2003 Dishonest Reporting "Award" [Archive]

a_unique_person

19th December 2003, 05:45 PM

It reminds me a lot of Camera. A one issue site with an axe to grind. I can find, (although it is hard, the Palestinians don't have access to the wide support that this site does), facts that are equally as true. Facts alone don't solve a problem. In the end, people have to face up to the 'fact' that for everyone to win, everyone has to lose something, too.

I would dispute the protrayal of Palestinians as the victims by the world press. Certain parts of the press do this, for sure, but their is equally as much pressure to do the opposite.

Look at the treatment of CNN, and the boycotts organised against it in favour of Fox. I mean, really, urging people to watch Fox?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,739466,00.html

"One of the problems in trying to reduce the violence has been the focus of so much international attention on Israeli rather than Palestinian civilian deaths, although four times as many Palestinians have been killed."

CNN has been a punchbag for both sides. A widespread perception of bias among some Israelis and US supporters of Israel has prompted several boycotts by pressure groups, urging viewers to switch to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel. But three months ago, in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Mr Arafat slammed down the phone after accusing her of anti-Palestinian bias. "You are covering with these questions the terrorist activities of the Israeli occupation and the Israeli crimes," he said. "Be quiet. Be fair. Thank you, bye-bye."

corplinx

19th December 2003, 07:03 PM

I heard Amanpour interviewing Arafat when he went ballistic. She wasn't being that hard, he was just exasperated at the time and blew up. If I didn't know he was suffering from lack of sleep and exhaustion at the time, I would have sword he was suffering from dementia.

digitalmcq

19th December 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok. I think that I have posted many times my views regarding the way the Middle East crisis is reported by the Media.

Israel is the unquestionable victim of dishonest reporting.

If you don't believe me, read this article that provides what skeptics call proofs

2003 Dishonest Reporting "Award" (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/2003_Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-.asp)

Does anyone else ever get a suspicious when a group decides to call themselves something like 'Honest Reporting'? I mean, come on. Honest Reporting?! I don't care what side you're arguing for, that's just a ridiculous name. It's like a fast food restaurant calling themselves something like... I don't know... Burger King. I mean, that would just be silly.

Do I have to point out the fact that listing a few examples does not demonstrate a media bias? It would be fairly easy to come up with a similar list 'proving' that the media is anti-Palestinian.

Zero

19th December 2003, 08:01 PM

Mycroft

19th December 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by digitalmcq
Does anyone else ever get a suspicious when a group decides to call themselves something like 'Honest Reporting'? I mean, come on. Honest Reporting?! I don't care what side you're arguing for, that's just a ridiculous name. It's like a fast food restaurant calling themselves something like... I don't know... Burger King. I mean, that would just be silly.

If you felt the many news outlets were biased on a certain issue and you wanted to create an organization to point it out, what would you call it? "Honest Reporting" is a logical name. They are very upfront with their goals, and their name reflects that.

Originally posted by digitalmcq Do I have to point out the fact that listing a few examples does not demonstrate a media bias? It would be fairly easy to come up with a similar list 'proving' that the media is anti-Palestinian.

If it were only a few examples, it wouldn't be a bias. Unfortunately, there are a lot of examples. This page gives a better description of what constitutes a bias:

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/What_is_Bias.asp

Originally posted by Zero
I love the fact that a site called 'Honest Reporting' would claim that Israel is perfect, and nothing bad that is printed about Israel can be true.

Which shows you haven’t taken a good look at Honest Reporting.

Zero

19th December 2003, 09:25 PM

Jeez, another pro-Israel propagandist website...with a misleading name, since it is obvious that they consider any coverage that is negative to be 'biased'.

Cleopatra

19th December 2003, 09:48 PM

Only corplinx post a criticism of essence.

Implying that the fact that the source is Israeli(which is not --I will tel you further in my post how it started) is a priori biased doesn't refute those reports, unless you mean that everything Israeli is by default a lie--I'd like to see that posted if somebody believes it.

Honest Reporting(provocative title was chosen for obvious reasons)was established by a group of Jewish British Students along with some Israeli students that studied in Britain as a response to the continuous anti-Israeli bashing that the British Media demonstrate.

When Honest Reporting started it was of very poor look and our members were only 50 around the world.

It works as follows. Once they get a report about Media Bias and they investigate it, they compose a very polite letter to the editor of the Medium that published the specific article or reportage and they send it to a list of recipients they have subscribed to the mailing list. The recipients are encouraged to compose a letter of their own but they can use the model and they are asked to send it to the editor if they agree with the reported bias.

I still remember the first article that The Guardian published after they discovered that the letters that they were receiving were organized by somebody, they searched, the found who was behind and they were invited to the Honest Reporting "offices". Those offices were a tiny room filled with" a bunch of kids. Guardian, instead of addressing the reports it made an article ridiculing the "Israeli Kindegarden in the heart of England.It was a humoristic article but it intended to ridicule the effort. Ok. They had this right but they never replied to the accusations of dishonest reporting.

Well, the "Kindergarden" grew-up and Honest Reporting became the biggest pacifist activist group of its kind.

When you feel a victim of injustice you have two options: You can wear a jacket with explosives and blow yourself in the offices of Guardian--You can start terrorizing the Media but assassinating journalists, etc.

But this is not the only option you have. You can lobby!

I wish Palestinian students instead of getting involved in campus terrorism against Israeli students did something similar. I'd join them to show them how it's done but they are too busy to maintain the image of the victim that the European Press has painted for them.Pity. I wish they created a similar network but those networks need devotion and very hard work.

Yes, Honest Reporting supports the Israeli Interests.Being Israeli doesn't make you evil though.

Does anybody have any proofs that refute Honest Reporting reports? That is the question.

Zero

19th December 2003, 09:53 PM

On the other hand, supporting Israel makes it hard to also claim to be honest, since much of what Israel does is negative, and therefore negative reporting is simply reporting the facts.

A site like Spinsanity (http://www.spinsanity.org/) is an example of an unbiased site, which is devoted to honesty, not a political agenda.

Cleopatra

19th December 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, supporting Israel makes it hard to also claim to be honest, since much of what Israel does is negative, and therefore negative reporting is simply reporting the facts.

Obviously you haven't read the report. You have an opinion about Israel based on those biased reports of Reuters as the majority does.

Honest Reporting doesn't support Israel, it tries to demonstrate and clarify the anti-Israeli bias.

They have never been caught lying so far, do you have anything to say about that?

Cleopatra

19th December 2003, 09:59 PM

From a quick look "Spinsanity" debates polices and rhetorics. "Honest Reporting" is covering biased reports that have to do with deaths of civilians and real terrorism. Death doesn't create the same impressions as Bush's policy.

Zero

19th December 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Obviously you haven't read the report. You have an opinion about Israel based on those biased reports of Reuters as the majority does.

Honest Reporting doesn't support Israel, it tries to demonstrate and clarify the anti-Israeli bias.

They have never been caught lying so far, do you have anything to say about that? Like any advocacy group, HR doesn't have to lie to be misleading or biased. This site reminds me mostly of Bernard Goldbergs POS book, Bias, which claims that any wording that isn't positive is negative, and that counting hits on Lexis/Nexis for specific words and names counts as research.

I note also that when I say that Israel has engaged in behavior that can be properly catagorized as negative, it is because of my 'anti-Israeli bias', rather than because Israel has actually done anything wrong.

Zero

19th December 2003, 10:03 PM

The reason I brought up spnsanity.org, BTW, was to show that a group that is truly interested in honesty shows the possible misrepresentations and biases on both sides, instead of choosing a side and defending it.

Cleopatra

19th December 2003, 10:06 PM

Not really. You see, instead of showing where Israel is wrong, you start your phrases by declaring that since Israel does mostly negative things(sic) HR is biased.

Honest Reporting doesn't hide that's an advocacy group the point for those who criticize it is to show if it lies.Otherwise I don't see your problem. Unless you have a problem with advocacy groups in general like "GreenPeace"," Amnesty International", "PLO"...

Zero

19th December 2003, 10:12 PM

Like I said, since Israel does engage in behavior that would be construed by any person with average intelligence, the reporting should reflect that fact. I'm not saying that there is no bias, I am simply saying that the HR site seems to suggest that the majority of the negative reporting is biased, and the majority of the bias is anti-Israel.

corplinx

19th December 2003, 10:51 PM

Let me be clear, some of the examples they site are indeed examples of clear bias.

So what does it matter if the site has an agenda?

Now, some of the examples I would dispute are not clear examples of bias. For instance, the example or Reuters taking two photos and only pushing the palestinian photo. The fact is you don't know what went on at Reuters. Maybe the Palestinian photo was a better photo overall, more compelling, etc. Maybe they were just lazy and only pushed one.

