# ‘Impartiality’ of Newsweek

By Prof Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by Prof DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

"The Erdogan Doctrine’’ (September 23,2011 Newsweek Pakistan page 16-17)

BY Owen Matthews

 ‘’When it comes to bashing Israel, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is an old hand. He was at it even before he took power in March 2003, castigating the Israel Defense Force for breaking Palestinians’ heads in the West Bank town of jenin and Neblus. He became a hero in the Arab world two years ago when he stormed out of a Davos panel discussion after snarling at Israeli president Shimon Peres: ‘You know very well how to kill’.

This month his vitriol reached a new level. In response to Israel’s continued refusal to apologize for its deadly 2010 commando raid on a Turkish-owned aid vessel en route to Gaza, he broke all diplomatic and military relations in all but name, accused Israel of ‘running wild’ and behaving ‘like a spoiled child’. Promised to take the case to the international court of justice, and swore that in the future all Turkish aid shipments in Gaza would have naval escorts; ‘we will not allow anyone to walk all over our honor’ he fumed. His talk of trampled honor and gunboats raises the question of who exactly is the spoiled child.’’

Subtle partiality is in guise of impartiality and that makes it consummate partiality. Author relies on the absence of information in content to derive intended conclusion or to interpret things on well-intended lines. The absence of information is deliberate and contrived. Writer does not include information in a way that readers feel that things are not included because they are too well known to be included. Writer constructs arguments, interprets things, derives conclusions, and justifies claims on the basis of information that he has not included in. Readers are like the emperor who admits seeing the cloth despite not seeing anything because he does not want to be seen stupid. Readers agree with unsubstantiated claims (as information underlying them is missing) because they do not want to be seen stupid (deficient in knowledge).

Writer knows that reader neither have time or will nor have the requisite access to that information former is capitalizing on to prove things; for example, writer says: ‘History as the best guide indicates zero-tolerance for dissidence and this proves that man at the helm is democratically elected ruthless dictator’. Opposition may well be funded by forces bent on dismemberment of a country. Opposition may be violence-prone. Opposition may not be reflector of general consensus. Opposition may be working to promote anarchy.  As long as reader are not explained the reasons for zero-tolerance, man at helm cannot justifiably be called democratically elected ruthless dictator.

 This article does not read like a story that takes the chiding and shouting of a father to prove father insane, irrational or even mad without ever explaining why father is doing so because analysis of reason (for chiding and shouting) will prove chiding and shouting well-justified. Partiality of this article is mediocre as it is blatant. Writer does not rely on the absence of information and interestingly derives conclusion, interprets things and make claims those contradict information article contains.  

‘His talk of trampled honor and gunboats raises the question of who exactly is the spoiled child.’

How the protest of a man at the trampling of his honor raises the question? Reading of preceding lines proves conclusively who exactly is the spoiled child but a writer ‘by raising the question’ puts readers not only in doubt but also makes them feel (through arrangement of words) that spoiled child is Tayyip Erdogan.

‘In response to Israel’s continued refusal to apologize for its deadly 2010 commando raid on a Turkish-owned aid vessel en route to Gaza’

Writer admits that Israel attack but instead of condemning the attack condemns the reaction of Tayyip Erdogan and tries to paint him as a spoiled child.

Writer quotes Levy (Israel’s ambassador to Turkey) who dubs Erdogan as ‘fundamentalist who hates Israel religiously’ Erdogan is simply protesting the outrageous acts of Israel but article asserts that protest of Erdogan proves him religious bigot. Erdogan would have been ‘civilized’ ‘humane’ ‘enlightened’ and ‘peace loving’ if he had tolerated every act of Israel with stoicism

Lines in the end of article state:

 ‘The trouble is that Endogan gets so much out of confronting Israel: not only does it raises his stature in the region, but it also dovetails with his self-image as a fighter for justice’.

Important messages are communicated in silence. Readers are swayed more by the things exist between the lines. Things these lines do not say are more important than things these lines explicitly state. Lines insinuate: Erdogan confronts Israel for political gains and that has nothing to do with his religious conviction (writer previously in article terms the ‘religious conviction of Endogan personal’. This is a good propaganda technique because when arguments are impregnable or impervious so term them personal so to create impression that views are not widely shared and are the product of one’s own imagination; therefore do not worth attention).

Self image as a fighter means that this is self image not the image that exists in public perception (this is what how Endogan sees himself not how he is perceived).

Writer does not prove that Endogan is not fighting for justice (as it cannot be proved) but implies so.  

Words conjure up image. Article is good at applying words of derogatory connotations:

 ‘after snarling at Israeli president Shimon Peres: ‘You know very well how to kill’.

 Writer instead of proving that accusing (president Shimon Peres for killing) was not justified (that perhaps was not possible as butchery was well-documented) uses the word ‘Snarl’ to make reader feel that Erdogan is behaving like dog.        

‘This month his vitriol reached a new level’.

Writer could use the word anger (that was at best well-justified) but he uses vitriol as this word in addition to bitter criticism contains within it the meaning of  beastliness, malice, meanness - the quality of being deliberately mean.