Results 1 to 5 of 5
04-16-03, 09:42 PM #1
Saw CNN with Larry King and I agree
with this writer, after seeing that show. Larry King, just took what Queen Naor of Jordon had to say, without questioning what she was saying. She was very guarded in what she said. She may not be wearing a vail, but the dagger has been tatooed to her heart and throat.
I received this e-mail today, so I thought I'll share with you all.
Dear Larry King:
I am so frequently insulted by your anti-Jewish, anti-Israel programming. Tonight, April 15, 2003, you hosted Queen Naor once again, and once again allowed her to slander Israel with her half-truths and important omissions. The former Lisa Halaby is in trouble with her step-son and his wife, the current rulers of Jordan. In order to ingratiate herself with the Arab population, and retain her position, she seeks to be a spokesperson for the only cause that they all agree upon - their hatred of Israel. She so charmingly presents "facts" which are not factual. and they hang out there unchallenged. They stand as "truth" to your viewers, when in fact they just repeat the same Arab propaganda that constantly fills the airwaves.
You need a knowledgeable person to set the record straight for you and your viewers. For instance, the queen said that the Jordanians were not surprised at the tortures of the Iraqi regime. You could have asked her why they didn't denounce this behavior, act against it, join the coalition to fight it, stand with the coalition forces to oppose it, instead you let her off the hook.
She claimed the same old saw: the Palestinian people are "suffering." You could have asked her if she felt so badly for them why doesn't Jordan let them in and let them become citizens? Instead, you let it stand as if this "suffering" could not be alleviated by other Arab nations helping them, resettling them, instead of 54 years of keeping them out. Why didn't you ask her what she thought about Forbes Magazine identifying Arafat as one of the richest men in the world? Where did he get almost one billion dollars? What did she think of this money being in his bank accounts while she says the people are suffering so? So much for Jordanian crocodile tears , but if not exposed, not known by your audience.
There are 22 Arab countries (all dictatorships) and whenever any representative from any of them get into the public eye they have one complaint ---"Israel is the problem" : if not for Israel , all problems would be solved. As the queen so simplistically put it "It is so simple." Once the Palestinian people are satisfied peace will prevail. What she didn't say, what she can't say, is that the Arab war against Israel, and now overtly the Jews , is now so thoroughly a part of Arab culture that it is only the peace of the grave for the Israelis that will satisfy much of the Arab world.
In the interests of fairness I feel that you should have AT LEAST ONE PROGRAM out of your many that will present the Israeli/Jewish point of view. I believe that you should invite Mort Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) as a guest on your program. Mr. Klein speaks in front of Congress, the Knesset, and lectures all over the world. A resident of suburban Philadelphia, he can be reached through his New York office as he frequently travels. The telephone number is 212-481-1500.
There is so much good and positive information about Israel that the world should know. You could fill 50 shows with the contributions that Israel is making to the world, from burn treatments to eliminate surgery, to periochips to heal gum disease, to hair caps to prevent hair loss from cancer treatments, to innovations in technologies in every field including military that the US employs. The world doesn't know that because of Israeli improvements for the Arabs, Arab life expectancy has improved markedly, infant mortality decreased significantly, Israel increased the number of Arab hospitals from 113 to 387 (since 1967), and Israel completely eradicated Malaria from the territories. Israel is definitely not into a "cycle of violence" but when attacked tries to locate the killers and arrest them. They do not indiscriminately attack civilians, though the Arab world screams otherwise. There is so much more that I could quote, suffice it to say Israel is a benefit to the world, and if the Arabs would stop terrorizing them and negotiate in good faith, all could live in peace.
I hope you will help to undo some of the constant negative messages about Israel (and the Jewish People) by presenting a side of the coin not seen by American audiences. There is so much of interest to report. And so many lies to refute. I urge you to set the record straight.
Roberta E. Dzubow
Fort Washington, PA
04-16-03, 11:04 PM #2yellowwingGuest Free Member
A biographical note about King Abdullah of Jordan. When he was still a prince, he was in charge of the Jordanian police forces.
A group of bank robbers had fled and were being tracked by the police. The King had personally took charge of the action. When the bank robbers were cornered, King Abdullah led the firefight to subdue them. He is a shooter.
The King does have a large set. Being the Jordanian Monarch he does constantly walk a fine line of being aware of the peoples wishes and the desire to lead them into the new milenium.
I would not want his job!
04-17-03, 02:28 AM #3
Her Majesty, Queen Noor, is a woman of great grace, knowledge and skill. To hear Her Majesty attacked, well, it's just important to consider the source, with all due respect.
