BBC: PA Pays for Murder of Israelis

[RichardP]

Originally posted by danholo
All I can say is that this is a great post. I agree with it 100% - even before you posted it.

I second that motion... keep up the fight Canajew, you have more patience than me, dealing with the likes of Kapiti!

[Kapiti]

One simple question. Did you miss it or is there no answer. I asked "which media organisations are we allowed to listen to get un biased report " So far no-one has replied. Why ??

Is this because the only ones you trust as unbiased are the Israeli newspapers or honestreporting.com ????

Motive- At least Kev had a go at explaining why this terrible world wide conspiracy of the finest independant media organisations is out to get Israel. Not a good go but one point out of 10 for trying.

Lets analyse - There was "Israel is unprepared for propaganda wars" With the well known strength of the Jewish lobby group clearly Kev has not visited Earth recently.

Number two from Kev was "Often, to find balance when a reporter's editor is calling for an Israeli quote, foreign correspondents get it from Israeli media critical of the government because that's all there is" So the finest journalists in the world do not seem to know that a Israeli Government exists where they can get quotes from ... the Israeli Government. Earth to Kev. We are losing you. You seem to be heading towards the outer edges of the solar system.

Or number three reason why the best journalists in the world have together conspired to work against Israel is because in fact these world respected jounalists are ........"are unqualified for complex war coverage"

On the other hand the goodly souls at honestreporting.com will tell you exactly what you need to know and really truly ruly are only doing it as they don't want you to make any mistakes.

Well Kev at least during your irrelevant wanderings far from planet earth you will not be alone. Danlo will be out there with his equally irrelevant comments. My prize goes to ......"Even mentions of this super-human "Jewish lobby" is evident of "new Anti-Semitism"." Did I say super-human ? No but he did. and when all else fails lets just call them anti-semetic. It makes no sense but it doesn't need to. I am sure that the entire non jewish world and quite a bit of the jewish left winged world is anti-semetic in Danlo's eyes. Please try harder Danlo.

RichardP please wake me up when you write something worth reading. Calling people anti-semetic as per above is easy but without evidence you look a fool.

Canajew -- actually I like your style. If I read all the detail and I read part of your quotes I would concede that any reporting of history and news will use words which are open to criticsm by one or both sides even sometimes at the same time. I do not have the time or the interest in the detail until you explain why it could be happening by so many totally independant and well respected organisations. If I read the Jewish side to this reporting I would probably agree with what you say. I don't have however the other side and without it I don't have balance. It makes no sense to examine what should be independant reporting by examining just one side to the argument alleging that it is not. I do not have the time to properly research the other side to hear so going into the detail and hearing just one side makes no sense.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Canajew -- actually I like your style. If I read all the detail and I read part of your quotes I would concede that any reporting of history and news will use words which are open to criticsm by one or both sides even sometimes at the same time. I do not have the time or the interest in the detail until you explain why it could be happening by so many totally independant and well respected organisations. If I read the Jewish side to this reporting I would probably agree with what you say. I don't have however the other side and without it I don't have balance. It makes no sense to examine what should be independant reporting by examining just one side to the argument alleging that it is not. I do not have the time to properly research the other side to hear so going into the detail and hearing just one side makes no sense. [/B]

There are a number of reasons for a systemic (rather than a random) bias in this sort of reporting. First, while you speak of a multitude of sources, in reality news media organizations have been consolidating for quite some time. As a result, there are far fewer news GATHERING outlets than there are news DISTRIBUTION outlets. As a result, bias within the major media manufacturing outlets, such as Reuters and AP can have a significnat and substantial effect on the media content of many different media publishing organizations. this is not to say these are biased against israel (a seperate issue) but rather than theis lack of diversity and plurality of news gatherers makes it more likely that a systemic bias can penetrate into news content.

Second, when speaking of private media, one must remember that, fundamentally, private news media organizations are profit seeking entities. This creates a well known bias towards sensationalism and the like. It also has the potential to affect the comprehensiveness of media reporting, as once a sensationalist story has broken, the marginal value to the media organization of making corrections or following up with ancillary research is relatively small, as very few additional profits would flow from such an exercise. Again, this is entirely aside from any discussions of Israel or coverage of Israel and is a general observation applicable to all media content.

