Facebook Finally Shuts Down Page Calling for Third Intifada

I'm sure many of you have heard of the Facebook page: Third Palestinian Intifada - الانتفاضة الفلسطينية الثالثة.

After pressure from pro-Israel groups and many different events and causes on facebook calling for founder Mark Zuckerberg to remove the page, Facebook finally took down the page early this morning.

The group calling for the Third Intifada, even picked a specific date in which they urged people to take to the streets and  begin an uprising.

As the page is written in Arabic, here is a translation of part of their message:

Countries neighboring Palestine will begin to march to Palestine on May 15, after the marches of neighboring states, soon after all Islamic countries will begin to march. Our time is close. Palestine will be liberated and we will liberate it. Our goal now is to reach millions of subscribers to this page before May. Arise, please publish the page in every place. Onward, Palestine.

The first Palestinian intifada was in the year 1987

The second Palestinian intifada was in the year 2000

And the third Palestinian intifada:

5-15-2011

The group understanding the power of social media, perhaps in light of the revolution in Egypt, told followers to "Copy our link and put it in your profile, and publish it in every picture and video and pages and everywhere."

Some comments left by group members were hateful, and they incited violence.  One example: “The hour [of redemption] does not come until the Muslim fight the Jews and even the stones and trees say, ‘O Muslim, a Jew is behind me, so kill him.’”

Facebook had previously said that they were monitoring such comments, however, they did not agree to remove the page saying, "While some kinds of comments and content may be upsetting for someone – criticism of a certain culture, country, religion, lifestyle, or political ideology, for example – that alone is not a reason to remove the discussion. We strongly believe that Facebook users have the ability to express their opinions, and we don’t typically take down content, groups or Pages that speak out against countries, religions, political entities, or ideas.”

Last time I checked, a page inciting violence, calling for the death of Jews and a specific date to liberate Palestine would qualify the page for removal.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, quoted in Haaretz.com, said "We should not be so naïve to believe that a campaign for a ‘Third Intifada’ does not portend renewed violence, especially in the current climate that has seen a dramatic increase in rocket attacks from Gaza, the brutal murder of the Fogel family in the West Bank, and a terrorist bombing in Jerusalem."

While I am glad Facebook has finally agreed to shut down the page, I am extremely disappointed it took this long.  The group managed to attract over 340,000 followers before its removal, and since then, another page has gone up in its place.  When I started this blog post, around 15 minutes ago, the new page had 318 followers.  As I conclude, it has 351.

Hopefully Facebook will get it right this time, and shut down this page immediately.

MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and NPR Ignore Death Threats Made to Wisconsin Republicans

Continuing with my post from last week, and our class discussion from this week, many of the main media outlets in this country have yet again left out an important news story.

Everyone has heard of the protests/riots (I guess choosing one of these words presents a bias) that have broken out in Wisconsin. However, unless you watch Fox News you would have missed a major development in the story.

Wisconsin Republican lawmakers have received numerous death threats, yet no major news network has covered this story besides Fox.  You can check out the story here.

Even the Democratic lawmakers themselves have made threatening comments to Republican lawmakers.  Rep. Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) told Rep. Michelle Litjens (R-Winneconne) "You are f–ing dead."

Veterans Shield Family From Westboro Protestors

After the Supreme Court's decision to allow Westboro Baptist Church members to protest at military funerals, a group called "The Patriot Guard Riders" has started forming a human barricade to shield mourning families from the protestors.

At military funerals, Westboro Baptist Church members hold up signs that read things like, "Thank God for 9/11" and "Pray for More Dead Soldiers."  At the funeral of Cpl. Richard Bennett, a 25 year old fallen soldier, a protestor was quoted saying, "They should have left his carcass right on the ground."

At the funeral, the Patriot Guard formed a human barricade with their bodies, bikes and American flags so mourning family members and friends would not have to see the protestors.  The sound of their bikes and the patriotic music they play drown out the Westboro members outrageous and hurtful chants.

While there has been a lot of media coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church protests and their cruel signs, the only mainstream news source I found this story on was FOX Nation.  Why haven't there been more stories about the Patriot Guard and other honorable attempts at counteracting these crazy protestors?

Huckabee vs. Portman

"Mike Huckabee SLAMS Natalie Portman For 'Child Out Of Wedlock'" - Huffington Post
"Mike Huckabee slams pregnant Natalie Portman as bad role model for having a baby 'out of wedlock'" - NY Daily News 
"Mike Huckabee Rips Natalie Portman Over Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy - AOL News
"Huckabee Slams Natalie Portman For Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy" - New York Times
"Mike Huckabee Slams Single Mothers, Especially Natalie Portman" - Forbes

These are just a couple of headlines regarding the comments Gov. Huckabee made about Natalie Portman having a child out of wedlock, while on The Michael Medved Show on February 28.

