MEDIA BIAS?...who us?

[zenith-nadir]

From: Clashes Erupt at Jerusalem Shrine - Fri Apr 2, 2004 05:45 AM ET - Reuters

I will quote the entire article because it is short.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police stormed the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, on Friday after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said.

Police said they used stun grenades in an effort to disperse hundreds of stone throwers at the end of Friday Muslim prayers outside the flashpoint shrine in Jerusalem's walled Old City.

Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below were quickly evacuated after the stone-throwing began.

There was no immediate word of casualties.

Ok, I am so F'ing pissed off at this moment I don't know how to begin. This is the t-y-p-i-c-a-l media-spin B.S. Israel endures every day.

1) Who rioted outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites? Israeli police?...or ...Palestinian Muslims rioting at the end of Friday Muslim prayers?

2) Who attacked without provocation outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites? Israeli police?...or ...Palestinian Muslims rioting at the end of Friday Muslim prayers?

3) Who desecrated the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites and Judaism's Western Wall nearby by rioting? Israeli police?...or ...Palestinian Muslims rioting at the end of Friday Muslim prayers?


But alas, the palestinians are only "throwing stones", not "rioting" not "attacking unprovoked", not "desecrating" Islam's holiest sites and Judaism's Western Wall AFTER PRAYERS...it is only the Israeli police who get the juicy adjectives like "storming one of Islam's holiest sites"



Here is how the story should read if Reuters wasn't run by goose-stepping nazis ;

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - At the end of Friday Muslim prayers outside the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, Palestinians rioted and stoned police and Israeli worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said.

The unprovoked attack by hundreds of palestinian muslim worshippers outside one of Islam's holiest sites was STOPPED by Israeli police who used stun grenades in an effort to disperse hundreds of rioting palestinians.

Worshippers at the Western Wall below were quickly evacuated after the stone-throwing began.

There was no immediate word of casualties.

Media bias at it's apex....

 

[zenith-nadir]

CNN isn't much better but at least they admit some facts;

Israeli police enter holy site to quell protests - Friday, April 2, 2004

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israeli police entered a Jerusalem holy site and used stun grenades and rubber pellets to quell Palestinians throwing rocks at police and Jewish worshippers at the end of Friday prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque, according to a police spokesman.

Around 12:30 p.m. (5:30 a.m. ET), several hundred Palestinians started throwing rocks at the police standing on the outer side of the Mughrabi gate, the spokesman said.

Israeli police said rocks and shoes were thrown onto the Western Wall, where Jewish worshippers were praying, and that prompted police to move onto the grounds. Throwing shoes is an insult in the Arab world.

The police entered the mosque area, but not the mosque itself, and forced the assailants back, police said.

At CNN the Israeli police "entered" not "stormed" as in the Reuters article. At CNN the Israeli police "quelled" "Palestinians throwing rocks" and not "stopped a riot" by palestinians at "Islam's holiest site". At least at CNN the Israeli police are not the "aggressors" at "Islam's holiest site" as is the case in the Reuters news article.

 

[shemp]

So what happened before the alleged Palestinian rock-throwing? And what happened before that? And before that? And etc. etc. etc.?

You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason? The cycle of violence goes back hundreds of years, baby, and it's not going to stop tomorrow. Of course, your solution is to build a giant wall and make a Jewish fortress. Well, fortresses crumble eventually. Isn't it better to seek peace? Your solution is no solution at all, just another incitement to violence.

 

[shemp]

Let's get something clear about my position on Israel: you've got two sides, both crazy religious fanatics, who both claim the same territory. History says that in this situation, one side will eventually be defeated. The side with numbers usually wins. If Israel continues to pursue a course of violent engagement, it will eventually be destroyed by sheer numbers, as soon as the U.S. loses interest in playing the Middle East game. If Israel wants to survive, the only course is to seek lasting peace. The violence that is going on there now is the fault of BOTH sides, not just one as you love to portray it.

 

[zenith-nadir]

So what happened before the alleged Palestinian rock-throwing? And what happened before that? And before that? And etc. etc. etc.?You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason?

This is the type of UTTER hypocrisy that I am speaking about. YES SHEMP, THE PALESTINIANS CAME OUT OF al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, AND STARTED A RIOT. END OF STORY. Accept it.

It's apologists like you who do a disservice to the palestinians. You lie to cover for their inexcusable actions and then have the balls to say ◊◊◊◊ like; You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason?.

Ok Shemp what did the Israeli police or the jews praying at the Western Wall do to PROVOKE the attack by hundreds of Palestinians worshippers at the al-Aqsa Mosque today? Was it letting them pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque? Was it giving them access to the al-Aqsa Mosque? Was it the jews at the Western Wall were praying too loudly? Help me understand your bizzare justifications...I am all ears....

 

[shemp]

My point was that things don't happen in a vacuum. Both sides constantly provoke each other through their mutual claims of territory and religious sites.

Please explain again how the Israeli "War is Peace" policy is going to bring lasting peace to the Middle east?

