I am starting to suspect there is a bias in the religion coverage of
Newsweek and Time Magazines. My question is the following: while they
rutinely feature Christian (catholic, proestant, mormon)topics,
sometimes very negative ones (such as priest's wrongdoings), Islamic
and even Tribal religions, why is the Jewish religion almost never
featured; and if so always strictly in a positive light (for example,
by talking ONLY about the holocaust or trivialities)? I am starting to
think that this week's coverage of the Mormon religion by Newsweek,
where it shows Mormon's in powerful positions, would never be done for
the Jewish, amid fear of accusations of being anti-semitic. In case
the finding is positive (i.e. it is not only MY perception), then it
would be nice to know the religions of the editorial and share holding
comitees of these two magazines.

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 15 Nov 2005 09:18 PST

I guess I'm confused about what you are hoping to learn here. Are you
seeking articles that make negative statements or point out negative
aspects about Jews, the Jewish community and/or Judaism from these
publications?

tutuzdda-ga

---

Clarification of Question by goodinquirer-ga on 15 Nov 2005 15:50 PST

Yes, but only to point out that they are fair. I sincerely do not wish
to know that for any other reason, and am only looking for articles
that deal with "negative" topics similar to the ones used to portray
the other religions. Furthermore, I am only interested in articles in
the media described, otherwise I know there a lot of rubbish and
stupid hate websites out there. I just feel there isn't any
negative-faire articles (i.e. not hate stupid ones)

---

Clarification of Question by goodinquirer-ga on 15 Nov 2005 15:52 PST

I guess I want to know how true the cliche posted below in the comment
is. (also, if someone could prove that most media owners in the US are
Jewish, that could help prove the point too, though I am skeptical)

---

Clarification of Question by goodinquirer-ga on 15 Nov 2005 15:54 PST

In other words, I wish to falsify the cliche by finding evidence to the contrary!

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 15 Nov 2005 17:03 PST

Ok, I'll take a quick look but in the meantime I'll also leave this
open for any other researcher who might also be able to assist you.

tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Question by goodinquirer-ga on 16 Nov 2005 12:45 PST

Thank you for your consideration!

haha, you must be very young and just now figuring out how the world works...

the media is controlled by people, people almost never portray
themselves in a bad light. In the States the media is controlled by
Jewish folks hence they don't attack themselves, in Iran most of the
media is controlled by Muslim folks they have a tendency to not attack
themselves either. The same can be said about everybody everywhere.

Keep in mind the media i/e time, NYpost ect is a for profit commercial
venture, they are there not so much to report the news as it happens
to but report the news that will sell papers, magazines ect so that
they can make money. That is their goal to turn a profit not to
educate or inform you. If they were to consistently report news that
although true is displeasing to their readers, those readers would
stop buying.

:-)

Hope that helps.

Eli

Dear Elids-ga,

Your comment certainly does help, and yes, I am certainly jung. I like
a lot the comparison about the media in an Islamic state not talking
bad things about Islam. The only problem I see with it is that while
in those places the bias of the media is in line with the bias of the
majority of the populations (an their interests), it seems awkard that
in the west, which we regard as more advanced, it might not be the
case, but even the opposite! (i.e. meaning that the media employs a
bias that benefits only a very small minority)

young, I ment, sorry!

"I am starting to suspect there is a bias in the religion coverage of
Newsweek and Time Magazines."

Is it a bias or covering majority interests? According to Religion
Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm), some
studies reveal 86 percent of Americans adhere to at least some form of
Christianity. Other studies say anywhere from 78 to 90 percent.

Newsweek and Time, as well as most other media companies, have not
only a job of reporting but also the job of business. They have to
meet demand in interest. The more interesting the majority of people
find them, the more subscribers/buyers they'll have. It's a business
as much as service to the community in reporting.

"My question is the following: while they
rutinely feature Christian (catholic, proestant, mormon)topics,
sometimes very negative ones (such as priest's wrongdoings), Islamic
and even Tribal religions, why is the Jewish religion almost never
featured; and if so always strictly in a positive light (for example,
by talking ONLY about the holocaust or trivialities)?"

As I mentioned above, it's partially a demand issue. According to the
CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People),
1 percent of the American population is Jewish, so it might be
unlikely that Elids statement that the media is controlled by Jews is
accurate. Secondly, what up and coming information is there to write
about when it comes to Jews in America? Maybe you should write the
magazines, showing your interest and ask them yourself. Knowing there
is an interest, even if a small one, will give them more incentive to
search out for stories of that nature.

