[Taliesin]

Scotland's Glasgow-university made a study about the coverage of the Palestine-Israel-conflict in media like BBC, and it confirms nearly everything I have claimed again and again, finally, maybe I should waste a tear.

Interesting quotes:

The report takes issue with a tendency in the media to present the problem as "starting" with Palestinian action, while Israelis were seen to be "responding" with actions that were explained and contextualised.

"There was very little discussion of the nature of the relationship between the two sides - that one [the Palestinians] was subject to military control by the other [Israel]," the report says.

Or:

Researchers also found a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news despite the number of Palestinian deaths being considerably greater.

Or:

"Words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian," the report said.

Or:

Many people in Britain think the Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way round and some think Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan, despite extensive media coverage of the conflict.

Or:

there is a tendency among journalists to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than having a key military and strategic function.

Read about it yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3829967.stm

Taliesin

[Busemann]

This goes to show there really is no such a thing as objectivity in the media. Something tells me the US media isn't particularly better at showing both sides here either.

[macvillage.net]

Yup, I had a teacher 2 years ago who did a similar little bit:

Look on the front page of any paper in 2 month period covering the conflict.

Look what the big headline is.

Look what it retaliates against....

hint: The attack on the israeli's always makes the front page. Almost always towards the top half. Successful or not. Always continued on another page. Normally in excess of 400 words. Pictures (sometimes graphic)

The attack against the palestinians. is never in the first section of the paper. It's rarely longer than 200 words. Motive is normally mentioned on yet another page. If it's printed. Normally is available online though, thorough major news sources (AP, Reuters, etc). No pictures.

But that's the typical paper... lots of bias.


I've read stuff in the paper that I was witness too... and normally it's extremely hiped up, and only a fraction is actually true. The rest is just bloat put in by the paper to make it interesting... and I admit, normally the paper is more interesting than reality. Sometimes even quotes are bogus. But that's what we call 'quality'.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Scotland's Glasgow-university made a study about the coverage of the Palestine-Israel-conflict in media like BBC, and it confirms nearly everything I have claimed again and again, finally, maybe I should waste a tear.

There's also a chapter 'Why the BBC ducks the Palestinian Story' in a very interesting book entitled 'Tell me lies, Propaganda and media distortion in the attack on Iraq'. I highly recommend reading it.