 

[Jocko]

History says that in this situation, one side will eventually be defeated. The side with numbers usually wins. If Israel continues to pursue a course of violent engagement, it will eventually be destroyed by sheer numbers, as soon as the U.S. loses interest in playing the Middle East game.

Hey, Shemp, I'll take that bet.

Your point regarding the totality of the situation is well taken, though... not the ancient feud so much as that day and place. It's entirely feasible that some provaction, real or imagined, took place.

The problem arises in the absence of such details, though, and there's usually an absence. Barring any revelations to the contrary, I am generally inclined to give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt moreso than the Palestinians, for the simple reason that the Israelis were still praying and the Palestinitians had apparently just finished praying. And from what I've generally heard gets preached in some mosques, the possibility of fired-up Palis and a target of opportunity does make sense.

Aside to ZN: I generally agree with you on media bias in these cases, but this article didn't look skewed to me. The only line that really mattered, in my opinion, was that there were no casualties. That reflects very well on the Israelis, though I'm sure it will be lost on the Three Stooges... as will my reasons for analysing the situation as I have.

 

[zenith-nadir]

My point was that things don't happen in a vacuum. Both sides constantly provoke each other through their mutual claims of territory and religious sites.

Ok Shemp, how is Israel letting palestinians pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, provocative? How were the palestinian rioters "provoked" AFTER PRAYER at the al-Aqsa Mosque to attack Israeli police and jewish worshippers SHARING the temple mount with them? Hey, convince me I am wrong, I am not opposed to rational debate.



MEANWHILE...

1) On September 28, 2000, Likud leader Ariel Sharon went to visit the Temple Mount, the palestinian resonse was the current 3-year “Al Aksa-Intifada”.

2) On Monday, December 22, 2003, Egypt's foreign minister was assaulted and insulted as he tried to worship INSIDE of Islam's most sacred shrines, the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

3) On Friday April 2, 2004 several hundred Palestinians started throwing rocks at the Israeli police and worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall.


So which way is it shemp? Is the Al Aqsa Mosque sacred EXCEPT to riot in and attack muslims and jews? Or perhaps once again this is an irrational act that has no provocation and perhaps the palestinians were goaded to riot through prayers at the al-Aqsa Mosque. Why would muslims desecrate the al-Aqsa Mosque? Isn't palestinian riots at the al-Aqsa Mosque frowned upon by OTHER muslims? or is it accepted because "things don't happen in a vacuum"?

Explain shemp...

 

[zenith-nadir]

Aside to ZN: I generally agree with you on media bias in these cases, but this article didn't look skewed to me. The only line that really mattered, in my opinion, was that there were no casualties. That reflects very well on the Israelis, though I'm sure it will be lost on the Three Stooges... as will my reasons for analysing the situation as I have.

That is my point Jocko. The Israeli police protected lives and stopped a riot without casualties, Palestinian or Israeli. But alas the media spin is the Israeli police;

"stormed" the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites...

They would not have "stormed" had there been NO RIOT.

The media spin is blatantly anti-Israel, the cause is glossed over as "stone throwers", rather than a palestinian riot on the holiest ground on Earth!, (see: Church of Nativity Seige), and the "effect" is the subject;

"Israeli police stormed"

 

[zenith-nadir]

Just to illustrate the bias again so I can assure you I am not smoking crack while popping "E"...

BBC - Friday, 2 April, 2004 - Clashes erupt at al-Aqsa mosque

Israeli police have stormed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and fired tear gas after Palestinian youths reportedly threw stones after Friday prayers.

So Israeli police "stormed" Temple mount after Palestinian youths "reportedly" threw stones. The effect is the subject, not the cause. Hell the cause is only "reported" not a fact yet.

It continues to say;

Many worshippers took refuge in the al-Aqsa mosque - one of Islam's holiest sites - but some young men in the doorway threw stones at the police.

So the mean old police made the poor old worshippers take refuge in the al-Aqsa mosque. Damn those racist apartheid zionist police! Media bias plain and simple to discredit the party of the "effect" and not the party reponsible for the "cause".

 

[zenith-nadir]

Why am I so pissed?

Because the media reports Israeli police on the holiest site in Islam. A fact. Across the Arab world the pictures will be Israeli police fighting M-U-S-L-I-M-S around the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Just like the media spun the Israelis "forcing" the "innocent" palestinians-with-AK-47s-and-grenade-launchers take "refuge" the Church of the Nativity.

What kind of reaction do you think there will be amongst the 1.3 billion M-U-S-L-I-M-S tonight as they watch the news...will they see the initial palestinian riot?, "cause", or the "zionists" firing tear gas? "effect".

YET, the Israeli police would not be firing tear gas had palestinians not started a riot and threw rocks at worshippers praying at judaism's holiest site. But that is now irrelevant, the tail now wags the dog.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Just to illustrate the bias again so I can assure you I am not smoking crack while popping "E"...

BBC - Friday, 2 April, 2004 - Clashes erupt at al-Aqsa mosque

So Israeli police "stormed" Temple mount after Palestinian youths "reportedly" threw stones. The effect is the subject, not the cause. Hell the cause is only "reported" not a fact yet.