So yes, the source has an agenda but the results speak for themselves and you can filter them as you please.

a_unique_person

19th December 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Not really. You see, instead of showing where Israel is wrong, you start your phrases by declaring that since Israel does mostly negative things(sic) HR is biased.

Honest Reporting doesn't hide that's an advocacy group the point for those who criticize it is to show if it lies.Otherwise I don't see your problem. Unless you have a problem with advocacy groups in general like "GreenPeace"," Amnesty International", "PLO"...

Amnesty International tries to start with a basic, universal point of view, and work from there. I have looked up PLO web sites, and also David Irvings. If you look at David Irvings site, there are a lot of facts on it. As I said earlier, facts alone, in the case of Israel, are not enough. Another great user of facts is Ian Paisley.

plindboe

20th December 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
I heard Amanpour interviewing Arafat when he went ballistic. She wasn't being that hard, he was just exasperated at the time and blew up. If I didn't know he was suffering from lack of sleep and exhaustion at the time, I would have sword he was suffering from dementia.

Yup, he went ballistic on a danish journalist too. The journalist, Ole Sippel, kept asking him about the ship loaded with weapons that was headed for Palestine but had been seized. Arafat went nuts and left the interview. Quite funny. :D

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Like I said, since Israel does engage in behavior that would be construed by any person with average intelligence, the reporting should reflect that fact. I'm not saying that there is no bias, I am simply saying that the HR site seems to suggest that the majority of the negative reporting is biased, and the majority of the bias is anti-Israel.

Journalism is not about coloring events. Journalists present fact in an unbiased way in order to let citizens to judge. So, no, you are wrong reports shouldn't reflect anything. Don't confuse reports with OP-Ed.

If you follow the Middle East crisis you can't really suggest that HR's report covers the whole of Media coverage for ME for the year 2003. So, I wonder what makes you say that every negative report about Israel is presented as biased by HR. Unless you mean that if you exclude the 20 or less examples of HR the rest of the reports that were published by Media were in favor of Israel... If this is the case then what's your problem with Israel( if you are not an Arab I mean).

orginally posted by AUP
Amnesty International tries to start with a basic, universal point of view, and work from there. I have looked up PLO web sites, and also David Irvings. If you look at David Irvings site, there are a lot of facts on it. As I said earlier, facts alone, in the case of Israel, are not enough. Another great user of facts is Ian Paisley.

First of all, Honest Reporting doesn't cover facts about the Israeli Policy but it covers facts about the Media Bias. These are two different things.

The "facts" of David Irving have been succesfully debunked, smashed, exterminated. None has ever even dared to question the validity of the facts of media bias Honest Reporting has presented.

Zero

20th December 2003, 09:53 AM

Media bias is never in one direction exclusively...so for a site to focus on what it sees as bias towards one side only is a prejudiced viewpoint.

Plus, of course, the site uses the same tactics as Bernard Goldberg, Ann Coulter, and other idiots with an agenda that they will lie about to support.

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Media bias is never in one direction exclusively...so for a site to focus oin what it sees as bias towards one side only is a prejudiced viewpoint.

None said--at least I haven't--that the Palestinian side doesn't suffer from Media bias. They are free to set-up a similar network.
I am sorry but I don't find logical your demand that Israelis cover the Media bias towards the Palestinians.

Zero

20th December 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

None said--at least I haven't--that the Palestinian side doesn't suffer from Media bias. They are free to set-up a similar network.
I am sorry but I don't find logical your demand that Israelis cover the Media bias towards the Palestinians. I don't find it logical that a site calling itself 'Honest Reporting' would have such an obvious bias towards one side...they should call themselves 'Pro-Israel Reporting' or something.

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't find it logical that a site calling itself 'Honest Reporting' would have such an obvious bias towards one side...they should call themselves 'Pro-Israel Reporting' or something.

Emmmm. Honest Reporting doesn't have a bias towards a side. It is a side. But as I have mentioned in a previous post there are two ways to react when you feel a victim. The one way is to lobby and to try to persuade people that you are right. The other way is to wear jackets with explosives , packed with nails in order to kill as many people as possible and start terrorizing the society.

We won't apologize for chosing the peaceful way to protest.

Zero

20th December 2003, 10:22 AM

"We"?

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Zero
"We"?

Yes, we the Israeli citizens.I am an Israeli citizen.

Zero

20th December 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Yes, we the Israeli citizens.I am an Israeli citizen. You should be ashamed of your government's behavior.

*Edited to add* You should also be less worried about bad PR, and more worried about actually not doing things that will give people justification to report the negative things Israel is involved in.

Mycroft

20th December 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You should be ashamed of your government's behavior.

You should be ashamed on two points: Your ignorance and your bad manners.

Originally posted by Zero
*Edited to add* You should also be less worried about bad PR, and more worried about actually not doing things that will give people justification to report the negative things Israel is involved in.

There is a difference between reporting bad things and biased reporting. Cleopatra makes that distinction, you don’t.

Are you of the opinion that biased reporting is acceptable so long as the bias is in favor of your own political views?

Zero

20th December 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

You should be ashamed on two points: Your ignorance and your bad manners.

There is a difference between reporting bad things and biased reporting. Cleopatra makes that distinction, you don’t.

Are you of the opinion that biased reporting is acceptable so long as the bias is in favor of your own political views?
I apologize for any bad manners...will you apologize for your ignorance?;)

Like I said repeatedly...media bias exists on all sides. Mischaracterizing negative media coverage as biased reporting is the exact opposite of the words 'honest reporting'.

Mycroft

20th December 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Like I said repeatedly...media bias exists on all sides. Mischaracterizing negative media coverage as biased reporting is the exact opposite of the words 'honest reporting'.

Then to make your point you should demonstrate that they mischaracterize negative coverage as biased reporting. Can you do that?

Zero

20th December 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Then to make your point you should demonstrate that they mischaracterize negative coverage as biased reporting. Can you do that? Did you actually read the nonsense on that site, or do you defend anything pro-Israel as a knee-jerk reaction, or do you just secretly have a crush on me?:p

Mycroft

20th December 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Did you actually read the nonsense on that site, or do you defend anything pro-Israel as a knee-jerk reaction, or do you just secretly have a crush on me?:p

Yes, I am quite familiar with the site. Yes, I do make a point of defending Israel against unfair criticism.

Is this your way of saying you can't defend you assertion?

Zero

20th December 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Yes, I am quite familiar with the site. Yes, I do make a point of defending Israel against unfair criticism.

Is this your way of saying you can't defend you assertion? I'm saying that 1)not everything that protrays Israel in a bad light is biased, and 2) the specific tactics of that site are ridiculous. Counting hits on a LexisNexis search, or claiming that there is bias because somebody doesn't like the word-choice in a headline, is sort of silly, doesn't prove anything, and shows the bias of people for who Israel is some sort of holy something-or-other.

Skeptic

20th December 2003, 02:55 PM

The fact is you don't know what went on at Reuters. Maybe the Palestinian photo was a better photo overall, more compelling, etc. Maybe they were just lazy and only pushed one.

You have a point, indeed, but I think that's just what they're saying: they're not claiming an all-powerful antisemitic conspiracy. They're claiming that an INSTITUTIONAL bias against israel and jews exists in some institutions, and that this could very well be due, as you say, not so much to INDIVIDUAL bias, but the end result of laziness, stereotypical thinking, need to be "in" with the crowd, etc.

Surely this is hardly impossible; look at (say) the way black people were portrayed in 1950s American TV and you'll find a paragon of racist stereotypes--not because TV networks were full of KKK men, but because of the same sort of indifference, laziness, and so on.

Zero

20th December 2003, 03:00 PM

Actually, Skeptic, it seems that this site claims that nearly ALL media outlets have a bias against Israel. Doesn't that seem a bit far fetched to you, especially in America where there is such large support for Israel?

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You should be ashamed of your government's behavior.

*Edited to add* You should also be less worried about bad PR, and more worried about actually not doing things that will give people justification to report the negative things Israel is involved in.

Please, spare me the drama and tell me. Can you debunk any of Honest Reporting's claims?

Zero

20th December 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Please, spare me the drama and tell me. Can you debunk any of Honest Reporting's claims? How can you debunk a wrong opinion? They say it is biased reporting, it doesn't look that way to me, to the writers, or to the editors...reading their site, there are very few blatantly biased reports that they are complaining about.

I'm trying to find the report I read from a website(linked at another website by a pro-Israel poster), that states that 40% of the casualities for the Palestinians are noncombatants, and that more innocent Palestinians are killed than innocent Israelis(since September 2000)...