Third, with respect to public news media organzations like the BBC, the CBC and NPR, I would respectfully suggest that there is a bias (not necessarily a bad one - just that it is a non-random sample) among the types of people who would gravitate towards such public organizations. I would respectfully suggest, all else the same, that people within public news media organizations would tend to be mroe left wing than those within private media organzations, all else the same. As a result, public media are more likely to have a left wing slant (again, not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation) than private media.

Fourth, in general, I would suggest that reporters as a class, generally driven to their profession by idealism and the like, would tend to be more left wing than the general population, causing a counter-balancing effect to a certain degree of corporate ownership (though these things counter-balance in different ways and do not cancel each other out. Reporters educated in journalism school are good at producing media content but less good at the basics which underlie their observations, such as economics, political science, philosophy, history and the rest. they are certainly not all knowing or perfectly educated and as a result any systemic biases in their aggregate education will have some effect on the media content they produce. Diversity in hiring would go some way to aleviate this, but again, given the dearth of actual media gathering organizations, this opportunity is somewhat attenuated.

There are others, and as I recall them I will draw your attention to them.

Now, with respect to Israel, I am far less willing to condemn organizations like CNN for anti-Israel bias. I find that some of their media content is anti-Israel, though much is favourable to israel. Some commentators like Bob Novak are extremely anti-israel and have always been so, but people like Paula Zahn (not really much of a news reporter, but she hosts a show or two so she gets to set agendas) and Wolf Bitzer are very aware of israeli points of view.

Organizations like Fox and MSNBC and the like are also, I would think, relatively pro-Israel.

However, I do not have exposure to much European media except for the BBC and so I cannot comment on them other than to point out that their media content differs significantly from American media content in tone and focus, even though they tend to draw on the same finite set of reports from the news gathering organizations.

But from what I can see from European attitudes and perceptions, and based on the fact that given people's relative ignorance about almost every single issue imaginable media content does indeed have a large impact on shaping public opinion (just like US media content increased support for Bush and the war) it seems reasonable to conclude that the hostile European attitudes to Israel, which according to the last polls are so disproportionate it seems it could only stem from a lack of proper perspective in media content.

Back to AP and Reuters, much of their media content is indeed biased when it comes to Israel. These organizations, as well as others like the BBC and the rest, draw heavily on Plaestinian labour on the ground to produce and distribute media content, both picutres and reports. There have been many statements by the Plaestinians that their news media people have as much stake in, and as much repsonsilbility for, carrying on the intifadeh as any other Plaestinian, and one could reasonably exprect a heavy reliance on palestinian-produced and gathered media content would produce a bias in favour of the Palestinian point of view.

The biggest kinds of biases that would stem form this are biases by omission, where emphasis is naturally placed on those things which make Israel look bad while minimizing or ignoring things that make the PA look bad, and misrepresentations, where either judgment is withheld where it should not be (like not calling attacks clearly targeted against civilians as terrorist attacks) or judgment is made where it should not be (like calling something illegal or making claims with regards to international law without having any real knowledge of or basis in law to make such conclusions. And these sorts of biases are routine, among the major news gatherers as well as news organizatins like the BBC.

Another major problem is that time and time again false reports are placed in the news by palestinian propagandists (not saying Israel doesn't do this by any means) and the news media reports them without any skepticism at all notwithstanding a lack of any evidence. The death of mohamed al-dura at the beginning of the conflict, the 'massacre' at Jenin, the dropping of poison candy and poisoning of wells and the use of chemical weapons and all the rest are invented by the palestinians and then dutily reported by media organizations, notwithstanding the fact that such unsubstantiated and false claims are constantly invented by the palestinians and then reported by the news media. When they don't learn form mistakes it makes one thing there is a problem with reporting.