Just by reading these headlines (and lets face it, most people don't bother looking past this point), it would be safe to assume that Gov. Huckabee made some sort of nasty comment about Natalie Portman's pregnancy and lifestyle choices. However, what the Governor was actually commenting on was different than the headlines suggest.

Gov. Huckabee was asked what he thought on Portman's pregnancy.  He responded, 

You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.

You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids -- across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.

Gov. Huckabee was trying to make a more general statement about the issue of single motherhood in this country. He was suggesting that while celebrities, like Natalie Portman, can afford to hire help and they have no financial worries, most single mothers do not have such a luxury. Gov. Huckabee's comments should have induced a much larger discussion on both single motherhood and teen pregnancy - both large issues today. In fact, according to a NY Daily News poll, so far 59% of voters believe that Portman "is sending the wrong message to young women who look up to her." Instead, the media, yet again, turned the story into a scandal and chose headlines that would sell.

Justin Bieber and Snooki Go GaGa over Politics

A couple of weeks ago, The Weekly Standard, published a piece called, "Is Justin Bieber a Conservative?" It seems as though in an issue of Rolling Stones magazine, Bieber shared more than just dating life.


Bieber talked about everything from abortion ("I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby?" How about in cases of rape? "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that.") to health care ("You guys are evil," he says with a laugh. "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills.").


Another celebrity who had a few things to say about politics was none other than Snooki from the Jersey Shore.

John Mccain responded to Snooki via twitter saying : "@Sn00ki u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama's tax/spend policy is quite The Situation. but I do rec wearing sunscreen!"

What about Lady Gaga's message to the Senate regarding DADT:

Why would Rolling Stones even bother asking Justin Bieber about his political views? How about Lady Gaga using her celebrity status to ask for the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy? What do you think about celebrities and sharing their political ideologies?

Political Satire All Around the World

During the 2008 presidential elections, political satire was all the rage.  In fact Tina Fey's impression of then GOP VP candidate was so popular, that most people actually believed it was Sarah Palin who said, "I can see Russia from my house." The Saturday Night Live skits about the elections were so talked about, Sarah Palin and John McCain visited the show themselves.

After the elections, SNL featured a video, calling out President Obama and suggesting that his two accomplishments so far were "jack" and "squat."  Oh, also that he killed a fly on television.

I was curious to see what political satire was like in other countries.  I found an Israeli television show called Eretz Nehederet, which is a mix between The Daily Show and SNL.

Check out this video pointing out bias in the BBC's reporting of Israel.

It Revolutionizes It

When the iPad came out, I struggled to see why everyone was calling it "revolutionary."

When I asked a few of the 15 million iPad owners, the best answer I heard was, "It revolutionizes it."

(Check out Jake and Amir's video about the iPad):

While I am still not completely sold that one day the iPad will replace laptops, apps like The Daily, Pulse and Flipboard have allowed me to see the tremendous power the iPad has to revolutionize the way people consume their news.

Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of News Corporation, recently revealed his newest business venture - The Daily - the first iPad only daily news publication.

Here's a quote from a press release on The Daily's website:

"The Daily is a first-of-its-kind daily national news publication built exclusively as an application for tablet computing.  It provides readers the engaging experience of a magazine combined with the immediacy of the web and the need-to-know content of a newspaper, all while elevating user experience beyond the printed word." 

Having only checked out The Daily once or twice, I cannot say that I was personally impressed with the actual product, however, I do believe that it has the potential to change both print and online news publications.  The Daily offers everything a regular paper does (news, sports, celebrity gossip, opinion, arts and life, and so on).  However, unlike most newspapers, which tend to sport a specific political preference, The Daily offers opinion pieces from all sides of the political spectrum.  Offering multiple viewpoints in a single publication is perhaps the best way to solve the issue of bias in the media.

I do not believe that "objective journalism" is possible.  It is simply impossible and unreasonable for us to expect journalists to be able to remain completely objective. After all, they are just human.  That is why I believe that it is extremely important to read multiple viewpoints and not just read one newspaper, or watch one news channel.

However, most people do not have the time to pick up 5 different papers and read each of them and then form their own opinion.  A simple solution to this problem, is not to expect journalists to be objective, but rather we need to introduce diversity of opinions into the newsroom. By supplying people with differing beliefs on a single issue, the unrealistic struggle of remaining impartial is neutralized.  Coupled with the iPad, which allows people to both share and receive news faster than we've ever seen before, apps like The Daily which offer a variety of political viewpoints, will hopefully lead journalism in a new and more realistic direction.

While the iPad does seem to be revolutionizing the media, I am still not so sure it is as revolutionary as everyone may think...