maxotics Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Two things:1) Any AJ/AJA haters just needed to see the word Jew or Jewish once in the story and they'd be off to the races that AJ was targeting a Jewish business. Though I don't necessarily believe the story until someone corroborates it, I actually think it was wise NOT to use either word in the story.2) The story, again, appears to be about worker abuse, not about a Jewish-run business. I want to stay on topic.Everyone on the internet is getting sidetracked with AJA vs. a Jewish business and Union vs. Non-Union. I do not give a damn about either matter. I care if the business I am giving thousands of dollars to is running a sweatshop. That's what I want to know. I just want this story either backed up with more information or invalidated as not being true.It seemed VERY wise to not include the word because the first reaction of many was to boycott B&H. When readers learned the company is owned by Orthadox Jews they rightfully wondered why Al Jazeera of all organizations would not mention it. Right or wrong, is this not realistic to expect? I'm pretty sure any other journalistic enterprise would have mentioned it because, again, B&H considers themselves Orthadox Jews first and merchants second. If they didn't, they'd be open Saturday. Right? As for the sweatshop, the article does not compare B&H to any other companies. There are no supporting statistics that these issues are unique to B&H. It's all about context, as others have said. Again, I have no problem with Al Jazeera. I do have a problem with weak journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.