[Canajew]

Another reaosn why there is bias is seperate and distinct from the news media organizations themselves. And this is bias against Israel in the United Nations. You may disagree with this proposition, but looking at the disproportionate amount of attention israel has always received by the UN, the condemnation which so easily flows to Israel but will not flow to the countless other countries with far more aggregious violations and all the rest lead strongly to the conclusion that the UN is not an unbiased arbitrar of anything. And inasmuch as the UN is seen as an authority and media enjoy defering to authority when it imparts legitimacy on their opinions, the bias within the UN will translate into a bias in media content. The british media will not spend a half-hour of every newscast on Israel, nor should they. But if they are only spending 5 minutes on it and the UN has just condemned Israel as racist or for building the security fence (and the UN again used false data in their most recent analysis - 15% of the WB, what a joke) while at the same time the Israelis intercepted several terrorists without filming it, which story you think is going to make it?

Why is Israel reported in such a negative light all the time yet far more aggregious violators of human rights all over the world hardly receive any focus, any scrutiny, any prolonged criticisms the way that israel is? Surely the palestinians deserve credit for their PR, however disgusting it might be (like hijacking airplanes and the like, which if you will recall is how they got Europe to so strongly support them), but media is supposed to be above that sort of thing in an ideal world.

So when honest reporting mentions a specific example like AP's failure, when listing terrorist attacks in the past few years, like leaving out terrorism agains Israel even though there has been so much of it, leaving out terrorism against the Russians perpetrated by Chechen terrorists and the rest, there is a bias (in this instance not only anti-Israel but anti-Russian) which serves to act as another small piece of delegitimization, which delegitimizes the suffering of those who were victims of the terrorism which was omitted.

And when honest reporting reports that a French photographer used photographic technioques to manipulate an image to make Israeli destruction appear greater than it actually is and then the media report accompanying the photo is similarly biased in that it fails to mention a relationship between the destruction and the destruction which led to this measure (like ignoring that suicide belts were found in the house or whatever) then these things together do in fact constitute bias from an objective point of view, regardless of one's overall perspective on the validity of each cause. Surely you must be able to see how selective omission of information can cause the worst kinds of bias.

And so bias in the media and bias outside of the media magnify each other, resulting in a systemic bias which does not attenuate in time and cannot be counter-acted easily.

There are lots more reaosns and I am not writing a paper on this so my repsonse necessarily lacks flow and depth and breadth and all the rest, but hopefully you can see that my perceptions on this issue are at least potentially well founded, and maybe you could at least recognize the potential that such bias exists.

While the 'jewish lobby' does indeed have significant pull in the US and may be able to affect media content fairly well (though this is arguable for some media organizations as the biases of the news anchors which dictate progrma content are well known) in Europe there is little or no scope to try to influence media content. it is not about replacing pro-Palestinian with pro-israel bias, it is about removing bias where at all possible and where it is not possible to counter it through a balance of the bias present in favour of both sides.

Please read the following report by Honest reporting from an objective point of view, and try to perceive how the selective use of information clearly constitutes bias. you do not have to believe the reaosns for it or believe the conclusions which are drawn from it by the organization reporting it, but please try to see how this OBJECTIVELY constitutes bias:

An AFP photographer uses a wide-angle lens to exaggerate his picture, and the AFP caption omits essential context.

The following news photo and caption were released by the AFP (Agence France-Presse) on Saturday (Nov. 1):

I would love to include the picture but I don't know how. You can follow this link, though:

http://www.honestreporting.com/artic...shy_at_AFP.asp


A Palestinian woman expresses her anger after Israeli Defence Forces detonated an explosive belt they found in her house, destroying the ground and first floor of the building, in the village of Hizmeh near Jerusalem (AFP/Atta Hussein)

Before addressing the details of this event, let's take a close look at the AFP photo itself.

The photographer used a wide-angle lens to generate an effect of broad, exaggerated destruction ¯ note the distorted length of the woman's hands and the "stretched" background buildings. While a wide-angle lens may be fitting for landscape photos, it was clearly neither necessary nor appropriate here.

When a photojournalist distorts a picture in this manner, he distorts the event he is purportedly conveying in an objective manner ¯ a violation of journalistic ethics.

Now, what happened in this house? From the AFP caption, one wouldn't think this woman had any personal connection to the explosive belt ¯ it was merely "found in her house," which the IDF has, apparently, cruelly destroyed.

