Thursday, October 08, 2015

"In ‘NYT’ coverage of violence, only Israeli Jewish victims count (Updated)
This long New York Times article on the wave of violence in Israel and Palestine describes many Palestinian attacks but says not one word about settler violence.
The entire article is from the Israeli Jewish perspective. Right at the start we are told this is 'a country in a grim mood on the eve of a Jewish holiday,' and then the catalog of violence is all Palestinian...

There is not a word here of the settler attacks that Allison Deger reports from Ramallah, or that the Israeli website +972 has from across Palestine: 'Israeli settlers carried out dozens of violent attacks across the West Bank over the past two days...'

The Times just can’t go there. It can’t relate the settler 'pricetag' attacks of six days ago that Deger reports, or the arson attack by settlers on the Dawabshe family in Duma two months ago that killed three, or the killing of a Palestinian medic, Diaa al-Talahmeh two weeks ago (which Deger reports motivated alleged Palestinian killer Mohannad Halabi), or the 'extrajudicial execution' by Israeli soldiers of Hadil al-Hashlamoun in occupied Hebron ten days ago...

In the Times‘s distortion of the truth, this isn’t even a cycle of violence. It’s all Palestinian attacks aimed at Israelis."

-->Distorting the news to favor Israel again. The Times can always be counted on as Israel's newspaper of record. 


Common Dreams:
"America's Fortune 500 companies are 'playing by different rules' when it comes to the federal tax system and, according to a new report out Tuesday, are stashing $2.1 trillion in offshore tax havens—with as much as $620 billion owed to the U.S. taxpayers who are left footing the bill. ... 'The American multinationals that take advantage of tax havens use our roads, benefit from our education system and large consumer market, and enjoy the security we have here, but are ultimately taking a free ride at the expense of other taxpayers.' -Michelle Surka, US PIRG. ...

Nearly 72 percent of the these mega-corporations operate tax haven subsidiaries in countries like Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, according to the groups' examination of 2014 financial filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In some cases, U.S. law allows a company to simply maintain a post office box at an offshore site to reap the tax benefits. ...

With $181.1 billion offshore, Apple has booked more than any other company that reported its international holdings. According to the study, the Silicon Valley giant would owe $59.2 billion in U.S. taxes if these profits were registered within the U.S.

-->The Times protects the image of large corporations as fiercely as it protects apartheid Israel's. Why didn't it print this story instead of just including a Reuters story in its online edition?


The Guardian UK
"Facebook row: US data storage leaves users open to surveillance, court rules. The personal data of Europeans held in America by online tech corporations is not safe from US government snooping, the European court of justice has ruled, in a landmark verdict that hits Facebook, Google, Amazon and many others.

The Luxembourg-based court declared the EU-US 'safe harbour' rules regulating firms’ retention of Europeans’ data in the US to be invalid, throwing a spoke into trade relations that will also impact on current negotiations on a far-reaching transatlantic trade pact between Washington and Brussels.

The ECJ, whose findings are binding on all EU member states, ruled on Tuesday that: 
'The United States … scheme enables interference, by United States public authorities, with the fundamental rights of persons…'

The verdict came as a direct result of Edward Snowden’s revelations, published in the Guardian, of how the US National Security Agency was obtaining mass access to data held by the big internet servers and telecoms companies in the US."

-->The NY Times, as well as most of the major media in the US avoided this story. Corporate profits are always deemed more important than Constitutional rights (the Four Amendment) in the "Land of the Free." Why publicize how the huge internet companies are giving our data away to the security state?

UPDATE: The Times did cover this story today (Oct 8), but only gave one sentence at the very end to US government snooping as the reason for the European court's action. Any mention of Snowden was left out.

No comments: