[Logic]

Found this interesting.

BBC article

Parts of the report

What does this do to the claims from several of our macnn members that the media is biased in favour of the Palestinians?

What effect do you think this has on the future of the conflict?

And whatever else that comes to mind when reading this.........

[lil'babykitten]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=218249

But it didn't get many replies....

It's a damn shame that the majority of media outlets fail to present any kind of balanced approach to the conflict. A lot of people, especially youngsters, have no knowledge of the history of the region and so can only rely on what they see in today's news.

[Logic]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=218249

But it didn't get many replies....

It's a damn shame that the majority of media outlets fail to present any kind of balanced approach to the conflict. A lot of people, especially youngsters, have no knowledge of the history of the region and so can only rely on what they see in today's news.

oops

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Logic:
Found this interesting.

BBC article

Parts of the report

What does this do to the claims from several of our macnn members that the media is biased in favour of the Palestinians?

What effect do you think this has on the future of the conflict?

And whatever else that comes to mind when reading this.........

I dont know about the other news groups but i know that CNN and BBC are both not biased towards Israel... at all, in fact CNN was cut out of all cable packages for liying so many times about a situation and then when the news came out about the correction they didnt publish it. so now if you want CNN you have to request them to add it to your cable package... BBC is borderline to being cut out... they are in no way supportive of Israel and in no way middle grounds... it dosnt matter how often people from one side or the other appear on the shows it matters in what light and in what context the news group itself decides to portray them... I think there is some blind bias towards Israel especially in the Chrsitian communitys who because they beilve that Israel is gods chosen people/nation they can do no wrong and **** like that. were all human here get yer heads out of yer asses.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Splinter:
.............but i know that CNN and BBC are both not biased towards Israel..............

Care to disprove the report then? Because the report clearly states otherwise.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Splinter:
...i know that CNN and BBC are both not biased towards Israel... at all...

Read up! Especially the chapter about 'Why the BBC ducks the Palestinian story' - written by a former Middle East correspondent for the BBC.

Read the Glasgow study findings too!

[Millennium]

Media bias or just unfortunate choice of words?

When an outlet isn't open about its biases, this question becomes impossible to answer. But let's look at a few of these:

Many viewers were also not even sure who was "occupying" whose territory.

It would seem to me that this indicates appropriate coverage of both sides, actually. This is a confusing conflict by its very nature, and any broadcast where it's left unclear who is occupying whom is doing something right.

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.

If you want to look in terms of temporal immediacy, this is actually true for the most part. From the patterns I've seen, Israeli action usually takes place very soon after (often within 24 hours of) Palestinian action, while a corresponding Palestinian action usually only takes place after a delay.

Why is this? I don't claim to know. Perhaps it is a difference in philosophy, or maybe it's a logistical thing. But whatever the cause, it does make things look to outsiders like a situation of Palestinian aggressors and Israeli defenders, whether or not this is actually true.

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

This is a problem, and it's a big one. Good catch on the researchers' part.

"The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'."

I admit to not knowing much about this situation. On its face, the actions of this Israeli group look like terrorism, but it may be missing one of the crucial points: namely, organization. Was the group organized to perform activities like these?

As I said, I don't know. If it wasn't, then the "terrorist" label doesn't hold. If it was, however, then we have a problem with the reporting once again.

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.

The first point here is a matter of opinion. The bit about the Palestinians being refugees from Afghanistan, though... come on, even the US media covers things better than that. As far as that goes, point for the researchers.

However, by making a judgment call on whose land it is, the researchers have revealed their own bias. While this doesn't invalidate the study in and of itself, it does cast serious aspersions on the researchers' credibility, because they weren't open about it up front.

I've often wondered if there needs to be some kind of "truth in reporting" act, where all reporters need to openly state their biases at the beginning of any political article. Would that be an undue infringement on freedom of the press?

"The history is the missing aspect in all coverage today," said BBC News Online reader Rakesh Jain from the US.