The Jerusalem Post , however, reported the essential context that was entirely omitted by AFP: Acting on intelligence, the IDF captured this woman's husband, who then admitted that he had planned to carry out a suicide bombing with an explosive belt that he had hidden under his baby daughter's bed.

Soldiers rushed to the house, evacuated its inhabitants, and safely detonated the explosives. The blast caused the first story of the house to fall ¯ testimony to the force of its impact that was intended to massacre Israeli civilians.

So an event that illustrates yet again the appalling Palestinian use of children as human shields for terrorist activity (and the quality of IDF intelligence, under constant terror threat), gets twisted around by AFP lenses and caption-writers, who present yet another act of "cruel Israeli aggression." A classic case of anti-Israel media bias.

Apropos photojournalism: IDF spokeswoman Sharon Finegold recently stated that fully 90% of the news pictures coming out of the Palestinian areas are taken by Palestinian photographers (such as Atta Hussein of the AFP, above). Finegold believes this plays an important role in the overall media distortion of the conflict.

[my comment: this may or may not be a correct figure; I assume you trust what comes out of the PA but do not trust what the Israelis say about this sort of thing, and that's fine but I'm sure there are ways to independently verify this and I see no reaosn to belive this is not true. It may be somewhat exagerated (it also may not be) but the percentage is likely quite high regardless]

--- EUROPEAN VILIFICATION OF ISRAEL ---

This AFP photo is merely the latest example of European media coverage that consistently distorts the Mideast conflict. What is the cumulative effect of years of European media vilification of Israel?

A highly disturbing poll from the European Commission, due for release today, indicates that almost 60 percent of Europeans believe that Israel is a larger threat to world peace than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan. When asked, "Does the following country present a threat to peace in the world?", European respondents selected Israel as the number one threat in the world.

The head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center had this response:

This poll is an indication that Europeans have bought in, "hook, line and sinker," to the vilification and demonization campaign directed against the State of Israel and her supporters by European leaders and media.

This poll should be a wakeup call. Media monitors must redouble our efforts in Europe, and remain diligent wherever media bias spins the State of Israel ¯ in relentless pursuit of peace since its very inception ¯ as a "threat to world peace."

so again, while not necessarily having to buy their conclusisons (though they do indeed make a whole lot of sense) can you clearly see that in this instance biased media reporting caused a completely distorted picture of reality (picture being the actual picture and the snapshot of the underlying events) which was heavily biaes anti-Israel? And can you not see that if this bias is systemic (i.e. not constantly couterbalanced by bias towards the other side) there is the strong possibility that in time the populatikn who is exposed to such bias will internalize it and perceive it as truth. Just like many people in Arab countries believe all sorts of terrible things about Jews.

[Canajew]

an illustration. take a look at the following except from an interview with an author from frontpagemag.com (not an unbiased site by any means but this is why one must use JUDGMENT when assessing arguments AS arguements.

Available at: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=10789

Q: What moved you to write this book? Was it personal?

Timmerman: Yes. As a reporter working in the Middle East, I had become accustomed to “hate America” and “hate Israel” speeches. I came to accept the view of my editors in the “mainstream” publications and television networks I worked for that these were not important, that they were “not a story.” Ten years ago, I learned that they are THE story in covering the Middle East. And it’s a story we in the news media have consistently covered up or failed to report.

My own eyes opened in 1994, when I made a reporting swing through Syria, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories to meet with “radical” Islamic leaders. I recount the circumstances of that trip in the introduction to Preachers of Hate. This was the first time that I asked a variety of Muslim leaders the taboo question whether they believed in a Jewish “world conspiracy” (they did). I would suggest that Peter Jennings instruct ABC News reporters to ask that question of the Muslim “street,” and not to suppress their answers on air.

Q: I must say, Mr. Timmerman, that I was especially intrigued with your depiction of the conspiracy theories that permeate the Arab world. In many of my own personal discussions with Arab friends and acquaintances, I have always been struck by one rigid mindset that I consistently run into: almost every time, I am informed of how either the Americans or the Israelis “set up” 9/11 and how Saddam and bin Laden are now living in the States, since they are American agents.