Here it is: linky-dink (http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439)

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Zero
How can you debunk a wrong opinion? They say it is biased reporting, it doesn't look that way to me, to the writers, or to the editors...reading their site, there are very few blatantly biased reports that they are complaining about.

FYI This is what we do in this forum. We debate opinions and we debunk claims.

The only way to debunk HR's claims is to prove that Associate Press for example hasn't posted the articles in question so HP is lying. If you believe that Israeli unarmed citizens must be called "bystanders" and not civilians you either have developed a way to distinguish to which nationality a body on a street belongs to or you believe that Israelis are not really humans and we have to apply double standards to their murder.

If you state this, I will respect your opinion. You are entitled to believe that the life of Israelis doesn't worth as much as the lives of the Palestinians.

I'm trying to find the report I read from a website(linked at another website by a pro-Israel poster), that states that 40% of the casualities for the Palestinians are noncombatants, and that more innocent Palestinians are killed than innocent Israelis(since September 2000)...

I am responsible only for the things I post. Honest Reporting doesn't count deads. It has a specific mission, to point out bias in the Middle Eastern conflict.I will have a look at the site your provided though.

Zero

20th December 2003, 03:42 PM

Well, there is a thing about comparing Israelis to Palestinians...apples and oranges. It isn't because one life is more valuable than others, the difference lies in the difference between a suicide bombing and a military raid. One is a haphazard 'kill whoever is handy' method...and, unfortunately, the Israeli response is very close to the same thing.
Actually, if you check FAIR's website, they would make the claim that the majority of news is slanted towards Israel...and it would be hard to argue against them.

As far as disproving that AP or whoever diodn't print those articles...there's nothing I can see WRONG with most of those articles, their existance alone proves nothing.

Show me an article saying "Dirty Jews Murder Palestinian Heroes", and I'll agree that there is bias.

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 03:56 PM

I repeat it because you seem to have difficulty in grasping it. Honest Reporting doesn't report News. It reports Media Bias.

I don't know how many dead people you have seen in your life but I assure you that a body of a human being on the street doesn't tell you much about its nationality. As Boris Vian has said:" All the corpses have the same color"

I am sorry that some facts destroy the image of the dirty jews that kill Palestinian heroes but what distinguishes peaceful activism from terrorism is that the former doesn't force you to listen to it. The later though blackmails your attention. If terrorism suits you best I respect it but I reserve my right to hold my opinion.

Zero

20th December 2003, 03:56 PM

Hey, we can take a specific example of why this site is full of sour owl poop:* On Nov. 18, two Israeli soldiers were killed outside Bethlehem and a number of Palestinians were wounded in Gaza. Reuters had pictures of both events, but journalists who subscribe to Reuters' photo service were encouraged to publish the Palestinian victims in this email (emphasis added):

Dear User of the Reuters Pictures Archive,

Please find below a single picture presentation showing two Palestinians rushing a wounded Palestinian to hospital in the Rafah refugee camp in the southern part of the Gaza strip, November 18, 2003

That doesn't much seem like a huge bias, especially when weighed against the actual article, which goes into personal detail about one of the Israeli casualties, while leaving the 9 wounded Palestinians as faceless and nameless casualties:

Sgt.-Maj. Shlomi Belski was off duty and talking to his mother by cellphone when the attacker opened fire. Relatives told Israel Radio his mother heard the shots and listened as her son was sent to hospital. He died en route.
Certainly the article is not leaned anti-Israel, not whith such a heartbreaking detail added...is it?

Zero

20th December 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I repeat it because you seem to have difficulty in grasping it. Honest Reporting doesn't report News. It reports Media Bias.

I don't know how many dead people you have seen in your life but I assure you that a body of a human being on the street doesn't tell you much about its nationality. As Boris Vian has said:" All the corpses have the same color"

I am sorry that some facts destroy the image of the dirty jews that kill Palestinian heroes but what distinguishes peaceful activism from terrorism is that the former doesn't force you to listen to it. The later though blackmails your attention. If terrorism suits you best I respect it but I reserve my right to hold my opinion. That's nice...you may be peaceful, but Israeli troops in tanks killing children are not...and there is little bias to be found in those atricles on the HR site.

Well, except 'bias' seen by those who want to see it, of course.

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That doesn't much seem like a huge bias, especially when weighed against the actual article, which goes into personal detail about one of the Israeli casualties, while leaving the 9 wounded Palestinians as faceless and nameless casualties:

How many kilos or pounds of bias are enough for you to be satisfied?

Certainly the article is not leaned anti-Israel, not whith such a heartbreaking detail added...is it?

The title applies to a series of examples , not only to the one you quoted. Try harder next time.

Zero

20th December 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

How many kilos or pounds of bias are enough for you to be satisfied?

The title applies to a series of examples , not only to the one you quoted. Try harder next time. Right...even if I show that all the examples don't really show anything more than imagined bias, you'll claim that there is bias somewhere else, I suppose? Shall I disect each and every example on that ************ website? Will it make a bit of difference to you?

Go wave your Israeli flag at someone who's buying it...because I'm not, not for a second.

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That's nice...you may be peaceful, but Israeli troops in tanks killing children are not...and there is little bias to be found in those atricles on the HR site.

Well, except 'bias' seen by those who want to see it, of course.

Please spare me the drama and do not derail the thread which is about Media Bias. I can point to you a series of threads where you can post your comments about the Murderers Israelis and the Innocent Palestianians. If you can't find the threads since you are a new member I will be glad to show you.

You have the option to ignore Honest Reporting. None forces you to read what they write. If its suits you better that none is questioning your beliefs it's ok with me, no problem.

Zero

20th December 2003, 04:09 PM

And, again, some of the supposed 'bias' simply shows the difference between reporting on an army's military action, and the action of lone terrorists. You cannot reasonably expect the reporting to be identical, can you? You don't expect a report of a criminal killing an innocent person to a policeman killing a criminal, or an innocent person. Again, apples and oranges.

Zero

20th December 2003, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Please spare me the drama and do not derail the thread which is about Media Bias. I can point to you a series of threads where you can post your comments about the Murderers Israelis and the Innocent Palestianians. If you can't find the threads since you are a new member I will be glad to show you.

You have the option to ignore Honest Reporting. None forces you to read what they write. If its suits you better that none is questioning your beliefs it's ok with me, no problem. I'm trying to shine a little light into your life...if you don't like it, don't read my posts, and continue to be in the dark. I know it is nice to read things that agree with you, even when you are dead wrong, so enjoy yourself on that site.:D

Cleopatra

20th December 2003, 04:15 PM

Zero

20th December 2003, 04:17 PM

BTW, an interesting little thing I like to do, when evaluating a news source, is to flip-flop the sides, and see if it sounds biased then. Replace "Israeli" with "Palestinian" in the examples listed by HR, and tell me what you see.

Zero

20th December 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I totally disagree with that generally speaking. I believe that a reporter doesn't have the right to color a situation. He must present facts in the most possible neutral way.OP-Ed articles are something different. If you observed, Honest Reporting is focusing on reports and not in OP-ED articles. It isn't coloring the situation, it is showing two different situations as actually being two different situations. Terrorist actions are reported differently from military actions because military actions are different from terrorist actions...unless you are saying that Israeli troops are terrorists, and should get reported on in that manner?

Zero

20th December 2003, 04:26 PM

From HR:

Israel is fighting an uphill battle and needs all the help it can get. Much has been achieved, yet there is much more yet to do. To help Israel win the media war, join tens of thousands of others at HonestReporting.com. Hmmmm...that sounds like a group trying to win a propaganda war, not one that is trying to make the media more honest.

RPG Advocate

20th December 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And, again, some of the supposed 'bias' simply shows the difference between reporting on an army's military action, and the action of lone terrorists. You cannot reasonably expect the reporting to be identical, can you? You don't expect a report of a criminal killing an innocent person to a policeman killing a criminal, or an innocent person. Again, apples and oranges.

Actually, the Honest Reporting article doesn't really address the Isreali acts of violence so much as complaining that the Palestinian suicide bombers aren't even being labelled as criminals. Notice how the article makes several mentions of news reports characterizing suicide bombers as "freedom fighters" or "warriors for independence". They may be those things, but they are also cold-blooded killers. Interesting that the reports sort of gloss over this detail, don't you think? The press ought to hold the Palestinians to the same exacting standards of morality to which they hold Israel.

Even though it's not addressed directly, this change in reporting practice logically leads to a fundamental change in how the press would report Israeli acts of violence (and nonviolent, but oppressive, acts that relate to the Occupied Territories). When Palestinians are characterized correctly as cold-blooded killers, people will be more tolerant of reasonable Israeli response to the problem of suicide bombers. Then, they can concentrate on actual Israeli overreaction, such as air strikes, the Wall, and settlements. If you cry foul at even legitimate Israeli measures to control terror, don't be surprised if you're accused of crying wolf when something really egregious happens.