As for mentioning of the Holocaust, the answer to that is easy. Anyone
younger than 60 doesn't really look at it in a light to reveal the
truth. The Holocaust occurred less than 100 years ago. People that
were involved in the Holocaust, whether directly or indirectly (i.e.
in WWII) are still living. Moreover, not all issues revolving around
the Holocaust are even solved to this day, and many people want
answers. Wounds haven't totally healed for some people yet, even to
this day, so there are stories still found there. Considering millions
of Jews (as well as others) were affected by this event, both in it
and abroad, it's very easy for the stories involving Jews to have some
crossover with the horrific event.

"I am starting to
think that this week's coverage of the Mormon religion by Newsweek,
where it shows Mormon's in powerful positions, would never be done for
the Jewish, amid fear of accusations of being anti-semitic."

I think people sometimes find conspiracy theories where there aren't
any. There are somewhere around 14 million Jews in the world. There
are about 6 billion people on earth. I found through
religioustolerance.org that there are about 12 million, but I'm not
sure how that falls totally in the U.S. or even worldwide. That was
also a 1999 statistic.

At any rate, "bad news is good news" for the media (ever noticed?). Of
course they're going to cover whatever juicy stuff they can get. Why
might they be a bit slower to do that with Jews? Not because they're
controlling the world, but because there could be a backlash from a
multitude of people for fear--not offense, I'd say--that it was
anti-semetic. I'd guess this is in part because of what I discussed
earlier; some pains are still fresh wounds in some ways.

To flip things. Take someone like Martin Luther King Jr. While some
bad things are mentioned about him, the majority are all good, while
the bad are shoved under the rug. Is Newsweek, the Times and others
afraid to speak anything ill over an icon? Of course they are.
Political correctness holds them back on all sides. This is why
printed media isn't as real as it should be.

"In case
the finding is positive (i.e. it is not only MY perception), then it
would be nice to know the religions of the editorial and share holding
comitees of these two magazines."

No, it's not only your perception, most certainly. However, it's not
hard to find anything negative on Jews; you need only run a search on
the internet or listen long enough to a more upfront, blunt talk radio
host.

And while one's religion (or lack thereof, for that matter) most
assuredly affects every day actions and perceptions, it would be a
violation, an intrusion to make people bare themselves like that, no
matter their faith. If Newsweek and the Times, as well as other
printed magazines are too Jew-friendly to those reading them, I
suggest finding another magazine or reading political blogs that have
a good reputation for accuracy (there are many). Some lean one way,
others lean another--such is the way of all things. Check out places
like http://technorati.com/pop/news/ or look at their tag on news and
politics at http://technorati.com/tag/News+and+politics.

One thing to think about overall is that if one wants to find a
political bias, he most certainly will. They are everywhere and for
everyone, depending on where you are looking.

Goodinquirer,
I think you have a point, it is simply politically incorrect to talk
about Jews in any collective way.  The minute one does, even in the
most positive manner, someone may infer an entirely unexpressed
antisemitic motive.  For example, an article praises Jews'
philanthropy, and someone is likely to infer:  "Yeah, of course, but
how did they get so rich so that they could give away all that money? 
That is what the article is really implying"  Or:  "And why didn't
they give to this or that poor folks project instead of in support of
higher education?  The article is suggesting that Jews are elitist and
only care about projects for the elite."  (Whereby such a project is
more likely to benefit Blacks and 2nd generation Vietnamese
emigrants.)
The media just avoid the hassle, although Elids may also be right: 
the hassle could start within the medium itself.
Furthermore, with justification after many centuries of problems, Jews
have in the last century been able to establish defenses against
prejudice, the Anti-Defimation League in USA: 
http://www.adl.org/main_about_adl.asp
and also in Europe after WW II.  These organizations are
understandably very sensitive, so it behooves the media to avoid
conflicts.
And then there is Israel.  Any criticism of Israel is potentially
criticism of Jews, and immediately interpreted as such by anyone who
wants to, which, of course, also includes many Jews, i.e., that it is
implied antisemitism.
"Antisemitism" is just a specific expression of prejudice, but one
burdened with much more implications:  Anyone expressing antisemitism
is not just prejudiced against Jews  - like the person might be,
against Catholics, Afro-Americans or Mormons -  he is by implication
denying all the terrible past sufferings of the Jews, progroms and
holocaust, so again the media avoid the hassle.