Preachers of Hate sheds light on this phenomenon. You illustrate how throughout the Arab world people are actually convinced that “the Jews” were responsible for 9/11. You also demonstrate how deeply ingrained is the belief in a Jewish World Conspiracy, as embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Tell us, what creates this pathological state of mind? In today’s world of instant news, jet air travel and global communication, how can anyone still believe in such ludicrous fabrications? There is, obviously, some kind of deep psychological need to believe in this fantasy, despite reality. What spawns this need? What does it soothe in the believer?

Timmerman: The single event that made the scales drop from my eyes was meeting a young Palestinian in November 1994 in an unheated garage in Gaza who spoke to me of his hatred of Jews. He was surrounded by older men, including a prayer leader, who fed him Koranic verses he used to illustrate what I thought was a drug-induced tirade against Jews as “blood-suckers” and “murderers.” Six days after we met, he strapped explosives around his waist and drove a bicycle into an Israeli army outpost in Gaza, killing three soldiers and himself.

Over the years, as I began to study how young men such as this one could be transformed into Islam’s guided missiles, I realized there was a whole support system behind them. It involved the schools, which Arafat hijacked after coming to Gaza in 199. It involved the mosques, where state-appointed prayer leaders preached that Jews were the “sons of monkeys and pigs.” It involved the newspapers, radios, and state-owned television, which regularly exhorted young people to murder. When you add it all up, as I try to do in Preachers of Hate, it amounts to a devastating and successful effort at mind control that has polluted an entire generation of Palestinian youth.

now what is the point of me including this, you might ask. Well, I am trying to ilustrate that here is a root cause of the present conflict, and this traces back 50+ years and has always been a central feature of the Israeli-Arab conflict. however, as this has been going on for so long and is so ... normal in the Arab world, it no longer appears on the media organizations' radar. Just like they paid no attention to things like this until the Malaysian PM said all those stupid things he said - its not like he didn't believe them before or that he didn't voice them beofre or these views were not known to be widely held in the Arab world, but still they were ignored by the world media until they got their sensational story.

Similarly, the rabid Jew-hatred propaganda that so completely and totally permiates the Plaestinian reality BECAUSE OF YASSIR ARAFAT and his 'educational programs' and 'summer camps' and the like is a big sticking point in the resolution of the conflict, but judging only from mainstream news media reports this would hardly sem to be an issue at all, and if it is it is painted as a manifestation of Israeli actions rather than as pre-meditated inculcation of hatred.

Do you see what I am saying here? Aside from this guys view on things and his interpretations of things, it is clear that this sort of view is not any sort of aberation in the Arab world, and it is equally clear that the news media does not report on this every day, and in fact pays far less attention to this that to anytime a settler says something bad about Arabs or an Israeli MK says something remotely offensive, notwithstanding that the Palestinian representatives and Arafat himself have said things far more aggregious and offensive many times previously.

[danholo]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Well Kev at least during your irrelevant wanderings far from planet earth you will not be alone. Danlo will be out there with his equally irrelevant comments.

Yes, of course. But for one who can't even write my name correctly you sure have a lot to say.

My prize goes to ......"Even mentions of this super-human "Jewish lobby" is evident of "new Anti-Semitism"." Did I say super-human ? No but he did.

While lobbies for Jews and Israel do exist so do for everything else in every country. Jewish lobbies do have much influence but it is ridiculous to start to even mentioning these because, simply, it gives me the perception that this person thinks that "Jews rule the world" etc.

and when all else fails lets just call them anti-semetic. It makes no sense but it doesn't need to. I am sure that the entire non jewish world and quite a bit of the jewish left winged world is anti-semetic in Danlo's eyes.

This is an incorrect statement. But if you'd like to know more about anti-Semitism and the new anti-Semitism there are various books on that subject and even some threads on this board devoted to that as well.

Please try harder Danlo.