You think it's an apples-to-oranges comparison? Tell it to the family of a suicide bombing victim. The press needs to do those families justice by holding the Palestinians responsible for their crimes instead of making those victims scapegoats for politics.

Zero

20th December 2003, 05:29 PM

That's odd...show me a non-Arab news source calling a suicide bomber a 'freedom fighter'. Then again, HR seems to siggest that Rachel Corrie should be described as a terrorist for getting her blood and guts stuck in the wheels of a bulldozer.

Zero

20th December 2003, 05:46 PM

I'm gonna answer bits and pieces of this, ok?

Originally posted by RPG Advocate

Actually, the Honest Reporting article doesn't really address the Isreali acts of violence so much as complaining that the Palestinian suicide bombers aren't even being labelled as criminals. Notice how the article makes several mentions of news reports characterizing suicide bombers as "freedom fighters" or "warriors for independence". They may be those things, but they are also cold-blooded killers. Interesting that the reports sort of gloss over this detail, don't you think? The press ought to hold the Palestinians to the same exacting standards of morality to which they hold Israel.

The Palestinain people cannot be heald accountable for every suicide bombing. The Israeli government CAN be held accountable for every slaying of a child by an Israeli soldier. In one ionstance, the criminal is dead; in the other, the criminal may be awarded a medal for his 'service'
Even though it's not addressed directly, this change in reporting practice logically leads to a fundamental change in how the press would report Israeli acts of violence (and nonviolent, but oppressive, acts that relate to the Occupied Territories). When Palestinians are characterized correctly as cold-blooded killers, people will be more tolerant of reasonable Israeli response to the problem of suicide bombers. Then, they can concentrate on actual Israeli overreaction, such as air strikes, the Wall, and settlements. If you cry foul at even legitimate Israeli measures to control terror, don't be surprised if you're accused of crying wolf when something really egregious happens. By the same token, when HR pretends that there is a huge conspiracy of anti-Israel reporting, they shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe if they focused on obvious and real cases of bias, I would take them seriously. Instead, they seem to value quantity over quality, even when most of the cases are nonsense.

You think it's an apples-to-oranges comparison? Tell it to the family of a suicide bombing victim. The press needs to do those families justice by holding the Palestinians responsible for their crimes instead of making those victims scapegoats for politics. Tell me that Palestinian parents don't mourn as much as any Israeli. Stop blaming all Palestinians for the actions of a few, and stop letting Israeli troops off the hook for their slaughter of innocents.

Skeptic

20th December 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Zero
From HR:

Hmmmm...that sounds like a group trying to win a propaganda war, not one that is trying to make the media more honest.

Dammit, you broke our code with your amazing logic:

1). This site claims there's an anti-israeli bias in the media;

2). Therefore, they're pro-israeli;

3). Therefore, they're a "propaganda site" and you don't have to read what they say in the first place!

How long did it take you to reach this "brilliant" conclusion?

By the way, I've just seen a web site that lists arguments for evolution and against creationism. But that means they're pro-evolution, so what they say must be some sort of atheist propaganda, so I won't read it!

So THERE!

Zero

20th December 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Dammit, you broke our code with your amazing logic:

1). This site claims there's an anti-israeli bias in the media;

2). Therefore, they're pro-israeli;

3). Therefore, they're a "propaganda site" and you don't have to read what they say in the first place!

How long did it take you to reach this "brilliant" conclusion?

By the way, I've just seen a web site that lists arguments for evolution and against creationism. But that means they're pro-evolution, so what they say must be some sort of atheist propaganda, so I won't read it!

So THERE! Israel is fighting an uphill battle and needs all the help it can get. Much has been achieved, yet there is much more yet to do. To help Israel win the media war, join tens of thousands of others at HonestReporting.com. They are pro-Israel by their own admission. I showed a specific example in which the 'bias' that was claimed was rubbish. I'm better at this than you are, even if I don't resort to the lies you embrace.

Take a walk, learn the meaning of integrity, and then come back and take me on. Otherwise, you are like a punk bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Skeptic

20th December 2003, 08:06 PM

They are pro-Israel by their own admission.

And evolution sites are pro-evolution by their own admission. The question is, SO WHAT? How does that make the arguments false?

All you did was find one case where you disagree with their claim of bias... and voila! it's a "propaganda pro-israeli site"! Mission accomplished!

Jocko

20th December 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Zero
They are pro-Israel by their own admission. I showed a specific example in which the 'bias' that was claimed was rubbish. I'm better at this than you are, even if I don't resort to the lies you embrace.

Take a walk, learn the meaning of integrity, and then come back and take me on. Otherwise, you are like a punk bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Just taking a look at how you handle other posters. Screaming for objectivity while tossing around ad hominems. Derailing threads and demanding that all sides of any conflict are, ipso facto, equal.

I see my suspicions are confirmed.... punk.

Zero

20th December 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Just taking a look at how you handle other posters. Screaming for objectivity while tossing around ad hominems. Derailing threads and demanding that all sides of any conflict are, ipso facto, equal.

I see my suspicions are confirmed.... punk. Nice try, again...I suppose it is the best you can do. Try dealing with the issues presented in the thread next time, and maybe you wil do better.

Zero

20th December 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
They are pro-Israel by their own admission.

And evolution sites are pro-evolution by their own admission. The question is, SO WHAT? How does that make the arguments false?

All you did was find one case where you disagree with their claim of bias... and voila! it's a "propaganda pro-israeli site"! Mission accomplished! The point is being 'pro-objectivity'...I posted a link to a site that shows that sort of behavior. Take a look at it, take a look at HR, and tell me which one is more objective.

Jaggy Bunnet

21st December 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The point is being 'pro-objectivity'...I posted a link to a site that shows that sort of behavior. Take a look at it, take a look at HR, and tell me which one is more objective.

If this site is concerned with Honest Reporting, can someone point out one example of where they have reviewed a report and decided it was not biased or biased in favour of Israel? If not then lets drop the pretence that they are interested in Honest Reporting. It is a site dedicated to promoting a particular message and to suggest it is anything else is nonsense.

Some might say that referring to Israelis annexing land outside their internationally recognised borders and using government money to fund new communities on that land was deserving of a more pejorative term than "settlements". Does that mean they every report that uses the word settlements instead of say "illegally established occupation communities" can be dismissed as biased in favour of Israel?

Troll

21st December 2003, 02:52 AM

Cleopatra

21st December 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't coloring the situation, it is showing two different situations as actually being two different situations. Terrorist actions are reported differently from military actions because military actions are different from terrorist actions...unless you are saying that Israeli troops are terrorists, and should get reported on in that manner?

The problem is that terrorist attacks are not reported as such but they are reported as regular military, legitimate operations whilst the legitimate response of the Israeli Army to suicide terrorism is reported as genocide.

otiginally posted by Zero
By the same token, when HR pretends that there is a huge conspiracy of anti-Israel reporting, they shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe if they focused on obvious and real cases of bias, I would take them seriously. Instead, they seem to value quantity over quality, even when most of the cases are nonsense

Can you quote the extract from HP's site where it refers to an anti-Israel conspiracy. You will either provide the exact quote that talks about a conspiracy or you will have to take this comment back.

Can you debunk any of the cases of bias HP lists in its reprt? If you are not able, you will have to take back the claim that HR case is nonsense.

originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If this site is concerned with Honest Reporting, can someone point out one example of where they have reviewed a report and decided it was not biased or biased in favour of Israel? If not then lets drop the pretence that they are interested in Honest Reporting. It is a site dedicated to promoting a particular message and to suggest it is anything else is nonsense.

In the report I counted around 27 examples of severe Media bias during the year 2003. I hope that you understand that more than 27-30 cases were invistigated since that more that 30 reportages covering ME were published during the year 2003 and they didn't ended up as reports for Media Bias.

I propose you to examine the way the organization works yourself. Set-up a free account and subscribe to the mailing list. Choose a reportage that doesn't seem to you biased and report it . Wait to see how they will respond after they investigate it. If you repeat this a couple of times and you find them over the top you will have every right to complaign.

originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Some might say that referring to Israelis annexing land outside their internationally recognised borders and using government money to fund new communities on that land was deserving of a more pejorative term than "settlements". Does that mean they every report that uses the word settlements instead of say "illegally established occupation communities" can be dismissed as biased in favour of Israel?