Indeed it is; at the same time, is it actually reasonable to expect the history to be comprehensively covered in every single news article? Entire textbooks have been written on the subject; entire college-level courses are taught on it. Hell; I took a course in high school devoted entirely to it (slightly biased toward the Palestinians, but decent enough coverage that I could find Israeli-biased information to match it). Even if today's articles are reduced to sound bites, no article of any remotely reasonable length could ever hope to adequately cover the history, much less any current stories.

"The BBC could choose to describe all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as being 'illegal'," Mr Shaw wrote.

"This would be a small step forward in helping public understanding."

But are they illegal? Again, this is a gray area, and the researchers are showing their bias by coming down on one side.

The study has many valid points, and shows some areas where the BBC could legitimately improve its reporting (though not necessarily in the ways suggested). But make no mistake, this study was no more "fair and balanced" than the station it accuses.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:

It would seem to me that this indicates appropriate coverage of both sides, actually. This is a confusing conflict by its very nature, and any broadcast where it's left unclear who is occupying whom is doing something right.

I completely disagree with you here. Any broadcast that leaves any doubt what so ever on who is the occupying power is worthless. It must be made absolutely clear for the public who is occupying the land.

If you want to look in terms of temporal immediacy, this is actually true for the most part. From the patterns I've seen, Israeli action usually takes place very soon after (often within 24 hours of) Palestinian action, while a corresponding Palestinian action usually only takes place after a delay.

Why is this? I don't claim to know. Perhaps it is a difference in philosophy, or maybe it's a logistical thing. But whatever the cause, it does make things look to outsiders like a situation of Palestinian aggressors and Israeli defenders, whether or not this is actually true.

It is a purely political move by Israel. They know that the general public has an attention span of about 15 minutes so they know that they must act immediately to make it look like the attacks are retaliations or "defending". But even if it looks that way to the general public it doesn't make it true. The reporters should make certain that they tell about all the actions in the area the last few weeks at least. That is the only way people could get some idea of what the truth is.

I admit to not knowing much about this situation. On its face, the actions of this Israeli group look like terrorism, but it may be missing one of the crucial points: namely, organization. Was the group organized to perform activities like these?

As I said, I don't know. If it wasn't, then the "terrorist" label doesn't hold. If it was, however, then we have a problem with the reporting once again.

Do you really have to be in a union of terrorists to become a terrorist? Isn't the act itself enough?

However, by making a judgment call on whose land it is, the researchers have revealed their own bias. While this doesn't invalidate the study in and of itself, it does cast serious aspersions on the researchers' credibility, because they weren't open about it up front.

It doesn't matter if you are open to it or not, the Palestinians are occupied by the Israelis. If they weren't they would have full citizenship and the same rights as Israel. The Palestinians didn't come from somewhere else(Europe for an example) to drive out the Israelis. Heck, even Israel admits that they are the occupying power in the Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza. So this does nothing to the researchers credibility.

But are they illegal? Again, this is a gray area, and the researchers are showing their bias by coming down on one side.

Yes they are and there is no gray area concerning that. Just read up on the GC and you'll see it. If the settlements were legal, then that would mean that the Palestinians living between and around those settlements would also be considered Israeli citizens(since they lived there longer than most of todays settlers). There is absolutely no grey area concerning that.

The study has many valid points, and shows some areas where the BBC could legitimately improve its reporting (though not necessarily in the ways suggested). But make no mistake, this study was no more "fair and balanced" than the station it accuses.

How so? It must be getting pretty serious when the truth is being considered biased and when one side starts labeling the truth as biased and unfair.

If the truth is something we should avoid why bother reporting from it?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It would seem to me that this indicates appropriate coverage of both sides, actually. This is a confusing conflict by its very nature, and any broadcast where it's left unclear who is occupying whom is doing something right.

I disagree. This whole conflict, it's history and what happens daily, is ALL about a dispute over land and occupation. You can't cover the story without at least giving the very basic information about it's origins.

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you want to look in terms of temporal immediacy, this is actually true for the most part. From the patterns I've seen, Israeli action usually takes place very soon after (often within 24 hours of) Palestinian action, while a corresponding Palestinian action usually only takes place after a delay.

