Readers take issue with my sunny view of campus protesters

& I've got to admit they have a point

To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.

Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.

Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.

Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses

Campus protests and my Pollyanna hopes

Bill Coleman — You asked in your headlines, “Can we drop the ‘pro-Palestine’ and ‘pro-Israel’ labels and agree on ‘pro peace’?”

In a word, no. The pro-Hamas demonstrators do not want peace. If they did, they would call for the return of the hostages, dead and alive. Many, if not most of them, have little interest in the Middle East at all, as we know from their inability to identify either the river or the sea. Gaza is an excuse. What they actually want is chaos leading, they hope, to a social and cultural revolution in the U.S.

I respectfully suggest you recognize what is actually going on.

David Leitschuh — You wrote that “most of these demonstrators have the same long-term goal: Peace. They want the hostages and political prisoners returned, they want another cease fire … and they want to see the warring factions set aside their mutual and understandable long-term grievances and come to some kind of lasting accord. “ But I have to call you out on a total misstatement of facts. I have yet to see in hundreds of videos of the campus riots where there was any voices or signs calling for release of the hostages. Instead you hear the demonstrators chanting “From the river to the sea,” “Globalize the intifada,” “I am Hamas, etc.”

Zorn — I admit there was more than a bit of wishful thinking in that commentary, which I wrote in last Thursday’s P.S. In watching and reading more about these protests, I’m increasingly convinced that the goal of a significant portion of these demonstrators is not a return to the uneasy but not terribly bloody stalemate prior to Oct. 7, but a return of the land of Israel to the ancestors of those who lived there before the founding of Israel in 1948.

They consider the Jews to be colonialists, imperialists and occupiers, and their chant “We don't want two states. We want '48!" echoes “From the river to the sea” and refers to a rejection of the so-called two-state solution and a return of Israel to the Palestinians.

Yes, I have heard the “death to Zionists” chants in some videos. I don’t think this murderous intent is shared by a significant number of the protesters. The failure of protest leaders to distance themselves from such sentiments is disheartening. But framing the support for the Palestinians as inherently hateful rather than staking out a position on a territorial dispute generates heat but does not shed light.

It also strikes me as irresponsibly inflammatory to suggest that a significant fraction of the protesters are seeking a revolution in the United States. I see little evidence that there is anywhere close to critical mass for such an outcome, and therefore it’s nothing to worry about.

Some student protestors may hate Jews in general and deserve the label of antisemites. But I suspect many are simply indifferent to the cultural and religious identity of the Jewish citizens of Israel and simply want them to go live elsewhere. That’s an unrealistic desire/demand that overlooks the historical claims in that region of the Jewish people.

The following letter is a helpful framing:

Joshua Peck — Most Israelis come from Mizrachi (Eastern) or Sephardic (Spanish) ancestors. The former lived in Israel itself, or in Arab/Muslim countries, for centuries. They left Syria, Persia, and Iraq in 1948 because their governments generally kicked them out in response to the founding of the Jewish state. They were refugees, and they were saved by the only country in the world that would save them.

Jews are indigenous people of the region. No serious scholar doubts that Jewish roots are there; we're even in the Quran. Not to mention the Hebrew inscriptions on ancient texts, coins, etc. Jerusalem has been home to Jews since its founding--throughout the ages.

The Arab population of Israel has grown and thrived since 1948; they are doctors, lawyers, judges, and most of Israel's pharmacists.  If the Israelis are committing genocide, they're botching it very badly.    

The demand for an immediate, permanent ceasefire is a demand that Gaza be spared, so that Hamas can peacefully return to trying to kill all their Jewish neighbors.  The problem, from the Hamas/militant/Hezbollah/Iranian point of view is that the current imbalance in the region — 52 Arab and Muslim states and one Jewish state — is still off by one. The correct balance is 53 to zero.

Zorn — I’m not a student of the complicated history of this region so can’t begin to referee the claims and counterclaims, but I was correct on Oct. 12 when I warned that if Israel’s response to Oct. 7 came off as disproportional and unconcerned with the deaths of innocent civilians — children, the elderly, women, doctors, journalists and so forth — then much of the world would turn against them.

Yes, Hamas embeds and hides among the civilian population, but reports of some 35,000 Gazans killed in response to the killing of roughly 1,000 Israelis on Oct. 7 is what prompted these campus uprisings.

Civilian deaths are a particularly horrible consequence of war — in World War II, estimates range from 110,000 to 210,000 dead when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, and 25,00 to 35,000 dead when the Allies bombed Dresden, Germany. These were ghastly, controversial acts for a just cause, but arguably not genocidal in intent. Here, Israel is hell-bent on eliminating the threat from Hamas, which has vowed, “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The (October 7 attack) is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth,” reported the Times of Israel, quoting a televised interview with Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau.

“Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs. …

“Israel is a country that has no place on our land, We must remove it because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation. We are not ashamed to say this.”

That’s the side that many of the protesters have taken, and it is not a side for peace. I stand corrected.

Thrashed!

I piled on Northwestern University journalism professor Steven Thrasher, an old nemesis, last week for trampling all over the line between journalism and advocacy when playing a prominent role in the student protests on the Evanston campus. I did not get any letters or comments defending him, but I’m still open to them.

Beth Bales — As a journalism graduate from Northwestern I’m horrified this man is a professor. He should be fired, immediately.

Steven K. — It was certainly no surprise to see the fraud Thrasher speaking at a political protest, but give him credit: at least he’s not even attempting to purport any pretext of journalistic objectivity. He’s simply continuing to collect a paycheck from the suckers at Northwestern, courtesy of their benefactors and benefactresses, some of whom might want to take a closer look at how their money is being spent.

Jake H — I get the point that Thrasher is in the wrong line of work — that he's acting more like an activist than a journalist. But I find myself pushing back on the implicit free pass for activists. Journalists certainly have a particular professional and ethical obligation to fairness and the truth and, in that context, Thrasher is particularly offensive. But worthy activism doesn't entail having your head up your butt. Such activism is obnoxious and counterproductive. Activists, unlike straight news reporters, are devoted to advancing a particular argument. But they can and should try to do that responsibly. Thrasher's stance when he attacked you in 2021 for urging caution when 13-year-old Adam Toledo was killed by police was the wrong take for anyone -- premature, immature, glib, and fact-free. That's not just bad journalism. It's bad activism too.

Zorn —As I said in a November, 2021 speech, “The Perils of Public Discourse,” I invited Thrasher to dialogue with me about how journalists should approach a story like Adam Toledo, and he replied “Your words make the murder of children more likely, and I have no interest in you, your unethical nature, your cynical worldview, or in communicating with you.” The leaders of the Medill School of Journalism, Media, and Integrated Marketing Communications have not publicly distanced the school from Thrasher’s unprofessionalism. Not even members of the tenured faculty have spoken out, as far as I know.

In defense of Kristi Noem

Randy Curwen — Regarding the controversy over the story that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem tells in her new book about her decision to shoot dead a family dog with an “aggressive personality” who she’d deemed “untrainable” and “less than worthless:” When I was growing up on a farm in Wisconsin in the ‘50s, just about everyone had chickens. A dog that killed a chicken maybe got one more chance — yelled at and swatted with the carcass, probably. After that … boom! Fortunately we never had that happen to us, but what else could you do? Remember there was no other option than to lose part of your livelihood.

Marc Martinez — It was a useless work dog that killed a neighbor's chickens and bit Noem. This story is only shocking to people who have never lived in a rural area.

Zorn — I get that farm folk tend to have a utilitarian, unsentimental view of animals, but farm folk should understand that city and suburban folk tend not to share that view and are disturbed by pet executions. What tells me more about Noem is not that she coldly and readily dispatched a dog that she hadn’t trained very well, but that she thought she’d come off well by telling the tale. That suggests an ominous opacity about American voters. Here is a telling counterpoint to the above letters:

David Leitschuh — I presently live in what is considered a rural area, and for about a decade I had a small horse farm in Minnesota. I'm a conservative, veteran, law-abiding firearms owner and NRA member, so I believe I check off all the demographic boxes.

I find what Kristi Noem did totally despicable. A 14-month old dog remains a total puppy, and it was Noem’s bad judgment in taking it on a hunt before it was ready that caused the problem. This puppy needed training and love to correct its undesired behaviors, but instead got a bullet from the person who was supposed to love her, the person who then threw her body down a pit to rot. That is absolutely ghoulish and reflects an appalling moral deficiency.

I am also aghast that Noem would include this sordid tale in a book about herself as part of a PR campaign to raise her profile as Trump's VP candidate. Her stated reasoning that her anger-fueled murder of her own puppy showed her "ability to make the hard decisions" is ludicrous and simply reveals her to be stunningly cruel and heartless. I could never support her for anything, and we can all hope that the good voters of South Dakota will replace this vile person with someone else in the next election.

Can’t let this topic pass without sharing a limerick by the “Betty Bowers” Twitter account:

There once was a puppy named Cricket
Who frolicked with birds in a thicket
She's dead (say my sources)
With a he-goat, three horses
Along with Noem's shot at the ticket

Maher? Moi?

Phillip Seeberg — I wonder if anyone besides me compares Eric Zorn with Bill Maher, host of the HBO talk series “Real Time.” Both are liberals who bash Trump but also criticize the left when warranted. Eric: What do you think of Bill Maher, and do you agree with my comparison?