Settlements are reported as illegal. I have never seen a single reportage from BBC or AP that doesn't remind that settlements are illegal, what are you talking about? [/quote]

originally posted by RPG Advocate

Actually, the Honest Reporting article doesn't really address the Isreali acts of violence so much as complaining that the Palestinian suicide bombers aren't even being labelled as criminals. Notice how the article makes several mentions of news reports characterizing suicide bombers as "freedom fighters" or "warriors for independence". They may be those things, but they are also cold-blooded killers. Interesting that the reports sort of gloss over this detail, don't you think? The press ought to hold the Palestinians to the same exacting standards of morality to which they hold Israel.

Even though it's not addressed directly, this change in reporting practice logically leads to a fundamental change in how the press would report Israeli acts of violence (and nonviolent, but oppressive, acts that relate to the Occupied Territories). When Palestinians are characterized correctly as cold-blooded killers, people will be more tolerant of reasonable Israeli response to the problem of suicide bombers. Then, they can concentrate on actual Israeli overreaction, such as air strikes, the Wall, and settlements. If you cry foul at even legitimate Israeli measures to control terror, don't be surprised if you're accused of crying wolf when something really egregious happens.

Thank you for wording so nicely something that I have been saying since the day I joined this forum. If Europeans won't decide to put the issue of suicide terrorism into the correct perspective they will never focus on the real problems Israel causes and the most important is that by refusing to do so they don't help the Pacifists in Israel. The Pacificts in Israel can't make it without the help of the Western World. As long as Europe approves suicide terrorism, pacifists in Israel are losing the game.

I am desperate RPG Advocate. It's not only that the West doesn't want to help it's that they make things worse. Some times I have the feeling that as long as Jews are get killed it's ok for everybody.

Zero

21st December 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Thank you for wording so nicely something that I have been saying since the day I joined this forum. If Europeans won't decide to put the issue of suicide terrorism into the correct perspective they will never focus on the real problems Israel causes and the most important is that by refusing to do so they don't help the Pacifists in Israel. The Pacificts in Israel can't make it without the help of the Western World. As long as Europe approves suicide terrorism, pacifists in Israel are losing the game.

I am desperate RPG Advocate. It's not only that the West doesn't want to help it's that they make things worse. Some times I have the feeling that as long as Jews are get killed it's ok for everybody.

I can agree with parts of this...not that 'Europe' approves of suicide bombings, of course, but that anti-semitism does exist, and so do pacifist Israelis. Israel causes real problems, and so do Palestinian terrorists. HR could help, I suppose, if they were really impartial, and not so taken to seeing EVERYTHING as anti-Israel or pro-terrorist. Its the same way that progressive sites shoot themselves in the foot by including anti-Bush articles that are less than honest, or right-wingers allowing people like Ann Coulter to represent their views.

Cleopatra

21st December 2003, 11:36 AM

Zero:

Do you intend to address the issues you raised?

Please quote the extract from HR's site that talks about Anti-Israel conspiracy and show us why HR's case is nonsense by refuting the examples in the report.

Chaos

21st December 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Thank you for wording so nicely something that I have been saying since the day I joined this forum. If Europeans won't decide to put the issue of suicide terrorism into the correct perspective they will never focus on the real problems Israel causes and the most important is that by refusing to do so they don't help the Pacifists in Israel. The Pacificts in Israel can't make it without the help of the Western World. As long as Europe approves suicide terrorism, pacifists in Israel are losing the game.

I am desperate RPG Advocate. It's not only that the West doesn't want to help it's that they make things worse. Some times I have the feeling that as long as Jews are get killed it's ok for everybody.

Do you think that they do not want to help, or that they try but are so inept about it that they make things worse?

At least here in the forum, it looks like the latter to me.

Cleopatra

21st December 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Chaos

Do you think that they do not want to help, or that they try but are so inept about it that they make things worse?

At least here in the forum, it looks like the latter to me.

I don't wish to reply to that because my feelings are stronger than my reason on this matter. I don't understand why in Europe for the Sharonistas doors in are always open and for the the groups that are lobbying in favor of the Geneva Initiative are closed.I don't think that the former are lobbying more effectively than the later. Europeans suppose to condemn Sharon and his policy.

I am sorry but I am feeling that there is something rotten in the Kingdom of Europe.

Mycroft

21st December 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
Do you think that they do not want to help, or that they try but are so inept about it that they make things worse?

At least here in the forum, it looks like the latter to me.

I think it's a combination of both. A combination of apathy and ignorance leads to ineptitude, but the apathy and ignorance is fueled by those that are hostile to the idea of peace in Israel.

Zero

21st December 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Zero:

Do you intend to address the issues you raised?

Please quote the extract from HR's site that talks about Anti-Israel conspiracy and show us why HR's case is nonsense by refuting the examples in the report. Shall we go case by case? HR complains about headlines, and apparently doesn't read the articles. When Palestinian terrorist groups announced a hudna with the PA, Israel was not a party in the agreement, and the official road map demanded a full disarming of terror groups ― not a temporary hudna cease-fire. Yet Reuters took the opportunity to vilify Israel with the headline: "Israel Pours Scorn on Truce With Militants"
The article reads neutral, or even slightly leaning towards Israel. The only person quoted was an Israeli, and the israeli viewpoint was the only one explored.

AAnd when Israel did show flexibility for Palestinian demands, above and beyond the roadmap's requirements? On Nov. 3, Reuters reported that Israel reinstated 15,000 Palestinian work permits, and included this comment in a news report:

150,000 Palestinians [previously] made a living in Israel, so Sunday's restoration of 15,000 Israeli work permits is still only a drop in the ocean.

Actually, 15,000 was fully 10%, and a risky loosening of anti-terror policy. Even the Palestinian official quoted by Reuters called it "an important step." One sentence, taken out of context, and HR shows that Reuters quoted a Palestinians saying it was an important step...no bias there.

Reuters' refusal to use the term "terrorism" or "terrorist" reached new levels of absurdity this year. In November, Reuters released a list of "Worst Guerilla Attacks since September 11" that omitted terror in Israel entirely.

But beyond distancing itself from the term "terror," Reuters regularly legitimized Palestinian terrorist groups and their murderous acts by ascribing to them a worthy (though false) motive ― the pursuit of independence:

The military wing of the Islamic militant group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement faxed to Reuters. Hamas has spearheaded a 28-month-old Palestinian militant uprising against Israel for a state in Gaza and the West Bank. (Feb. 15 - emphasis added) The stated goal of the Palestinians is statehood. No reason that Reuters shouldn't reported that way. Further, Reuters is probably going for neutrality by using the word 'militants', in the same way that they no doubt avoid using the term 'illegal squatters on Palestinian land' when they refer to Israeli settlers in Gaza and the West Bank.

REUTERS' HEADLINES

In July, HonestReporting released a study of one month of Reuters headlines on the conflict. Some findings:

▪ In violent acts by Israelis, "Israel" was named in 100% of the headlines, and the verb was in the active voice in 100% of the headlines, i.e.:

"Israeli Troops Shoot Dead Palestinian in W. Bank" (July 3)

▪ But in violent acts by Palestinians, the Palestinian perpetrator was named in just 33% of the headlines, and the verb was generally in the passive voice, i.e.:

"Bus Blows Up in Central Jerusalem" (June 11)

That is, in the world of Reuters headlines, when Israel acts, Israel is always perpetrating an active assault and the Palestinian victim is consistently identified. But when Palestinian terrorists act, the event just "happens" and Israeli victims are left faceless. There's a reason for this, and I explained it before...when Israeli troops use force, they do so with the backing of a recognized government; the same is NOT true for Palestinian suicide bombers. Since the papers don't always know who is responsible for an act of terrorism, shall they simply lay it at the feet of the entire Palestinian population?

I could go on, but I'm rather bored of teh hysterical 'I'm such a victim' attitude of HR.

As far as the 'conspiracy' issue...HR accuses enough major media outlets of being anti-Israel that the idea of a conspiracy is easily garnered from reading the site.

corplinx

21st December 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I am sorry but I am feeling that there is something rotten in the Kingdom of Europe.

Nonsense, all nonsense, bias and such. Everyone knows you people run the media. So how can it be biased against you? :)

Zero

22nd December 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by corplinx

Nonsense, all nonsense, bias and such. Everyone knows you people run the media. So how can it be biased against you? :) LOL@ 'you people'...I'm trying to figure out how both conspiracy theories exist at the same time.:p

Jon_in_london

22nd December 2003, 06:46 AM

Amazingly enough, all the stuff on this page relates to Arab-Isreali matters!!!

No seriously biased reporting on any other subject? or is this page BIASED?!?!?

Lord Emsworth

22nd December 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by corplinx

Nonsense, all nonsense, bias and such. Everyone knows you people run the media. So how can it be biased against you? :)

The bias against them only proves that they run the media.