It continues to say;So the mean old police made the poor old worshippers take refuge in the al-Aqsa mosque. Damn those racist apartheid zionist police! Media bias plain and simple to discredit the party of the "effect" and not the party reponsible for the "cause".

Two specific points:

Firstly "storming" does not always carry a negative connotation, certainly in the British media. For examples see coverage of the Iranian embassy siege in 1980. This is almost universally referred to as the storming of the Iranian Embassy.

Unless you are suggesting that the correspondent actually witnessed the stone throwing, what words do you expect him to use about it other than reported? He has two contradictory stories and mentions them both in his report (from the Israeli police spokeman via AFP and from a member of the Islamic board).

Perhaps you would prefer a news media required to report only the "facts" that you agree with, but I would prefer mine to give an unbiased picture and draw my own conclusions. That is what he has done by including the two different stories about what happened.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Two specific points:Firstly "storming" does not always carry a negative connotation, certainly in the British media. For examples see coverage of the Iranian embassy siege in 1980. This is almost universally referred to as the storming of the Iranian Embassy.

But Jaggy the Israelis are NOT "storming" the Al Aksa Mosque in a takeover attempt. "Police are stopping a riot", not "storming". Sorry, the BBC characterization is biased.

Unless you are suggesting that the correspondent actually witnessed the stone throwing, what words do you expect him to use about it other than reported?

So the Israelis "stormed" the Al Aksa Mosque for fun? Something to do on a friday evening in Jerusalem?

"Gee Manachem let's go on a rampage and storm the Al Aksa Mosque, I'm bored and I got all these great tear gas grenades burnin a hole in my pocket"..."Ok, I'm bored too, do you think our government will be mad if we "storm" the holiest site in Islam today cuz we've got nothing better to do?"..."Naaaaa".....

Perhaps you would prefer a news media required to report only the "facts" that you agree with, but I would prefer mine to give an unbiased picture and draw my own conclusions. That is what he has done by including the two different stories about what happened

I disagree with the BBC characterization of the incident. Not the facts. The image the BBC paints is Israeli police "storming" the mosque while firing tear gas at "youths". Not the Israeli police stopping a riot.

 

[Graham]

How do we know the Palestinians were rioting?

Because you say so?

If you want to discredit these news sources, you need to post alternative sources.

More credible alternative sources preferably but any at all would be a start.

Graham

 

[zenith-nadir]

How do we know the Palestinians were rioting?Because you say so?If you want to discredit these news sources, you need to post alternative sources. More credible alternative sources preferably but any at all would be a start.Graham

How do you know the Israeli police wanted to "storm" the Al Aksa Mosque unprovoked? Because you say so? More credible alternative sources preferably but any at all would be a start. zenith-nadir

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But Jaggy the Israelis are NOT "storming" the Al Aksa Mosque in a takeover attempt. "Police are stopping a riot", not "storming". Sorry, the BBC characterization is biased.


So the Israelis "stormed" the Al Aksa Mosque for fun? Something to do on a friday evening in Jerusalem?

"Gee Manachem let's go on a rampage and storm the Al Aksa Mosque, I'm bored and I got all these great tear gas grenades burnin a hole in my pocket"..."Ok, I'm bored too, do you think our government will be mad if we "storm" the holiest site in Islam today cuz we've got nothing better to do?"..."Naaaaa".....

I disagree with the BBC characterization of the incident. Not the facts. The image the BBC paints is Israeli police "storming" the mosque while firing tear gas at "youths". Not the Israeli police stopping a riot.

No, you disagree with the BBC report because it is not biased in your favour. It is a reasonable, unbiased report which may be why you don't like it.

 

[zenith-nadir]

No, you disagree with the BBC report because it is not biased in your favour. It is a reasonable, unbiased report which may be why you don't like it.

As I said I disagree with the characterization of the incident. Not the facts.

For the sake of arguement....In Edinburgh is it common for the police to "storm" a bunch of "youths" in a mosque for no reason? Is that how they get their kicks? Or in Edinburgh do the "youths" in a mosque usually have to do something which caused the police to storm them? How does it work in there?

 

[Mycroft]

How do we know the Palestinians were rioting?

Because you say so?

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police stormed the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, on Friday after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said.

I think stoning police and worshipers qualifies as rioting.

While we're talking about media bias, how about only mentioning al-Aqsa mosque in relation to Islam without any mention of it's importance to Judaism?

 

[Graham]

I think stoning police and worshipers qualifies as rioting.

While we're talking about media bias, how about only mentioning al-Aqsa mosque in relation to Islam without any mention of it's importance to Judaism?

The latter is more likely poor journalism than malicious bias, IMHO.

As regards the former, if throwing stones and rioting are the same thing the Zenith Nader has no complaint since all of the articles clearly state that stone throwing was occuring.

Graham

 

[daenku32]

zenith, you are arguing over semantics.

If they said "rioting", someone might complain that "they weren't tipping over cars!"

Anyone with an average or higher intelligence can tell that the police was doing their job.

Besides, using word like "unprovoked" means that you believe it MUST have been unprovoked. Media doesn't necessarily know if it was unprovoked.