MEDIA BIAS?...who us?

[davefoc]

ZN.
Thank you, as usual, for your sincere responses to my posts.

You suggested that my post was an example of turnspeak, which roughly meant that I was trying to justify the behavior of the Palestinians in your story by bringing up other unrelated incidents. I think that was a reasonable inference from my post and I would like to clarify better what I intended by my post.

First, I thought the main point of this thread was the bias of the mainstream media against Israel in general.

Secondly, I thought your point by bringing up this particular incident was that it was another example of unprovoked violence by Palestinians and it provided further evidence of what appears to be your view that the Israelis are righteous and the Palestinians because of their violent, lawless ways are deserving of their treatment by the Israelis.

In response to your first point, I posted examples of literally hundreds of stories on the web relating to the actions by Israeli settlers that are excluded from US media coverage. I attempted to post stories that had western victims or witnesses because I thought it made the stories more credible. There were also similar stories on the web by Jewish Israelis that I didn't quote from because of a desire to keep the post from being too long. I see the unwillingness of the US press to put forth these stories as evidence of a bias in the opposite direction in the US media of the one you claim.

I have included a picture of some Israeli soldiers standing over some apparently dead Palestinians at the end of this post. I would suggest that the US media that you claim to be so pro-Palestinian would never consider posting this kind of picture because of their fear of criticism by the pro-Israeli lobby.

In response to your second point which you continue to try to make by posting stories of apparently unprovoked Palestinian violence I posted the stories to show that the allegedly unprovoked violence is not unprovoked. There are Israelis in Israel that believes all of Palestine including the west bank should be under permanent Israeli control. Their strategy for bringing this about is to provoke Palestinians into violent acts and then claim that Palestinians are so lawless and violent that they can not be allowed control of their own land.

Lastly, in response to your criticism about my failure to provide a quote from the ariticle on Israeli settlers: I didn't because I felt there wasn't one short quote that could provide a good sense of the tone of the article and to put forth any single quote would have been misleading about the gist of the article.

source for the picture:
http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/images/gifs/israeli-soldiers.gif

 

[Mycroft]

Plus, after the fact, it's probably easier to to verify that petrol bombs were thrown than stones, since the latter leave little in the way of residual damage.

I think you're grasping at straws here, ZN.

Graham

I think that's the point. Who disputes that Palestinian-Arabs were throwing stones? If someone did dispute that, shouldn't that be in the article? Who disputes it, how credible are they?

 

[Graham]

I think that's the point. Who disputes that Palestinian-Arabs were throwing stones? If someone did dispute that, shouldn't that be in the article? Who disputes it, how credible are they?

I see what you're saying and I see what ZN is saying and, to an extent, I agree with both of you.

That said, to quote Mel Gibson in one of his less holy (and, oddly, less bloody) productions, it's "Thin, very thin".

Graham

 

[Mycroft]

"Jewish Blues Brothers impersonators use a stolen wheelchair as mini bulldozer to flatten Palistinian girls Barbie Doll dream house"

Tmy you illustrate something that's pretty important in this conflict. That is, how easy it is to manipulate a picture for propaganda purposes. You do it for humor, but plenty of others have no problem re-captioning a photo to advance a political agenda.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I see what you're saying and I see what ZN is saying and, to an extent, I agree with both of you.Graham

ZN.Thank you, as usual, for your sincere responses to my posts. You suggested that my post was an example of turnspeak, which roughly meant that I was trying to justify the behavior of the Palestinians in your story by bringing up other unrelated incidents. First, I thought the main point of this thread was the bias of the mainstream media against Israel in general.

I am always amazed when a muslim can come out of a mosque after Friday "prayers" and start a riot. Sorry but the irony does not escape me in the least.

Anyhow to the topic at hand..., headlines are the first, and sometimes only, news items seen by readers and should provide the essence of a news story. While they must capture the reader's attention, headlines should always be accurate and specific.

Reuters - Clashes Erupt at Jerusalem Shrine

CNN - Israeli police enter holy site to quell protests

BBC - Clashes erupt at al-Aqsa mosque


Notice something? The headlines do not mention who started the riot. The don't even say riot, they say "clashes". And they don't even say who "clashed" except CNN, who names Israeli policemen to quell "protesters".

Dictonary.com defines clashes as "To collide with a loud, harsh, usually metallic noise or to come into conflict; be in opposition or to create an unpleasant visual impression when placed together. So yes, there was a conflict at the Temple Mount, a "clash". But not one headline puts the responsibility where it is due, rioting palestinians at Islam's holiest site. Had there not been a riot, there would be no clashes.

Anyhow I tire of this subject, I just thought it was extremely interesting that not one headline said palestinians started a riot in Islams holiest site yet they all are happy to announce Israeli police "stormed" Islams holiest site....

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
In response to your first point, I posted examples of literally hundreds of stories on the web relating to the actions by Israeli settlers that are excluded from US media coverage. I attempted to post stories that had western victims or witnesses because I thought it made the stories more credible. There were also similar stories on the web by Jewish Israelis that I didn't quote from because of a desire to keep the post from being too long. I see the unwillingness of the US press to put forth these stories as evidence of a bias in the opposite direction in the US media of the one you claim.

That's one possible explanation. Another would be that US press has higher standards of credibility than your average blogger does.

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft said in response to my suggestion that the failure of American media to cover the harassing activities of the Jewish settlers is an example of US media bias:

That's one possible explanation. Another would be that US press has higher standards of credibility than your average blogger does.

I can not dispute this idea with facts. For the most part I agree that the sources of information about the excesses of the Israeli settlers are less reliable than main stream media. Unless of course a settler massacres numerous Palestinians like what happened a few years ago and then the story is picked up in the mainstream media.

I personally find the stories somewhat credible. I have read through some writings of militant Israeli settlers and these make it seem plausible that the people that generate this kind of vitriolic and at times religious writing would be capable of some of the criminal activities they are accused of. In addition the stories coming as they do at times from both Western and Jewish observers gives them some credibility as well to me.

But let's say that there is no truth at all to the stories and the settlers are working all the time to peacefully coexist with the Palestinians. Do you see that the settlements still pose an enormous problem for Israel? The fact is that fairly or not the settlements provide a ready source for anti-Israeli propaganda and while the settlements exist and are being expanded the enemies of Israel can use them to incite anti-Israeli violence?

This is the web site of a Jewish organization working to end the Israeli policy of settlement in the occupied territories:
http://bringthemhome.btvshalom.org/

A section of this site's petition to end the settlement policy of Israel:

For the past 35 years, more than 200,000 Israeli citizens have been induced by special economic incentives to settle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A recent comprehensive survey* of settlers found that nearly 80% were motivated by a desire to create better lives for themselves and their families and not by ideological or religious reasons. That dream, however, quickly became a nightmare of constant terror, sniping, murderous incursions into settlements, and suicide bombings. Simultaneously, enormous suffering has been inflicted upon the Palestinian population.

The relentless campaign to settle hundreds of thousands of Israelis amidst millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip threatens the moral foundation of the State. One year after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel¹s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion explained to IDF officers the reasons for Israel¹s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Nearly fifty years later, his speech serves as both warning and grim prophecy.

t was clear that our remaining in Gaza, while the entire world ostracized us would lead to ... finding ourselves in a hostile sea of terrorism. Our military authorities would have had to shoot terrorists on a daily basis. ... We would not have been able to withstand this. For the State of Israel, such a reality would have become a catastrophe ... . Possibly, this would have destroyed us, not militarily, but morally - and in my opinion our morality underpins our very existence.

David Ben-Gurion, Yihud ve-Yi'ud (Tel Aviv) 1971 p. 294
(Translation: Dr. Shai Feldman and Michael Davis)

The settlers have never enhanced Israel's security. On the contrary, their vulnerability to attack has resulted in the loss of nearly a thousand Israeli soldiers and civilians in the last 35 years and hundreds in just the past two years. Those who live on land expected to be negotiated as part of the new State of Palestine -- especially those in settlements that are distant from Green Line Israel and are surrounded by much larger Arab populations -- are an obstacle to peace; their continued presence prevents a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Mycroft said in response to my suggestion that the failure of American media to cover the harassing activities of the Jewish settlers is an example of US media bias:


I can not dispute this idea with facts. For the most part I agree that the sources of information about the excesses of the Israeli settlers are less reliable than main stream media. Unless of course a settler massacres numerous Palestinians like what happened a few years ago and then the story is picked up in the mainstream media.

Well, Dave, I don’t know what to say. Like you, I have read dozens of reports on the internet about settler violence against Palestinian-Arabs. Like you, I have tried to research them to learn the truth. Like you, I found the reports less than reliable, mostly anecdotal accounts from individuals usually sponsored by organizations that have a clear anti-Israel agenda. Unlike you, I am reluctant to place the label somewhat credible on these accounts.

Maybe that surprises you. After all, it’s clear there is a great deal of tension between settlers and Arabs. It certainly makes sense that tension would sometimes erupt in violence, and it wouldn’t be rational to assume the violence was always Arab against settler. But saying that it makes sense for something to be true isn’t the same as agreeing that something is true, and even if we can verify that some of these anecdotes are true, that still gives us no clue to how common it is, how representative of the situation these anecdotes are. Without that, how can one reasonably draw conclusions?