:D

Zero

22nd December 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Amazingly enough, all the stuff on this page relates to Arab-Isreali matters!!!

No seriously biased reporting on any other subject? or is this page BIASED?!?!? It is biased pro-Palestinian, because it doesn't refer to the murdered Palestinian 2 year olds as 'terrorists of the future'....no, wait, it is biased pro-Israel, because it doesn't refer to Israelis as 'evil Jewish conspirators'....wait again, I'm thinking it is biased anti-gummi bear!!!

You don't see a single gummi bear mentioned, do you?!?

Jon_in_london

22nd December 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Zero
It is biased pro-Palestinian, because it doesn't refer to the murdered Palestinian 2 year olds as 'terrorists of the future'....no, wait, it is biased pro-Israel, because it doesn't refer to Israelis as 'evil Jewish conspirators'....wait again, I'm thinking it is biased anti-gummi bear!!!

You don't see a single gummi bear mentioned, do you?!?

No, I didnt see any gummi-bears. Probably because gummi-bears arent often in the news.

So instead of banging on about "media bias" why not say "media bias as relates to the arab-isreali conflict". Perhaps then it might be worth more than a cursory glance.

Cleopatra

22nd December 2003, 11:38 AM

I observe that some people suffer from serious deficiencies in reading comprehension so I have to repeat certain facts.

Honest Reporting is an organization that is established to support Israel's war against Media Bias.It hasn't been establish to fight Media Bias in general. Honest Reporting is an organization with an agenda.

In investigates reports that come to its offices via e-mails from the 60.000 volunteer members. Once somebody reads something that it seems biased towards Israel he can forward it to the organization and after they investigate it and they decide that the specific report is biased indeed then, they send a request to the 60.000 members to e-mail the editor of the medium who hosted the specific biased report in order to complain.

Simple as that.

The mission of the organization is clearly stated and it doesn't imply any kind of conspiracy.

Now,I post an example of a typical HR report that the subcribers of its mailing list receive and I invite those who believe that Media Bias deteriorates the situation in Middle East to join the peaceful activists of Honest Reporting against Media Bias.

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

The Associated Press has released its Year in Photos 2003, the agency's annual photo essay that aims to summarize the year's news and most dramatic moments.
http://personal.news.yahoo.com/man/ye03_pix/

In this site,of the 130 photos chosen, six addressed human suffering in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All six were of Palestinians.
Remarkably, AP chose no pictures of Israeli terror victims to include in their yearly roundup. (The only Israeli civilian included was a worshipper at the Western Wall.) Here are links to powerful AP photos of Israeli victims that were somehow "overlooked" in the yearly summary:

Aug. 19: Jerusalem bus bombinghttp://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/ter2918.jpg

Oct. 4: Haifa restaurant bombing
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/ter3098.jpg

Sept 9: Cafe Hillel bombing (Pictures from 'We Should Not Forget')
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/ter3017.jpg

The AP photo essay characterizes Palestinians as the victim in the conflict. This editorial decision distorts the human cost that the conflict exacted this year on both sides, and completely ignores the root cause of all this suffering: Palestinian terrorism.

HonestReporting encourages subscribers to write to AP, requesting an explanation for their one-sided photo essay.

corplinx

22nd December 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Zero
LOL@ 'you people'...I'm trying to figure out how both conspiracy theories exist at the same time.:p

Yes, I was going to mention that but I was hoping someone would pick that up.

According to american ultra-conservatice conspiracy theorists (and Nation of Islam nuts), the jews run the media.

According to the Honest Reporting guys, the media is biased against Israel.

So, to make these theories meld, we must assume that the media is run by self-hating jews.

Zero

22nd December 2003, 11:53 PM

Bias bias bias...if you want to know the truth about bias, either read Al Franken's book, which describes all sorts of bias that has nothing to do with politics....or, if you like your reading dry and scholarly, read Mark Crispin Miller's work in the field. Most of the time, the percieved bias is either in the person's head(due to some victim fixation), or the bias has much more to do with economics than ideology.

For instance, besides the few articles that do show vague anti-Israeli bias, the rest use very neutral language that I guess HR would like to be more harsh. Wanna bet that it has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-anything, and alot to do with trying to sell more papers by not intentionally pissing off anyone?

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Bias bias bias...if you want to know the truth about bias, either read Al Franken's book, which describes all sorts of bias that has nothing to do with politics....or, if you like your reading dry and scholarly, read Mark Crispin Miller's work in the field. Most of the time, the percieved bias is either in the person's head(due to some victim fixation), or the bias has much more to do with economics than ideology.

I like your cynical pretense.It shows that you know very little of real life.
When you will grow-up and you will graduate the high-school you will understand more, hopefully.

Yesterday I was listening to the radio and the reporter refered to a murder case I was involved ( I am a lawyer) and the reporter refered to the victim whose family I represented,as " The X case who died in 2000". The victim didn't die. She was battered to death by her husband.He was hitting her for hours with an iron skillet. She was murdered and yet the idiot journalist said that she died.

I called the radio station immediately to remind them the story and the pretentious fool dared to joke with me: " Ok, I made a small mistake, what's your problem Ms Cleopatra BTW , haven't your clients paid you and you interfere or you are one of those feminists?"

There was a poster here who used to say:

" I can't help fools".

Stupidity is one of the reasons of Media Bias but this doesn't mean that bias is less or that is not bias anymore

I don't know if Media protect their financial interest by being biased towards Israel but I know that the dead people I have seen on the streets are real.

Probably they think like you Zero. As long as Jews die it's ok.:)

But as Doctor X used to say... I can't help fools.

Zero

23rd December 2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I like your cynical pretense.It shows that you know very little from real life.
When you will grow-up and you will graduate the high-school you will understand more, hopefully.

Yesterday I was listening to the radio and the reporter refered to a murder case I was involved ( I am a lawyer) and the reporter refered to the victim whose family I represented,as " The X case who died in 2000". The victim didn't die. She was battered to death by her husband.He was hitting her for hours with an irion skillet. She was murdered and yet the idiot journalist said that she died.

I called the radio station immediately to remind them the story and the pretentious fool dared to joke with me: " Ok, I made a small mistake, what's your problem Ms Cleopatra BTW , haven't your clients paid you and you interfere or you are one of those feminists?"

There was a poster here who used to say:

" I can't help fools".

Stupidity is one of the reasons of Media Bias but this doesn't mean that bias is less or that is not bias anymore

I don't know if Media protect their financial interest by being biased towards Israel but I know that the dead people I have seen on the streets are real.

Probably they think like you Zero. As long as Jews die it's ok.:)

But as Doctor X used to say... I can't help fools. LOL, you are kind of silly, did you know that? Your bias is sort of sad though. We were talking about MEDIA BIAS, so why did you bring up dead bodies? And, of course, I have to wonder why you think that I care whether a dead person is a Jew or not? I frankly don't think being Jewish really means anything at all, and my specific complains have always been with the more aggressive elements within the Likud, not with all Israelis, or with Jewish people in general.

I thought my last post was pretty non-confrontational, and you responded with silly insults. Would you care to explain why?

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 12:58 AM

You must have...divined by now that I am immune to your ad hominem attacks so spare me the BS when you are addressing me, Ok?

Now, the Middle Eastern conflict has to do with bodies of civilians from both sides and when we are talking about anti-Israeli bias we mean that Media judge and present differently the deaths of the Israelis from the death of the Palestinians. Obviously you believe that the deaths of Israeli civilians don't matter. There is a name about that bias you know.

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You must have...divined by now that I am immune to your ad hominem attacks so spare me the BS when you are addressing me, Ok?

Now, the Middle Eastern conflict has to do with bodies of civilians from both sides and when we are talking about anti-Israeli bias we mean that Media judge and present differently the deaths of the Israelis from the death of the Palestinians. Obviously you believe that the deaths of Israeli civilians don't matter. There is a name about that bias you know. That's funny, I didn't see much more than a mild insult in there(calling you 'silly')

Again, you (either intentionally or not) misread what I have been posting. This may in fact be evidence that you are subject to the 'victim complex' which I mentioned before, but I'm not a shrink so I can't judge that. I DO claim that Israeli and Palestinian deaths are different, not because of a different percieved VALUE for each, but because of the different status of the persons causing the deaths. Think about it another way, that is maybe less emotionally explosive:
If a drug dealer kills an innocent person, it is reported one way. If a cop kills a drug dealer, it is reported in another way. If a cop kills a drug dealer, and his infant children at the same time, it will be reported in a third way. Does that make sense to you at all?

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 01:13 AM

Hmmm. I think that school boys are not really in the position to diagnose others but you might be a genius.

