You haven't heard the conspiracy of "the Jews run the banks and the media"? Pretty standard antisemitic trope

Yes I have heard of it, of course. The point really was that my friend was using it in the direct context of the Israeli genocide in Gaza to explain why the corporate media en masse was willing to go easy on Israel and shy away from using the word "genocide". Had this same action been carried out by Russia or China on a captive civilian population you can easily predict what the western media coverage would have been -- utter evulsion and condemnation in headlines a foot high. So why, he was asking, was the reaction so diametrically different and what pressures and forces motivated it? And following on from that I would like to know if it's beyond the bounds of decent ethical behaviour to raise the verifiable truth that many (but not all) family dynasties with influence over corporate media are Jewish -- Zionist or otherwise. Or are these families regarded as Zionist by definition?

Let's put it another way. If there was no Jewish/Zionist influence at all, or very little, at high levels in the media, would the editorial line on Israeli genocide in Gaza have been the same? After all, and as we know, there's anti-Semitism amongst wealthy non-Jewish people, so why would such people put pressure on any media interests they owned or invested in to support Israel in this matter?


Keith says:

I think that you'll find that the vast majority of rich bastards are amoral pragmatists, who don't give superstitious mumbo-jumbo the time of day


Then what's in it for them to show support for Israel in the Gaza genocide context if they don't give a toss for ethnicity or religion or any other loyalty?

I'm asking questions, not making assertions or accusations.

Thanks for the MC quote. Ian. Very interesting.