Talk:Rosemary Church

Untitled

Rosemary Church's question was:

"ROSEMARY CHURCH: But they’re crude rockets aren’t they, and after all their impact has been minimal compared to the impact of Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Explain something to us, why would you not try to be shooting these missiles, these Katyusha missiles, or rockets, we should say, they’re not missiles at all, they’re rockets. Why would Israel not be trying to shoot them out of the sky? They – they have the capability to do that."

She is quoted by the pro-Israel organisation CAMERA ( http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=1172 )

While CAMERA alleges that this question, which could be simply rhetorical or intended to allow Miri Eisen to give more specific information, and while it could be argued that the question is awkward or even anti-Israeli, it can certainly be described as bearing "anti-semitic bias". Rosemary Church was not attacking Jews or saying anything about Jews or Jedaism. Rather, she was questioning Israeli military means and policy. This is not anti-semitic even if it could be defamatory to an Israeli institution.

I am changing the article accordingly.

Such statements were blatantly ignorant, especially regarding "shooting down" katushas (which Israel cannot do). Her attitude on the programme was inherently biased, and I would argue anti-semitic. Will gladly re-edit the article. Learn how to spell.

She should not be given the benefit of the doubt, Church is famous for her public anti-Israel and anti-American views, stating on the air that "Iraq used to be perfectly fine, now that's not the case, is it?"DMCer 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill out there, buddy. Addressed below.—DMCer™ 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism Revert

Please DO NOT revert the information that was deleted, as it was copied verbatim from <<http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/church.rosemary.html>> The introduction is still copied verbatim from this page. If you have someone new to add, make sure you cite the appropriate source, but DO NOT PASTE directly from the CNN biography page. If you're not sure, refer to the talk page. Thanks. --DMCer 04:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"She also described Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel as "minimal," compared to Israeli strikes on Lebanon which killed around a thousand lebanese,mostly civilians"

Well, I would say, she's absolutely right. According to the German Wikipedia, the war killed 44 Israel civilists, from which 19 were Arab, 690 got wounded. Also 119 soldiers got killed.

BUT, the attacks of Israel killed 1191 Lebenese civilists and 46 Lebenese soldiers, about 100 were woundet.

Now compare:

- 163 dead Isrealis
- 1237 dead Lebanese people

These are FACTS. Not everybody, who criticises Isreal's exeggerated military actions, is "anti-Israelic"-minded or whatever. 87.163.87.216 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't what the plagiarism revert was about.--DMCer™ 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[Neutral]?

I thought Wiipedia is supposed to be neutral, yet it allows Israeli propaganda. Ms. Church is a very experienced journalist and her opinion is valued by most viewers. She was absolutely right claiming that Isreal had the means of shooting down katyusha rockets. Katyusha rockets are highly primitive compared to anti-air-attack rockets that Israel has developed and bought frm the US. Would it be possible to revert te tone of that paragraph? Jorgenpfhartogs (talk)

I believe that sentence is well-sourced, but to elaborate: Comparing anti-aircraft missiles (SAMs) to Katyushas is like comparing apples to oranges. Anti-aircraft missiles are used to attack slow-moving (compared to rockets) aircraft, while Katyusha rockets are basically made to fly as fast as possible, unguided, toward a ground target. They serve different purposes, but even so, the technology does not yet exist to effectively shoot down a rocket (as the sources state). Military strategists compare it to trying to shoot a bullet with a bullet. Wikipedia is neutral, and while Church was indeed criticized for that interview, this article also contains balancing support (from the Salon source). I see no "propaganda" here.--DMCer™ 06:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as problems of neutrality in the section, the interview is not a significant milestone in the career or life of the subject of the article, nor did the interview have a significant impact on the war, nor public opinion on the war. There are other forums on the Net to debate the points raised in the interview, but it is not really encyclopedic matter as nothing significant came from it. Not even a "Sack Rosemary Church" demo like the "Sack David Letterman" campaign. Church has long been a tough interviewer, and in any tough interview it is to be expected that someone in the audience will be offended. There is nothing especially noteworthy about this particular instance.RJ4 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and removed it, actually. I watch her often on CNN Int. and the backlash from that interview (some of which were reflected in the sources), was more pointed than reactions from some of her usual editorializing. However, looking back, it is a rather minor incident and isn't notable.—DMCer™ 14:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)