Does this help?  Myoarin

yes it does! thank you very much

Greetings Goodinquirer,
Thanks for coming back, and with your nice comment!  As a cruising
commenter here, one sees so many postings receive no reply, the
question canceled after a posting that must have answered it (not just
my postings).
I hope you receive some more interesting comments.
Regards, Myoarin

Newsweek routinely criticizes Jews and portrays them in a negative
light.  However it gets out its need for Jewbashing against Israel (a
country almost 80% Jewish) while leaving US Jewry alone.
the idea that the Jews control the US media is however fallacious. 
CNN for example is 20% controlled by Saudi arabs whereas Turner
networks are owned by Ted Turner an openly rabid anti-semite.  It is
true however that Jews believe strongly in advancing themselves
through education and as thus there are many Jews in influential
positions in the US.  That may in fact have a certain amount of
influence on the non-Jewish media magnates when they decide how to
cover stories in the same way that now it's considered non-PC to
attack muslims in the US even as their coreligionists murder and
enslave people from Iran to Sudan in the name of allah.
And of course the idea that Jews wouldn't do stories that are against
Jews is utterly ridiculous.  One just has to listen to the "ultimate
American Jew" Woody Allen to see a rabid self hating anti-semite whose
films ridiculing Jews are among Hollywoods classics.
fair?  in the end every story is subjective.  To Americas Arab
"friends" in Saudi Arabia Osama Bin Laden is a devout muslim carrying
out the will of allah against the infidel westerners.  Whose to say
who's right.  But most people can see that the nobel prizes for
accomplishments (voted on by a committee of non muslims or jews) go in
huge proportion to Jews and rarely to arabs (accepting Yasser Arafat's
peace prize).  Whether God's world is better served by people making
discoveries that benefit the human race or by people blowing
themselves up ramming planes into civilian buildings is for the
individual to decide.

I completely agree with you, but I think that if you are  blessed with
the genes that make so much genious possible, you have a large
responsability to use them well and to the benefit of all humanity. I
think it was Churchill who said that Jews are paradox because agruably
the most constructive theories and knowlege comes from them (Enistein,
Jesus, Freud, and, as you say, countless Nobel prices) and also Marx,
Lenin, and plenty of heartless very intelligent capitalists that I
think do a lot to create the mean jew perception in a large proportion
of the population. I just think it jews would be better served in the
longterm critizising more those amongs them that give you a bad name
(because they are blessed with a powerful community and genes that
support them) because are selfish (even if only community selfish that
is), arrogant and treat non-fidels as cash cows. The majority of other
good and even great Jews would be better served to crtizise them
openly and no merely try to aggresively suppres any crtizism agains
ANY part of your community. If you do that, everybody would be able to
appreciate how good most of you are for everyone and, because I
believe people in the end are not stupid, a lot of antisemitism would
recede. But I believe the road most of the jews think is the right one
(i.e. be aggresive agains any criticism) is not the correct one, even
if you have been hurt in the past. The true way to come out of so much
sowed hatred is to stop it at its root, where it originates, and not
only where it reverberates. But thanks a lot for your contribution,
since I think it is thoughful and insightful.

goodinquirer, I think it's unfair to portray Marx and Lenin as evil or
heartless. They were incredibly misguided, but they honestly believed
that what they were setting out to do was for the benefit of all
mankind.

Perhaps they are proof positive that Jews can do some of the stupidest
things as well.

The most distinct contribution that the Jews gave the world was
knowledge of One G-d. Over half the planet now believes in the G-d of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

To return to your question, the very first result on a google search
of "site:newsweek.com Judaism"
(://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=newsweek.com+judaism&btnG=Google+Search)
results with: "The Union of Reform Judaism's vote to oppose the war in
Iraq was a mistake and embarrassment for my movement." I think that's
from their columnist Marc Gellman who is a Reform Rabbi.

The reason this is really a surprise, and this is something you have
probably not watched for, is that Newsweek will applaud Reform Judaism
but has nothing nice to say about the Orthodox.

Newsweek doesn't criticize Christianity more than Judaism -- it likes
liberals and doesn't like traditionalists. So whether you are the Pope
or an Orthodox Rabbi, you are in for unfriendly treatment -- and the
most liberal Protestant denominations are applauded as frequently as
Reform Judaism. And this is true pretty much across-the-board in the
American media.

I dunno, maybe you are missing a point or two about Jews.

They have a high emphasis on education, low incidence of alcoholism
and drug abuse, low incidence of divorce, low incidence of criminal
behaviour, high expectation for prudent behaviour, and a competitive
nature among themselves.

Maybe there isn't a lot to report. I'd be pretty bored reading in The
Economist about "Barry" and his wonderful dental practice, he always
did so well in school, like have I ever told you about his
eighth-grade social studies report, it would make a mother kvell?

Dear arabbi-ga. I think you are right about the liberal-orthodox
specturm you portray, and I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you
for the useful insight on that!