Zorn — I’m flattered, as I consider Maher to be a fearless pundit and original thinker whose takes on subjects are strong and not always predictable. I don’t align myself with every view of his by any means — see this list of his transgressions in the view of one critic, or consider this quick summary in the New York Times:

He has compared his dog to developmentally disabled children. He has questioned vaccines and claimed that Islam “has too much in common with ISIS.” After the Sept. 11 attacks, he wondered, on his old late-night ABC program, “Politically Incorrect,” about the nature of bravery, comparing the terrorists’ suicide mission to American missiles, which he saw as a hands-off “cowardly” approach.

But even when I disagree with his grumpy-Boomer, takes I find them provocative and interesting, and I’m not so fragile that I have to reject him totally for his transgressions, as is fashionable on the left. Some of his anti-Trump monologues are brilliant and funny, and his critiques of over-the-top liberal-think are not unwarranted. I find myself increasingly drawn to heterodox writers and performers who aren’t afraid to call bullshit on their own side, and bored with those who just offer comfort-food commentary. I’m generally engaged, not enraged, when I confront views that differ from my own

Why doesn’t what’s written in Vegas stay in Vegas?

K.S. —  I’m concerned that the  Chicago Tribune has frequently been publishing excerpts from  Las Vegas Review-Journal editorials that are pro-Trump and anti-Biden. These appear right by the Tribune’s own editorials, and the implication is that Tribune endorses those views.

 The Review-Journal was purchased in 2015 by the News + Media Capital Group  LLC,  a front for the late casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Republican candidates and causes.  That paper seems to have a clear political agenda.  So why so many of those editorial excerpts and not excerpts from scores of other papers around the country? Are they meant to reflect the opinion of the Tribune?

Zorn — Every day, on the page where the Tribune’s main editorials run, is a box featuring a generally four- or five-paragraph excerpt from an editorial from another newspaper. I ran your question about this by editorial board editor Chris Jones. He replied:

(The excerpts) come from a variety of papers to which we have Tribune Content Agency access. I suspect your reader notices (the ones from the Las Vegas Journal-Review) because they are right-leaning and she disagrees with them. We also often use the L.A. Times, New York Times, Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, all of which are left leaning. And Bloomberg, which tends to be down the middle and closest to us. 

As is clearly labelled, these are not content from our board but views we find interesting and that we wish to bring to our readers.  Contrary to your reader's notion, I think all editorials have "agendas" by definition. We even sometimes agree with the Las Vegas Journal-Review editorial board and, yes, sometimes we are critical of Biden. Your reader should look at them with an open mind.

I followed up to ask if the excerpts are meant to reflect the opinion of the Tribune or if — like syndicated political cartoons or op-eds — they're meant to reflect a diversity of views. 

“More towards the latter, “ Jones replied. “But we do not run them if we firmly disagree with their premise. My long-term plan is to retire them, although many readers like them.”

My view is that a digest of other views from around the country is a fine idea and a good way to show the range of responsible opinion, but placing a mini-editorial adjacent to a Tribune editorial suggests an institutional endorsement and is clearly confusing to some readers.

Linking around paywalls

Mark H. — Is there a reason why you and Charlie Meyerson sometimes link to Tribune content through MSN.com or yahool.com rather than directly to the Tribune site. My understanding is that pirating of news stories by aggregators is a prime contributor to the decline of legacy media. Or is that the point? Just curious.

Zorn — I forwarded Mark H.’s letter to Meyerson, proprietor of the essential “Chicago Public Square” daily newsletter and the creator of the Squaring Up the News feature in the Picayune Sentinel every Thursday. His reply:

As counterintuitive as it seems for organizations that have erected paywalls around their own properties, my understanding is that publishers including the Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post accept compensation from Yahoo and MSN for the right to redistribute some of their work for all to see on those sites.

I opt for those channels whenever possible because the Trib’s paywall in particular is so maddeningly awful that I'm reluctant to dispatch my readers and yours into it headlong. Even I, a longtime paid print subscriber, can't get past it most of the time.

I’m also a subscriber and urge others to subscribe, but I, too, embed the non-paywalled links from time to time on the theory that giving readers a taste of what’s generally behind a paywall is a good way to entice them to subscribe. It’s free sample marketing, the same behind that’s behind giving readers a handful of free articles a month. Hard paywalls, like you find at Crain’s, can end up frustrating readers and turning them off to a publication. (As a subscriber I have no trouble with the Tribune’s paywall)

And I figure if the Tribune didn’t want readers using those alternative links, they’d put a stop to them.

Ya gotta see these tweets!

Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:

Vote for your favorite. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.

Usage note: To me, “tweet” has become a generic term for a short post on social media. And I will continue to call the platform Twitter if only to spite Elon Musk:

There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!

Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.

Contact

You can email me here:

I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.

Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.

If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.