Gee thanks Daily Cal, this really helped me understand what people were protesting about yesterday. It’s nice to know that students oppose “conflict.”
Actually, Daily Cal, yesterday students participated in a die-in in solidarity with the 116 Palestinians that the Israeli army killed over the weekend in Gaza. We did not stand against “conflict,” but the Israeli occupation. Can you say those words, or is that a little too informative?
Leaving aside the (very interesting) debate about whether true objectivity can even exist, nothing in journalistic ethics suggests that reporters should imbue contentious events with a false veneer of neutrality by using language so vague as to be meaningless.
Objectivity requires that writers silence their own opinions — not only to transmit facts in an unbiased way, but also to cover the opinions and biases of the people they are reporting about, thereby giving readers the information they need to think critically about the world around them.
Journalists are responsible for covering news in a way that is both accurate and informative, and this caption falls short. Sure, it’s vague enough that it’s difficult to contest on factual grounds, but it provides the reader with almost no useful information. Something along the lines of Yaman’s suggestion does this much more effectively. (Maybe: Students stage a die-in in solidarity with the 116 Palestinians killed last week by the Israeli Army)
This actually conveys the substance of the protest, yet the language is still indisputably neutral and factual. You could just as easily write, “Student stages a die-in in solidarity with the one Israeli killed last week by Hamas.â€
My verdict? Great picture, lousy cutline.
These people are not “against conflict”. They are the reason there is a conflict.
This is a blatantly nationalistic, chauvinistic propaganda photo. This is the source of the conflict.
I didn’t see these people protesting when Israeli’s were killed in Sderot.
And if they are truly representative of the flag they carry, they would be handing out candy and dancing in the streets right about now.
jerry:
we usually do not stage a die-in when one palestinian, or two are killed. The die-in was held due to the excessive loss of life. If over a hundred israelis were killed, do not assume that we would not stage a die-in.
Also, do NOT ASSUME that we support ANY LOSS OF LIFE. Regardless of ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality, we do not support the loss of life due to violence. You peg us as being pleased with Israeli deaths, nothing could be further from the truth. We were not out there because we were happy israelis have died, we were out there because we are pained that there is death!
Nothing will ever move forward if you can not expand your mindset to think in the place of the one you oppose. Think, really think, if a palestinian or an israeli die, is it because of some hatred of the other, or is it because they are both living in a situation where they are both oppressed into using violence.
You do not get to decide why were staging a die-in, but if you are angered by it, you have an obligation to find out why were there and should listen to our voices. You may just find we want the same thing as you. We both want an end to violence, yes? Then ask us why we did it. Learn what we mean when I say the Occupation causes all Palestinian and Isreali deaths that are associated with the “conflict.”
And now, I ask you, why does the die-in upset you so? In what way do you understand the photo to be the source of the conflict, because we morn? Explain to me as to where you are coming from.
[...] tagging of the protest as “stand[ing] against conflict” and addressed the newspaper as follows: Actually, Daily Cal, yesterday [3rd of March] students participated in a die-in in solidarity [...]
Hi Yaman, just wanted to let you know GVO (Global Voices Online) recently published an article on your blogposts and the discussions going on here regarding the die-in, and I just translated that article into Chinese as part of GVO’s Lingua project.
You can see the post here: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/07/syria-we-stand-against-occupation/
Your fellow Berkeley student,
Cindy
[...] gazety ity hetsi-panoherana ity ho toy ny fijoroana fotsiny hiady amin’ny fifandirana ary nanoratra toy  izao tamin’ilay gazety [...]
here’s another great header: “Viewpoints Differ at Election Debate”.
http://www.dailycal.org/article/101233
There is an occupation. The occupation would turn into an Israeli victory if she were not afraid of international opinon.
Please let us “right wingers” stop fighting against the slanderous terms. We should throw our spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical energy behind an Israeli victory.
The SJP, MSA, and various Pacifica pundits will compare us to wonded souls perpetuating the Nazi occupation on indigenous Arabs that occupied the non-Jordanian side of the British Mandate of Palestine.
In the end the only peace will come after a complete Israeli victory.
I propose a non-novel policy, land for violence. When an act of violence is commited on the Israeli occupiers, they take more land. When an act of peace is sustained towards the Israeli occupiers respond with release a of (non-violent) prisoners and land concessions.