A post here yesterday focused on comments by a Palestinian about the mess in the endless Israel-Palestine conflict. I read the article and it just didn’t make a lot of sense to me. So I thought I would set up an account and comment to ask a question. Newsweek rejected the comment. Here is the rejection email with my comments and question:
The AP article I quoted is headlined: Netanyahu says he told the US that he opposes a Palestinian state in any postwar scenario
I clicked on the learn more button in the rejection email and got this:
As far as I can tell, my comments and question were not uncivil, spam, profanity, incoherent, obscene, threatening or an attack on the identity of the author or other commenters.
That leaves insulting and inflammatory as the only possibilities for rejection. But, were they insulting and/or inflammatory? Apparently so in the eyes of the Newsweek censor.
But if inconvenient truth is insulting and/or inflammatory to at least some people and that merits censoring it, how is it possible to have open and thoughtful conversations as Newsweek claims it wants? That is how I analyze the reasoning that led to rejecting my comments and question.
Qs: Is Newsweek incapable of dealing with inconvenient truth generally, or is this a response limited to exceptionally emotional issues like the endless Israel-Palestine conflict, misery and bloodshed? For example, in an article that denies Republican animosity toward non-heterosexuals or abortion, would Newsweek have rejected similar comments and questions about Republicans passing laws that interfere with the freedoms of (i) the LGBQTN community, or (ii) women who want an abortion? Ditto for a pro-gun article about lack of gun violence but comments and a question about actual data on how severe the gun violence problem actually is?
Is this just a tempest in a teapot, or is there something important going on here?
No comments:
Post a Comment