at the stake, that many sinners are continuously on the guard in order not to be detected by those noble ones chosen to hunt out sinners, but they can’t possibly keep up their guard all the time, sooner or later they must fall.

• ….according to Mohammad Aliabadi, the head of Iran's National Olympic Committee who complained this week that the jagged-shaped logo for London 2012 clearly spells the word "Zion". That, the Iranian complained, was "a very revolting act".

Let us examine the double-quote device. The journalist uses a link (http://jta.org/news/article/2011/02/28/2743126/iran-protests-olympic-logo) to justify putting “a very revolting act” in double-quotes. This is how it should be, for it is a direct quote. However, the journalist also suggests that the “Iranian” claims that the logo “clearly” spells the word “Zion”. The link provided by our journalist (see above) does not have the Iranian do any such thing. “Clearly” clearly suggests that the Iranian is a man who is seeing things where there are none. But this is an old trick. Make your opponent appear ridiculous by false attribution, and the battle is half-won. Interesting, also, that the journalist chooses for his link a website calling itself “The Global News Service of the Jewish People”. Just a little ironic in an article decrying the allegations that the world media is controlled by the Jews.

• If most people have so far failed to see "Zion" surreptitiously contained inside the graphic, well that, Aliabadi would surely say, only goes to prove the dark genius of the Jews – able to conceal their cunning ways when it suits them.

Now the journalist claims to read the mind and thinking of the “Iranian”, and shows it to be that of a fourteen-year old. This is how we want intellectual debate to be carried out. “Dark genius of the Jews” – this is the only bit in this sorry example of journalism that elicited a chuckle.

• Or perhaps, as the US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg blogged, the Iranians are wrong and the logo secretly spells out: "Mark Spitz is Jewish, and Jason Lezak is Too, So Go Drown Yourselves in the Caspian Sea."

This appears to be an endorsement by the journalist of a rather murderous, indeed, genocidal, sentiment. Or do we let the journalist and Mr. Goldberg off the hook, for they are attempting to be humourous? Why is that, though? Why do we automatically assume that Mr. Goldberg is being witty but Iranian sport-officialdom is not? Maybe they’re sitting around having a laugh. Or crying at being possibly forced to drown themselves and their children at gunpoint. Can anti-Semitic tirades about genocide be excused on the grounds of humour? Incidentally, the “US journalist” referred to refers to himself as being Jewish, in the same article. Possibly just a coincidence, of course. Maybe he even is of Iranian extraction, given the universe’s love of coincidences.

• Puppets, snakes, masters of the global chessboard – it's a palette of imagery any Nazi propagandist would instantly recognise.

How do we test this assertion? Snakes have been used in other cultures as symbols, surely? Ditto for puppets, ditto for forces in the background. And, to make matters interesting, Nietzsche, in Also Sprach Zarathustra, claims the snake for a positive symbol. Can it be that the propaganda here consists in the use of the term “Nazi”? Associate your opponent’s devices with the Nazi movement and you weaken your opponent’s position. If one is being intellectually rigorous, then one would demonstrate how these symbols were a) used by the Nazis and b) used exclusively by the Nazis. The journalist does not bother.

• One is the claim that Jews brand any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another is the claim that Jews "cry antisemitism" in order to silence opposition to Israel. These cliches – which are belied by the sheer volume of criticism of Israel by Israelis and Jews themselves, let alone by everyone else

These might be clichés, and these might be utterly false but the journalist’s reasoning here is not logical and does not hold water. Jews (some of them) might still “cry anti-Semitism” even if the volume of criticism of Israel by (some) Israelis (includes some non-Jews, by the way) and (some) Jews is high (or low). Does no one read these articles before they are published? Not just for spelling mistakes but for basic flaws in reasoning.

• What most Jews object to is not, in fact, criticism of Israel itself, but when that criticism comes wrapped in the language or imagery of Jew-hatred.

Imagery of Jew-hatred is objectionable, certainly. However, I do not think that that makes the other bit, that most Jews (and a high percentage of Jews are Israeli; and many others, except for some orthodox ones, tend not to be against Israel) do not object to criticism of Israel, credible. Possible, of course, but the journalist does not tell us who he knows this. And it would make “most” Jews seem to be rational and civilized; members of the club, one of us, tolerant, steeped in the democratic tradition – and the other stereotypes the journalist appears to wish to cultivate.

• Similarly, Jews are unnerved when they read learned essays by foreign policy experts alleging the domination of US affairs by the "Zionist lobby" – seeing in such arguments a veiled, upmarket form of the perennial conspiracy theory.

Well, which it is then? Are they essays really learned? Are the writers really experts? Because if they are, then either there is a conspiracy to malign the Jews (can we call it the Jewish Conspiracy?) or the writers are not intelligent, learned, academically sound etc. etc..

• Viewed like this, Assange's remarks don't look so distant from Oliver Stone's assertion last year that there is "Jewish domination of the media", to say nothing of Richard Dawkins's breezy statement that "the Jewish lobby . . . more or less monopolise American foreign policy".

This is contemptible. The journalist had earlier mentioned that Assange had denied his having uttered the anti-Semitic remarks. But now the journalist draws upon them as if they were confirmed fact. Actually, perhaps because it is such a blatant prevarication, it is not, after all, contemptible. The journalist is merely checking if his readers are on their toes.

Interesting use of the word “breezy”, to describe Mr. Dawkin’s statement. What does it mean? The OED suggests that the secondary meaning of “appearing relaxed, informal” is meant here. So because it was “breezy” (in the journalist’s opinion), we can sort of ignore that it was a Professor at Oxford (in 2007, which is when the statement was made, according to the linked article) and a Fellow of the Royal Society (founded in 1660) who made the statement.

Notice also that the journalist does not say anything about whether or not there is a Jewish domination of the media. Something like, “Mr. Stone said that there is a Jewish domination of the media, but you see, that’s not quite correct, for the media (where?) is composed of these groups, and the main shareholders are non-Jewish.”. All the journalist does is be critical of Mr. Stone et al for expressing an opinion, without saying anything about the veracity of the opinion, which, by no means, is fantastical. It may be utterly, utterly, wrong, but it can be utterly, utterly right.

• …..immediately after the revelations of the Holocaust confirmed the murderous place where antisemitic discourse could lead.

This is a gross oversimplification. “Anti-Semitic discourse” by itself did not lead to the Holocaust. What about theories of pure race, the strong man, nationalism, the terrorism on the streets which stifled intellectual debate, the reparations in the aftermath of WW1, the loss of political freedoms etc. etc.? And people other than Semites were murdered by the Nazis in the same period. Let us not forget that tragedy, merely because they were not Semites.

• .......still crime novels with the conniving Jew as the arch-villain.

How do we want our arch-villains (in our crime novels) to be? Not to connive? Or not to be Jews? Can they be Chinese? Or Muslims? Is that all right? Or is the only decent thing for them to be is European aristocracy, born in Boston, preferably adhering to the Church of Rome?