BLOG 14

Blog 14/Part A

1. The stated purpose of MEMRI is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media." This however is different than the purpose that Whitaker claims to expose, which is expose its Israeli bias. MEMRIs offices are in Washington, London, Berlin, and Jerusalem.

2. A former employee of MEMRI claims that the secrecy is to protect its current members, particularly from suicide bombers. The author thinks that the precautions imply the institution is not as unbiased as it claims, for they are excessive for an organization merely trying to bridge the cultural gap.

3. Whitaker believes MEMRI is biased because, primarily, it is staffed almost solely by Israelis, particularly ex-military Israelis. It translates stories that paint a negative view of Arab character and directly or indirectly further Israel's cause--often through alienating the Western world by painting an extreme but fragmentary picture of Arabic views. It has not, according to Whitaker, published translations from Hebrew media. It also has attributed independent, extremist views to the Saudi government.

4. The Hudson Institute portrays itself as an unbiased think tank, yet it is supported by foundations that are known for supporting other conservative movements. Prior to 911, the Institute focused primarily on domestic policies, but after 911, it shifted the focus of its research to international and particularly Middle Eastern politics. Perle is known in Washington as the, "Prince of Darkness," and has been strongly associated with the Bush Administration's Iraq War policy. He is known also for his criticism of Saudi Arabia and support of Israel.

5. Yes. He used to be a member of an exiled group opposed to the Iraqi government, and he had personal interest as well. When he first made the claim, he was trying to gain "political asylum" in the U.S.

6. N/A (accidently leaving out the number that ancient Judaism considers a symbol of man's imperfection could possibly be inferred as bias.....OR maybe it's just ironic. )

7. The first of the two "propaganda successes," was the translation describing an Israeli festival in which the Israelis supposedly eat the blood of their enemies' children. This showed the author of the original article to be biased and uneducated, relying on an unverified myth. The key reason this was a "success," is that MEMRI claimed that the Saudi government published the story while it was in fact published in an independent paper.

8. MEMRI's objective mission is being exploited because there are few people in the Western world who speak the Middle Eastern languages, and so they are not under as much scrutiny and can print what they like. People likewise (are supposed to) trust MEMRI as an objective organization, and so take the biased reports as being truth--thus skewing reality and stirring up Western favor for the Israeli cause. This is the reason why their mission is exploited, in fact. The organization has strong Israeli leanings, and so use the translations as a tool to negatively influence Western perception of Arabs.

9. The Arab population could use MEMRI's tactics themselves, and translate balanced articles to offset MEMRI's more extreme ones.
MEMRI itself could improve its image by hiring staff that represent a more diverse background and political agenda, printing more balanced sections/or at least the entire article of the extreme portions concerning Arabic publications, and translating a balanced cross-section of Israeli papers as well.



Blog 14/PART B:

1. CNN
(delegates)

Obama 1,520
Clinton 1,424
McCain 1,289
Huckabee 267


2. New York Times
(delegates)

Obama 1,456.5
Clinton 1,370
McCain 1,110
Huckabee 225


3. Chicago Tribune
(delegates)

Obama 1,567
Clinton 1,462
McCain 1,253
Huckabee 271


4. LA Times
(delegates)

Obama 1,567
Clinton 1,462
McCain 1,253
Huckabee 271


5. USA Today
(delegates)

Obama 1567
Clinton 1462
McCain 1253
Huckabee 271


6. Washington Post
(Presidential Nomination)

Obama 44%
Clinton 48%
McCain 63%
Huckabee 20%


7. Rasmussen Reports
(Presidential Nomination}

Obama 43%
Clinton 48%
McCain 52%
Huckabee not listed


8. Fox News
(Presidential Nomination)

Obama 46.2%
Clinton 44.8%
McCain 56.7%
Huckabee 26.3%



Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the New York Times all seemed to get their stats from the AP. Washington Post, Fox News, and Rasmussen all had slightly differing statistics, and Clinton seemed to score markedly lower on Fox News, getting 44.8% as averse to the other sites 48%. In fact, Fox News presented the greatest discrepancy between the other sites, for Clinton's stats were lower and Obama's higher than on both Washington Post or the Rasmussen Reports. All of the statistics New York Times presented were lower than those on the other sites. CNN on the other hand gave McCain a higher percentage than what was listed on the other sites. It was interesting to note that Huckabee was not listed - an "x" by his name - in the Rasmusen Reports, while McCain received the lowest stats their as well. All in all, there were many, though relatively small, discrepancies between the news sites.