Oh, I will but for you to judge me for a single post is ridiculous in itself. I would suggest for you to try harder. But then again I am guilty of this too, so I apologize.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Lets analyse - There was "Israel is unprepared for propaganda wars" With the well known strength of the Jewish lobby group clearly Kev has not visited Earth recently.

you fail to make a proper distinction between Israel and Jews. they are quite different things after all. Here is an article published today in the Jerusalem Post outlining what the Post considers to be the failings of Israeli PR. Again, don't pay attention ot the source, pay attention to the content and evalutae agrements AS arguments.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1006953079865

Nov. 13, 2003
Israeli PR

According to a report on Army Radio, the Foreign Ministry has drafted a study on how Israel is perceived abroad. Conclusion: It is a "provocative country" whose policies are dictated by settlers.

It is, we suppose, good to know that the Foreign Ministry devotes some thought to such things. Most of the time, one would hardly guess. No country has a more urgent public-relations task than Israel. And no country has performed that task so negligently.

The prime minister assumes that no public diplomacy is necessary beyond good relations with the American president. The foreign minister has – how shall we put this? – an inflated estimate of his personal charm. The IDF Spokesman's Office is a study in incompetence; when was the last time you saw Ruth Yaron quoted in the foreign press? As for our representation abroad, with the honorable exceptions of UN Ambassador Danny Gillerman and New York Consul-General Alon Pinchas, no emissary today adequately represents the state.

Indeed, the only bright light has been the various organizations and private individuals who have taken it upon themselves to do for Israel what the state will not do for itself. That Harvard University's Alan Dershowitz has taken it upon himself to write The Case for Israel ought to be as good a signal as any that Israeli officials have not made the case themselves.

True, Israel's public-relations problems are many-fold. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote in 1984, when it comes to propaganda, a pluralistic, democratic society is always at a disadvantage next to an authoritarian regime that can manipulate information and intimidate journalists. Also, it is no secret that many foreign journalists arrive here with the idea that the occupation is the root evil – of which the rest of the media community does little to disabuse them. Finally, it's no fault of the government when, say, the BBC turns to Yossi Beilin to represent Israel's point of view.

We hear these points made time and again by government officials. We get it. But the Foreign Ministry needs to get this:

First: With the occasional bright exception, ambassadorial posts are awarded either to career diplomats – who tend to lack the muscle for public diplomacy – or has-been politicians – who lack the finesse for private diplomacy.

Matters are not helped by a system in which young cadets can expect nothing but 20 years of tedious service in diplomatic backwaters before there's any hope of doing something interesting. Far better would be to adopt the two-track British system which sorts out stars performers at a young age and sends them to important places, giving them hope for an exciting career.

Second: Government spokesmen tend to be mediocre performers on TV. Would it strain the Foreign Ministry's budget too much to do some media training? Or consistently to select, as its English-language spokesmen, native-English speakers? Or to identify its best speakers and send them out to college campuses and other venues where Israel's cause is contested? These suggestions are, in the language of management consultancy, "low-hanging fruit."

Third: Arguments matter. For years, Palestinian spokesmen have made an argument about ends: ending the occupation, creating a Palestinian state. And for years, Israeli spokesmen have argued about means: They object to the terrorist means the Palestinians have employed to achieve their stated ends.

From this opposition, the best conclusion that can be drawn for Israel is that while Palestinian goals are just, their choice of means isn't. Then again, since Israel never contests the "occupation" thesis, the original sin for the conflict lies squarely upon it.

In the media age, it is easy to fall prey to historical amnesia. But it is the job of Israel's spokesman to remind the world, ad nauseam, that ours is a crisis that began in 1948 and has not really abated since; that UN resolutions are sequential and the one that brought Israel into existence predates the one calling on it to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967; that the current wave of terrorism is not a means to an end, but an expression of the end.

When the Foreign Ministry gets this, then perhaps it should issue its report.

so there you go. here is an argument outlining why Israeli PR sucks as bad as it does. You can take issue with particulars, but merely saying 'well what about the strong Jewish lobby' will hardly suffice.

[Canajew]

going back a bit but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Kapiti
[B]So lets list all those biased clearly anti semitic media organisations which have a Jewish boycott, proposed Jewish boycott or at the very least can be disregarded as worthless left winged rantings of anti-semetics.