Your example would be of some equivalence if we were comparing the death of Israeli soldiers to the death of Palestinian civilians but we are talking about the way the deaths of civilians from both sides are reported.

Obviously you belong to those that believe that the blood of the Arabs is heavier than the blood of the Israelis. The good thing is that all the Arabs do not believe that, in fact the majority doesn't believe it. I don't know why some people are more royal than the King. Bias and racial hatred are strange things anyway and of course let us not forget that we cannot help fools.

Mycroft

23rd December 2003, 01:19 AM

Dang, Cleo. I know I shouldn't talk having spent more than my fair share of time arguing with fools, but don't you think it's about time to put him on ignore?

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Obviously you belong to those that believe that the blood of the Arabs is heavier than the blood of the Israelis. The good thing is that all the Arabs do not believe that, in fact the majority doesn't believe it. I don't know why some people are more royal than the King. Bias and racial hatred are strange things anyway and of course let us not forget that we cannot help fools. Go ahead and keep calling me a racist if it makes you feel better. It certain makes it easier to ignore what I've posted. I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that an Israeli death is less important than an Arab death. NEVER EVER EVER SQUARED!!!

The reason why you miss my point, possibly, is because I am not focused so much on the victims as I am on the perpetrators. It is a difference in perspective that might be causing us to shout over each other's heads, perhaps? My point is not that it is more or less important when an Israeli child is killed than it is when a Palestinian child is killed...my point is the difference between the actions of the military of an internationally recognized nation, and the actions of violent elements within a popluation that has a nebulous standing. There's the difference as I see it, and it has nothing to do with the identity of the victims. Can you address that point, please, instead of hurling insults at me?

And you don't know why some people are more royal than Elvis?

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Dang, Cleo. I know I shouldn't talk having spent more than my fair share of time arguing with fools, but don't you think it's about time to put him on ignore? WOuld you care to join in the discussion? I'm sure you have interesting views about the differences(if any) between the actions of a military, and the actions of a rouge faction of an unrecognized state, and how each should be reported by the media.

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Dang, Cleo. I know I shouldn't talk having spent more than my fair share of time arguing with fools, but don't you think it's about time to put him on ignore?

I thought about it, since Zero does nothing but trolling since he joined this forum --he even asked me to be ashamed of myself for being an Israeli- on the other hand, you know, some times I enjoy this game of the cat with the mouse :D

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I thought about it, since Zero does nothing but trolling since he joined this forum --he even asked me to be ashamed of myself for being an Israeli- on the other hand, you know, some times I enjoy this game of the cat with the mouse :D Show me where I said you should be ashamed to be Israeli, and I'll apologize for it...if you can't find it, I think you should owe me one, right?:D

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Go ahead and keep calling me a racist if it makes you feel better. It certain makes it easier to ignore what I've posted. I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER said that an Israeli death is less important than an Arab death. NEVER EVER EVER SQUARED!!!

You present yourself as a racist when you distinguish death among civilians, I don't really needto call you a racist. People have graduated high-school before you did and they have learned how to read you know.

The reason why you miss my point, possibly, is because I am not focused so much on the victims as I am on the perpetrators. It is a difference in perspective that might be causing us to shout over each other's heads, perhaps? My point is not that it is more or less important when an Israeli child is killed than it is when a Palestinian child is killed...my point is the difference between the actions of the military of an internationally recognized nation, and the actions of violent elements within a popluation that has a nebulous standing. There's the difference as I see it, and it has nothing to do with the identity of the victims. Can you address that point, please, instead of hurling insults at me?

First of all the military actions are in response of those terrorists attacks. Second the Palestinians have at least officially denounced this kind of violence, Arafat has said that "those people are not Palestinians" meaning that they don't fight for the interests of the Palestinians.

Third. Suicide terrosists are not murdering people for the liberation of Palestine but for Allah's sake, as they claim in their official site.

For the reasons listed above International Media don't have any reason to make this dinstinction let alone to glorify terrorism.

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You should be ashamed of your government's behavior.

There's what I said...nothing about being ashamed about being Israeli, unless you consider your government to be your country. I personally consider a country to consist of its people, and I consider most people to be pretty ok when you get to know them.

Do I get my apology now, or do I get it later?;)

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:35 AM

I'm starting to suspect that you are not going to actually read anything I post. For all your insults about my intelligence, only one of us is posting rationally right now, and I'm almost certain that it isn't you.

Again, since I repeatedly said that I am not differentiating between the victims, are you going to claim that I am? Again?

Zero

23rd December 2003, 01:38 AM

Shall we start over again from the top, and go really slow? You don't seem at all unintelligent, and if you would only stop attacking for a moment, maybe you would see that what I'm saying isn't all that radical, and certainly not racist.

Quick truce, and some reasoned debate, please? I'll even toss in a quick apology for starting out on the wrong foot with you.

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 08:03 AM

Zero

Let me explain you a couple of things. According to the Forum's database, you subscribed on Dec the 6th. If you are a new member--ans not a sockpuppet-- it means that you haven't interacted with me before, so you don't know what sort of poster I am and how I respond to provocations and yet after a couple of posts you didn't hesitate to ask me to be ashamed of myself for being an Israeli.

To be exact you said that I should be ashamed of my government but my government is elected by the majority in democratic elections and yes, by making such comments about the government you imply that the majority of the citizens that elected it should be ashamed of themselves.

Then, you attempted many times to derail the thread but it didn't work. I don't question your intelligence I just find your behaviour childish. You have the right to have your opinions about Israel and its politics and defend your opinions , trolling doesn't constitute legitimate debating though and I am not biting it.

Also, don't even think that you are in the position to dictate your rules in the discussion. I might accept that with the posters I know well and I respect them like A Unique Person, or Capel Dodger or the others that I disagree with on that matter but this doesn't mean that I am obliged to tolerate every teenager that jumps in this forum.

Do you want we start over? Please, be my guest but be more careful this time.

Zero

23rd December 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Zero

Let me explain you a couple of things. According to the Forum's database, you subscribed on Dec the 6th. If you are a new member--ans not a sockpuppet-- it means that you haven't interacted with me before, so you don't know what sort of poster I am and how I respond to provocations and yet after a couple of posts you didn't hesitate to ask me to be ashamed of myself for being an Israeli.

To be exact you said that I should be ashamed of my government but my government is elected by the majority in democratic elections and yes, by making such comments about the government you imply that the majority of the citizens that elected it should be ashamed of themselves.

Then, you attempted many times to derail the thread but it didn't work. I don't question your intelligence I just find your behaviour childish. You have the right to have your opinions about Israel and its politics and defend your opinions , trolling doesn't constitute legitimate debating though and I am not biting it.

Also, don't even think that you are in the position to dictate your rules in the discussion. I might accept that with the posters I know well and I respect them like A Unique Person, or Capel Dodger or the others that I disagree with on that matter but this doesn't mean that I am obliged to tolerate every teenager that jumps in this forum.

Do you want we start over? Please, be my guest but be more careful this time. Call me a teenager one more time and I swear to God I'll rip your face off...besides that, ok. :D

You should learn to read a little better, especially when people disagree with you, I haven't been trolling at all. YOU are oversensitive, and have some sort of thing going on where anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli government policies is a racist. I'm NOT a racist, easily not a racist, I grew up in Manhattan, which is as much of a melting pot as you can get.

You seem to see everything that isn't actively pro-Israel as being anti-Israel, and that is the p[roblem with HR as well.

Thanz

23rd December 2003, 08:23 AM

First let me say that I do not have strong feelings one way or the other on the Middle East. I simply do not know enough. It does seem that both sides have done some things that they should not be proud of. Also, as a consumer of the mass media that Honest Reporting claims is biased, I have never thought of suicide bombings as anything other than terrorist attacks. I do not think that they have been minimized.

The problem that I have with "Honest Reporting" is that the name (and the handing out of a "Dishonest Reporting Award") imply that they are some sort of media watchdog, which is simply incorrect. They are an organization with a particular agenda, and they look at all reporting through that lens. I disagree that some of the things they complain about are indicative of bias. For example, I do not know why they think using "bystander" instead of citizen or civilian is indicative of any sort of bias.

"Honest Reporting" has an opinion about what they see as bias in the media. That is all it is - an opinion. There is nothing to "debunk", no matter how many times Cleopatra makes that challenge. It is like me saying that strawberries are the best fruit, and challenging you to debunk it.

With regards to the photo essay, I was struck by the lack of Israeli content. However, I do not know if I would have noticed if it was not pointed out to me. On the other hand, of the sample pictures offered, the only one that I thought was poignant enough for a photo essay was the bus bombing picture with the two strollers.

