Supporting indefinitely
Guest column
By: Judah Ari Gross
Issue date: 3/25/09 Section: Opinion
As a journalism student, along with all others pursuing the fine discipline, I am required to take the class Journalism 200: Journalism History, Roles, and Structures. As the title suggests, this course looks into the origins of journalism throughout the history of the world.
Most recently we have studied the press leading up to and through the Revolutionary War. This is the general history as we learned it: at the time the two main fractions of American society were the Patriots and the Tories. These groups needed a means of mass communication. Newspapers played a key role in this.
The newspapers produced by these two groups were drastically different, not only in their politics but also in their approaches to the decision facing the American people. The Tories, those who supported the king, wrote papers that were relatively moderate, expressing both viewpoints. The Patriot papers took a hard-line approach, adopting a "with us or against us" mentality. In the end the efforts of the Patriots paid off, and the Tories were crushed.
Whilst learning this, my mind beckoned me to the start of this semester.
Upon my arrival at the university, I again began reading the Diamondback daily. Within the second edition of the semester was a point-counterpoint regarding Israel's Gazan War that took place this winter.
The pro-Israeli writer took a soft approach. The author wrote an article that was relatively moderate, expressing both viewpoints. The author of the pro-Palestinian column, however, was resolute. They wrote an article that took a hard-line approach, adopting a "with us or against us" mentality. Wait, Déjà vu?
This is not written to compare the politics of the groups but rather their strategies in rallying public opinion. In an argument of 'definitely' and 'maybe,' 'definitely' always wins. History shows this.
In regards to the debate on Israel, this is not to say that one should agree with Israel in everything it does and say, "definitely," to every action taken, far from it. Please, question Israel, argue its policies, government and society. However, Israel, like any other country, has the basic rights to exist and to defend itself. This existential right is inalienable and, as Jews, there should never be an inquiry into this nor should we allow others to question it.
We are approaching a time of unrest in our community, in our country and in our world. Now is not the time to waver in our support of Israel. Now is the time to stand up and, with conviction, say not only that Israel should definitely exist but also that Israel should exist indefinitely!
Most recently we have studied the press leading up to and through the Revolutionary War. This is the general history as we learned it: at the time the two main fractions of American society were the Patriots and the Tories. These groups needed a means of mass communication. Newspapers played a key role in this.
The newspapers produced by these two groups were drastically different, not only in their politics but also in their approaches to the decision facing the American people. The Tories, those who supported the king, wrote papers that were relatively moderate, expressing both viewpoints. The Patriot papers took a hard-line approach, adopting a "with us or against us" mentality. In the end the efforts of the Patriots paid off, and the Tories were crushed.
Whilst learning this, my mind beckoned me to the start of this semester.
Upon my arrival at the university, I again began reading the Diamondback daily. Within the second edition of the semester was a point-counterpoint regarding Israel's Gazan War that took place this winter.
The pro-Israeli writer took a soft approach. The author wrote an article that was relatively moderate, expressing both viewpoints. The author of the pro-Palestinian column, however, was resolute. They wrote an article that took a hard-line approach, adopting a "with us or against us" mentality. Wait, Déjà vu?
This is not written to compare the politics of the groups but rather their strategies in rallying public opinion. In an argument of 'definitely' and 'maybe,' 'definitely' always wins. History shows this.
In regards to the debate on Israel, this is not to say that one should agree with Israel in everything it does and say, "definitely," to every action taken, far from it. Please, question Israel, argue its policies, government and society. However, Israel, like any other country, has the basic rights to exist and to defend itself. This existential right is inalienable and, as Jews, there should never be an inquiry into this nor should we allow others to question it.
We are approaching a time of unrest in our community, in our country and in our world. Now is not the time to waver in our support of Israel. Now is the time to stand up and, with conviction, say not only that Israel should definitely exist but also that Israel should exist indefinitely!
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Baltimore Movers
posted 7/17/09 @ 3:24 PM EST
Very well said. And it's true that the moderate argument doesn't usually win against the with us or against us argument. But that doesn't mean that it's always right to be so one-sided. (Continued…)
CV writer
posted 12/03/09 @ 3:26 AM EST
Thanks for a look into a history of journalism.
Post a Comment