Queen Noor has worked tirelessly over the years to serve her late husbands subjects. Her Majesty has done more for the rights of women in Jordan than any other person. She established educational resources unknown in Her country, until recent. She has championed the rights of women and children, serves as a source to increase assistance to potential business leaders hence creating opportunity in the kingdom. Plus, I have listen to her many times talk about bringing balance and fairness to ALL peoples in the middle east.
Reading this email from Ms. Dzubow, I can understand her position, that of one having only part of the facts. Having studied Middle Eastern History under the watchful eye of the former Minister of Antiquities of Iran, under the late Shan, as my professor, I hope someday Ms. Dzubow will take at least one university course grounded in Middle East History. This will serve to broaden her knowledge base and ability to understand the dynamic of the middle east region and ALL its peoples.
Going for "tit-for-tat" isn't problem solving, it is problem enhancing. The issues requiring addressing will not be settled here in this forum. However, we are all qualified. Perhaps more so than those employed to do so. Her Majesty's late husband was a man of greatness. I hope her stepson, the current king, will be able to live up to the qualities of kingship demonstrated by his father. So far, he has walked a tight rope with fine balance.
04-17-03, 02:45 AM #4
I saw something a bit different here. There has been some question of Larry King going soft in his old age and not asking his guests the tough questions. It seems to be an ongoing concern among some journalists regarding Mr. King.
On the other hand, were he to ask those types of questions, he would find himself embroiled in many a controversy, becoming a newsmaker instead of a news 'reporter', for most of his guests are right in the middle of some of the most controversial issues of the day.
Go for journalistic integrity, and play the corporate game to keep the job, and try not to find yourself at the mercy of any number of groups with any number of acusations and separate agendas.
It'd be an interesting balancing act.
04-17-03, 06:47 AM #5firstsgtmikeGuest Free Member
These figures were "borrowed" from the Drudge Report.
CABLE RACE TUES, APRIL 15, '03
O'REILLY 3.8 [RATING], HANNITY/COLMES 3.6, GRETA 3.1, SHEP 2.4
BRIT 2.1, LARRY KING 2.0, AARON BROWN 1.7, POKEMON 1.5
MSNBC 9 PM 1.1, MSNBC 8 PM .9
The O'Reilly Factor has twice the rating of Larry King, and their numbers are insignificant when compared to "entertainment" TV shows.
For purely business reasons, "current event" shows eventually lean towards "entertainment" and singing to the choir. Few opinions are changed because no one wants the topic to be truly explored, analyzed and debated.
I don't watch TV anymore. It was not a conscious decision, but one that evolved as my wife, maids, and kids took over more and more of the TV viewing time.
I prefer daily reading of an assortment of newspapers on the Internet for several reasons. The time is of MY choosing, not dictated to me by a "program director". Also, I can stop and spend some time with a thought or an idea, and not miss anything on the rest of the page.
Many years ago, there were two standout "current event" programs on TV. One was a Regis Philbin program out of Chicago. Eight guests sitting at a round table exploring topical issues. What made that show unique was that the discussion was going on when the program started, continued during commercial breaks and continued on after the TV program time was over. On two or three occassions, the program was allowed to "run over" cutting into the time of the next show.
Another one appeared periodicly on PBS. It dealt with moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas and issues. It used a "town hall meeting" format. The moderator set the stage, defined a situation and asked for comments. Both sides of an issue was totally and completely explored in reasonable and logical discussions.
I think that program ran an hour and a half, and sometimes it took three nights to fully cover the topic.
Both programs had short runs due to lack of interest and "entertainment" value. Thinking bothers a lot of people, so they prefer not to.
There were other "entertainment" talk shows that dealt with issues. The hosts were conservative radical extremists. I watched in disgust, watched for the same reason I would keep an eye on a rabid dog. For my own safety, I had to know where he was and what he was doing.
Sometimes, there were two guests, one being as whacky as the host, while the other was a whipping boy trying to defend the other side of the issue at hand. It was disgusting to see someone vilified, humiliated and ocassionally brought to tears on national TV. What REALLY bothered me was that I supported the conservative point of view and those hosts made me ashamed to be identified with them.
Then there is the other extreme, the Larry King type who invite a guest to deliver a speech and hold up the cue cards for him.
What is needed is more rational dialogue and less propaganda.
We were taught the 7 "P"s. Proper Prior Planning Prevents **** Poor Performance.
I'll leave you with MY 3 "P"s. Propaganda Perpetuates Problems.
A worthwhile dialogue identifies and exposes a problem. If you don't understand what is broken, how could you possibly hope to fix it?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)