In my own studies of the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict, I have come to the conclusion that the Palestinian-Arab campaign against Israel is mostly a media campaign, and in that media campaign truth is irrelevant. The bombings and the violence get the media attention, and it’s the violence Israel reacts to, but the real purpose is to keep the conflict on the stage of world opinion while vilifying Israel as much as possible. That’s why terms like apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide get bandied about even though they don’t apply, that’s why Sharon is made responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila even though his connection is indirect at best (and Damour is never mentioned), that’s why Mohammed Al-Durah is still the Palestinian-Arab poster-boy for martyrdom even though he wasn’t really killed by Israeli soldiers, and Jenin is still referred to as a massacre even though there was no massacre.

The media campaign against Israel is based on taking real events and exaggerating them, reporting real events while excluding crucial information, and sometimes flat out making stuff up. It is because I have seen so much of that on other issues related to this conflict, that I cannot place significance on anti-Arab settler violence without corresponding evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by davefoc
But let's say that there is no truth at all to the stories and the settlers are working all the time to peacefully coexist with the Palestinians. Do you see that the settlements still pose an enormous problem for Israel? The fact is that fairly or not the settlements provide a ready source for anti-Israeli propaganda and while the settlements exist and are being expanded the enemies of Israel can use them to incite anti-Israeli violence?

The settlements are certainly a complex issue, but when you make statements like fairly or not you’re conceding that perception is more important than reality. While in politics this is arguably true, I am still reluctant to form opinions and make decisions based upon perception when I have good reason to believe that reality is somewhat different.

The propagandists that use settlements to promote anti-Israeli violence will always be able to find something to work with, that’s the nature of propagandists. The violence did not start with the settlements and would not end if the settlements were removed. The issue would simply be redefined or replaced or replaced with another issue.

Overall, the settlements are only a problem if you assume that the only possible solution to the conflict is a two-state solution, with an Arab state with no Jewish citizens, and that in enacting that solution, the settlements can not be relocated. I don’t think any of those assumptions should be taken for granted.

Originally posted by davefoc
This is the web site of a Jewish organization working to end the Israeli policy of settlement in the occupied territories:

Yes it is, I’ve looked it over and I think they are well intentioned.

Where I disagree with them is the idea that settlements should be removed as a unilateral measure. It is my opinion that Israel should do nothing that resembles concessions without cooperation and real effort from the Palestinian-Arabs, and that should be within the framework of a larger plan that leads to lasting peace and reconciliation.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The media campaign against Israel is based on taking real events and exaggerating them, reporting real events while excluding crucial information, and sometimes flat out making stuff up.

For instance: BBC - Sharon defers Palestinian state

Monday, 5 April, 2004 - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his plan for a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may delay the creation of a Palestinian state. In interviews with the Israeli media, Mr Sharon said: "In the unilateral plan, there is no Palestinian state".

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: 1de·fer
Pronunciation: di-'f&r
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ferred; de·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle English deferren, differren, from Middle French differer, from Latin differre to postpone, be different -- more at DIFFER
1 : PUT OFF, DELAY
2 : to postpone induction of (a person) into military service

1)The headline clearly states "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

2)The dictionary clearly states that 'defer' means to put off or delay.

3)The article body clearly states

"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his plan for a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may delay the creation of a Palestinian state."

So the BBC headline says Sharon "has" defered a palestinian state. A lie. Then the article ONLY makes a hypothetical prediction that a pullout from Gaza "may" delay a palestinian state. But the lie has already been sold in the headline, "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

See the bias?, the headline is 1)wrong, 2)inflammatory and 3)a lie, for Sharon has NOT defered a palestinian state at all.

 

[a_unique_person]

For instance: BBC - Sharon defers Palestinian state

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary



1)The headline clearly states "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

2)The dictionary clearly states that 'defer' means to put off or delay.

3)The article body clearly states So the BBC headline says Sharon "has" defered a palestinian state. A lie. Then the article ONLY makes a hypothetical prediction that a pullout from Gaza "may" delay a palestinian state. But the lie has already been sold in the headline, "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

See the bias?, the headline is 1)wrong, 2)inflammatory and 3)a lie, for Sharon has NOT defered a palestinian state at all.

Well, there's your first mistake. The creation of a Palestinian state has been deferred for about 30 years.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
For instance: BBC - Sharon defers Palestinian state

While I agree that article is a bit odd, when I said media campaign I wasn't refering to traditional press as much as I was refering to the spin placed on events by the Palestinian-Arabs themselves, Arabic press, various pro-Palestinian-Arab activists and folks like AUP.