Further, I think that the behaviour of Cleopatra towards Zero has been worse than the behaviour of Zero towards Cleopatra. I feel that she has let her emotions over the Middle East situation overwhelm good sense in her posting, and she has been quite insulting. Just my 2 cents.

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 08:29 AM

Zero

If you have read my posts in this forum you wouldn't seriously claim that I see everything that isn't pro-Israeli as being anti-Israeli. On the contrary, my criticism towards Israel has made some people to accuse me of professed liberalism towards the Palestinians.

I am an Israeli and you will rarely find me involved in nasty flame wars about this issue. The Australians of the forun take the issue more personally than I do, for example!

As long as you don't troll I don't care how severe your opinions regarding Israel are.

Look at Thanz's post for example and take notes.Of course I totally disagree but it happens in a forum, you know.

Zero

23rd December 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Zero

If you have read my posts in this forum you wouldn't seriously claim that I see everything that isn't pro-Israeli as being anti-Israeli. On the contrary, my criticism towards Israel has made some people to accuse me of professed liberalism towards the Palestinians.

I am an Israeli and you will rarely find me involved in nasty flame wars about this issue. The Australians of the forun take the issue more personally than I do, for example!

As long as you don't troll I don't care how severe your opinions regarding Israel are.

Look at Thanz's post for example and take notes.Of course I totally disagree but it happens in a forum, you know. OK, fair enough...I'm pretty much done here, with the last think from me on the subject to be this:

There is without question real anti-Israeli media bias out there. I think some people hurt their own case by not focusing on the obvious, and reading to much into some things that really aren't bias. I'm sure you disagree, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
The problem that I have with "Honest Reporting" is that the name (and the handing out of a "Dishonest Reporting Award") imply that they are some sort of media watchdog, which is simply incorrect. They are an organization with a particular agenda, and they look at all reporting through that lens. I disagree that some of the things they complain about are indicative of bias. For example, I do not know why they think using "bystander" instead of citizen or civilian is indicative of any sort of bias.

Honest Reporting doesn't hide what it is. It's crystal clear where it comes from.

I find interesting that we disagree in what I consider the biggest and nastiest bias towards Israel.

By naming civilians "bystanders" it's the most nasty of all the biases HR has listed. A bystander can be an armed soldier, a bystander can be a soldier in a tank , a civilian indicates that it's an unarmed person that is not involved in a military operation. By calling the unarmed civilans bystanders it reduces the sympathy of those who get informed.

"Honest Reporting" has an opinion about what they see as bias in the media. That is all it is - an opinion. There is nothing to "debunk", no matter how many times Cleopatra makes that challenge. It is like me saying that strawberries are the best fruit, and challenging you to debunk it.

Not really. I invite you to debunk that something of what HP is claiming is not true, that HR lists comments that have never been made, I challenge you to prove that HR reports lies.

With regards to the photo essay, I was struck by the lack of Israeli content. However, I do not know if I would have noticed if it was not pointed out to me. On the other hand, of the sample pictures offered, the only one that I thought was poignant enough for a photo essay was the bus bombing picture with the two strollers.

and above you have posted:

Also, as a consumer of the mass media that Honest Reporting claims is biased, I have never thought of suicide bombings as anything other than terrorist attacks. I do not think that they have been minimized.

I find this shocking, I am sorry. I find shocking the fact that you didn't notice the absence of the reference of the Israeli victims. It seems that the bias of the bystanders is really effective.On the one hand you don't find that the suicide bombings have been minimized and on the other hand you haven't noticed the absence of the reference to them.

You see how effective this media policy work to people like you, who as you have admitted they don't know that enough about this issue?

Further, I think that the behaviour of Cleopatra towards Zero has been worse than the behaviour of Zero towards Cleopatra. I feel that she has let her emotions over the Middle East situation overwhelm good sense in her posting, and she has been quite insulting. Just my 2 cents.

This is your opinion. From what I have seen we judge things quite differently so it doesn't really matter--the fact that we disagree is the one that doesn't matter not your opinion!

Cleopatra

23rd December 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Zero
OK, fair enough...I'm pretty much done here, with the last think from me on the subject to be this:

There is without question real anti-Israeli media bias out there. I think some people hurt their own case by not focusing on the obvious, and reading to much into some things that really aren't bias. I'm sure you disagree, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

No. My problem with Media Bias is what RPG Advocate mentioned in a previous post.I re-quote him( bold face mine):

originally posted by RPG Advocate

Even though it's not addressed directly, this change in reporting practice logically leads to a fundamental change in how the press would report Israeli acts of violence (and nonviolent, but oppressive, acts that relate to the Occupied Territories). When Palestinians are characterized correctly as cold-blooded killers, people will be more tolerant of reasonable Israeli response to the problem of suicide bombers. Then, they can concentrate on actual Israeli overreaction, such as air strikes, the Wall, and settlements. If you cry foul at even legitimate Israeli measures to control terror, don't be surprised if you're accused of crying wolf when something really egregious happens

Thanz

23rd December 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Honest Reporting doesn't hide what it is. It's crystal clear where it comes from.
The name itself is the problem. As it comes from a particular stance, I think it would be more honest if it had a name that reflected that, that's all. Like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

I find interesting that we disagree in what I consider the biggest and nastiest bias towards Israel.

By naming civilians "bystanders" it's the most nasty of all the biases HR has listed. A bystander can be an armed soldier, a bystander can be a soldier in a tank , a civilian indicates that it's an unarmed person that is not involved in a military operation. By calling the unarmed civilans bystanders it reduces the sympathy of those who get informed.
You see, I don't think of "bystander" as anything other than an innocent civilian. Until I read this response, it would not have occurred to me to put soldiers into a "bystander" category. To me, bystander implies an innocent non-combatant who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore I see no minimization in the use of the term.

Not really. I invite you to debunk that something of HP claiming are not true, that lists comments that have never been made, I challenge you to prove that HR reports lies.
I am not saying that HR is reporting lies. I am saying that I disagree with their interpretation of stories and their finding of bias. I have a different opinion of some of the things they post as evidence of bias, like the bystander example above. I don't need to find an example of where bystander was or wasn't used - I just need to state my opinion that it is an acceptable term. That is why I say there is nothing to "debunk" per se.

I find this shocking, I am sorry. I find shocking the fact that you didn't notice the absence to the reference of the Israeli victims. It seems that the bias of the bystanders is really effective.On the one hand you don't find that the suicide bombing haven't been minimized and on the other hand you haven't noticed the absence of reference to them.

You see how effective this media policy work to people like you, you have admitted that they don't know that enough about this issue?
I did not say that I didn't notice it. I said that I did notice it, but couldn't say for sure that I would have noticed it had I not been looking for it. I was just being honest.

As I have said, I lack knowledge about the area. But when I say that I don't think that suicide bombings have been minimized, I mean that everytime I hear of one I think that it is a horrible unjustified event, and wonder what the hell these idiots think they are going to accomplish.

Of course, I don't know if every bombing is reported or if I hear every detail. Unfortunately, suicide bombings have become somewhat common in the region. It is incredibly sad to say that, and incredibly bad that it is true. However, it does impact on its media coverage.

I live in Toronto. If there was a suicide bombing on the same day as a big trade for the Toronto hockey team, I think the trade would get top billing. If the suicide attack were in Canada, or even in the US, it would get top billing simply because it is so unusual. I don't see that as a bias against Israel, however.

Hutch

23rd December 2003, 09:34 AM

Just throw my two dirhams worth in here....

I've recently returned from 4 years working in the United Arab Emirates on the Arabian Gulf. This meant that my normal source of news was English-language dailies published in the UAE. Often these papers ran editorials from the Arab-language papers (and the UAE is well-read, at least 3 English and a 6-10 Arabic papers are published daily in a country of about 3M).

It's interesting in light of this discussion that the Arab POV is that the world media is biased in favor of Israel and does not give the Palestinian side of the story a fair hearing. And of course they pointed to various articles and editorials (please do not ask me for quotes, I didn't pack 4-years supply of the GULF NEWS in anticipation of this discussion) that rpoved this media bias, along with the Jewish influence and ownership of Media outlets. So while perhaps not Internet-saavy as your group, Cleo (if I may be so informal), the Arab media feels just as aggreived as your group does.

Just one other point I noted. Whenever there was a tit-for-tat raid (a bomber kills xxx Israelis, response kills xxx Palestinians) the Arab papers often headlines with the Palestine deaths and later in the paragraph mentioned the Isreal deaths, while the US and GB papers as I recall (and old farts like me have failing memories) often led with the Israeli deaths and then mentioned any dead Palestinians....both gave the same info, but the packaging was all the difference.

Will resume lurking now like a good newbie.