... All the papers published in countries where there is a majority Muslim population, (clearly biased), ...

now, as you surely know there are no majority Muslim countries that are not autocratic basket cases with free and independent media. While non-Arab Muslim countries are somewhat better than Arab Muslim countries in this regard, this isn't saying much. Further, you are undoubtedly aware of the fact that democracies with free media, all else the same, produce far more reliable media content than authoritarian countries with state-controlled media.

You also must undoubtedly be aware of the fact that in authoritarian regimes one of the most effective way for the leader to maintain control and support among the general population is to find an external focus for their displeasure. In the Arab states' instance this external focus is, of course, Israel and the Jews. As such, the news media under the control of the authoritarian will manufacture 'news' that has no connection to reality and disseminate it en masse to the captive population. Or are you of the belief that there may be a grain of truth to the fact that jews use the blood of gentile children in snack-food?

Really, when you see things in this light it is abundantly clear that there is indeed NO REASON to believe anything comming out of a majority Arab country's news media. It may be true, but there is no reason to believe it true as truth is an irrelevant consideration in selecting media content, while at the same time there are many reasons to believe that false information would PURPOSELY be disseminated.

And that is why, all esle the same, one should put more faith and belief in news content comming out of Israel's free media than content which comes out of the PA's centrally dictated news reports. Or do you think Israel is using poison gas, or that the riots which Arafat started in 1996 which were, in his words, because Israel was 'planning to destroy the al-aqsa mosque' by opening a tunnel that the PA had previously said was not even on the temple mount?

Critical analysis is essential in all cases, whether reading the Jerusalem post or watching PATV. However, equal critical thinking and analysis does not mean that the sources must be found to be equally liely to be valid. I have said this many times in the past, but to say again, just becasue you say the answer is 10 and I say it is 20 does not mean the answer is a split-the-difference 15. Sometimes one side is entirely correct in its assertions and the other entirely incorrect. like the plaestinians assertion that they have a 'right of return' in law, for example, which is a complete fiction manufactured by their propagndists and repeated ad nauseum so that less informed people (i.e. the majority of people in the west) will eventually perceive this 'right' to be self evident.

[Mediocrates]

Kind of funny really. I came to the conclusion that Palestinian support is akin to some kind of religion or insanity. I spent an hour in a cab yesterday listening to my cab driver who by his admission has lived in the US for 17 years rant and rave at how all the US media is so utterly completely and absolutely against the Palestinian cause and never has anything to say except that which supports all the Israelis and how people in America simply are never given any opportunity to learn the truth about what's really going on over there.

I don't know what to make of it. I was wearing a Kippah but it was concealed under my 'YAMAM' hat.

Other than sounding nutz he seemed polite. I didn't dare ask what he knows about it having lived here since 1985 or 6 or what drove him then to come here. So in then end I'm left with the conclusion that the earth is flat the sky is green and facts don't matter.

Schizophrenics build castles in the air, neurotics clean them. PA supporters drive truck bombs through the front door.

[danholo]

If the people over here even knew half of the "truth" they'd freak out. Or maybe not. Or maybe ... who knows.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Kapiti
One simple question. Did you miss it or is there no answer. I asked "which media organisations are we allowed to listen to get un biased report " So far no-one has replied. Why ??

Here's your simple answer, kapiti:

Some media organizations that are generally balanced in their reporting:

CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post.

Of course, there are more media organizations that are balanced, but this list should suffice to say that plenty of news organizations have the professionalism to report fairly on the Palestinian mass-murder campaign against Israelis, Americans, and Jews in general.

However, due to constraints placed on the media, I still don't think that enough airtime is devoted to convey to the public the evil savagery of Arab society. And we don't see nearly enough airtime devoted to the magnitude of Arab discrimination against Christians.

Still, all in all, those news organizations are generally balanced.

So, kapiti, do you have any more "simple questions" that no one has replied to?

As for the BBC, like others have correctly stated, it is so anti-Israeli that it had to appoint a full-time investigator to police its biased reporting staff. Which other news organization had to do so? None that I'm aware of.

But the BBC's own admission of its bias is just the tip of the iceberg. The Guardian is another lousy rag, kowtowing to the vast British Arab audience, and more than willing to smear Israel to appease those Arabs.

There is plenty of anti-Israel bias in the mainstream European media and your denying that it is so, is just plain ridiculous.