Why is this? I don't claim to know. Perhaps it is a difference in philosophy, or maybe it's a logistical thing. But whatever the cause, it does make things look to outsiders like a situation of Palestinian aggressors and Israeli defenders, whether or not this is actually true.

This is the case for two primary reasons. 1. lack of knowledge of the history of the conflict. When a Palestinian attacks today, that is all we are told about. People don't know what drove them to take up arms in the first place. All we see today is a Palestinian attacking and the Israeli's responding. That's not how it started.
2.In cases where Israel has struck Palestinian civilian areas, it's not reported at all. Then when a Palestinian militant group responds, we see a headline.

I'm not of the opinion that one can fully study the history of the conflict and conclude that there was no occupation. Sure today people can argue that Palestinian aggression is not helping us reach a solution. Indeed there are some cases where that's a very valid point. However, there is a tremendous amount of ignorance about the history. People are reaching conclusions without knowing the full picture. Many media outlets are only ensuring that this ignorance persists.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
[B]This is the case for two primary reasons. 1. lack of knowledge of the history of the conflict. When a Palestinian attacks today, that is all we are told about. People don't know what drove them to take up arms in the first place. All we see today is a Palestinian attacking and the Israeli's responding. That's not how it started.
2.In cases where Israel has struck Palestinian civilian areas, it's not reported at all. Then when a Palestinian militant group responds, we see a headline.

well then maybe the Jordanian news is Biased for Israel... because in news here you get both sides hell even when I catch fox news somtimes they say: "This latest attack by Palestinians they say was in retaliation for the incursion into the Rafah refugee camp some weeks ago...blah blah blah"

about BBC and CNN well turthfully I have not watched them since... well since about a year after this intefada began however... what i did see was immense bias against Israel... maybe their policies have changed... I cannot judge that I havnt been watching. But it seems to me highly unlikley they would make a 180 and start supporting Israel... thats just odd.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Splinter:
well then maybe the Jordanian news is Biased for Israel...

lol! I'm not in Jordan at the moment but I will be soon so I'll have get back to you. I was talking about Western media outlets, particularly the BBC.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Splinter:
well then maybe the Jordanian news is Biased for Israel... because in news here you get both sides hell even when I catch fox news somtimes they say: "This latest attack by Palestinians they say was in retaliation for the incursion into the Rafah refugee camp some weeks ago...blah blah blah"

about BBC and CNN well turthfully I have not watched them since... well since about a year after this intefada began however... what i did see was immense bias against Israel... maybe their policies have changed... I cannot judge that I havnt been watching. But it seems to me highly unlikley they would make a 180 and start supporting Israel... thats just odd.

That whole post is one single sentence!!

And it's about as unreadable as the previous post. Is English your first language? Do you have a spellchecker enabled? Does your keyboard have an apostrophe on it?

In two posts, we get, "liying, didnt, dosnt, beilve, gods chosen people, were all human here, somtimes, turthfully, havnt, unlikley, thats". Everyone makes typos, but it's hard to take you seriously when an extraordinary amount of effort is required just to construct your words into phrases that make sense. If it is your fourth language then perhaps this is forgivable, otherwise, I think people would take you more seriously if you tried to write English.

[BRussell]

A couple of thoughts.

Context is always good. (And if you think the BBC is bad about context, try American news.) It's the most important thing the news can provide. But do you stop at the fact that Israel is the occupier, as this report seems to imply? Or do you then go further and explain why Israel is the occupier?

The gaps in knowledge the authors of the study discussed in the summary were invariably pro-Palestinian. What about the little bit of context that the Arabs have been intent on destroying Israel, and repeatedly went to war with Israel in order to do so? The way the authors pick and choose "context" makes me wonder if this study itself is severely biased.

Different words may be used to describe attacks by either side, but the fact is, they are of a different character. The Palestinian attacks are terrorist suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, and the Israeli attacks are aimed at those terrorists. The only way those could be described neutrally is if you justify terrorism as a legitimate tactic.

[Spliffdaddy]

good point.

[itai195]

I haven't watched the BBC or CNN International in a while so I can't honestly say anything from experience. I have heard from plenty of folks who used to think CNN was biased against Israel though, and as I recall a lot of Israelis were complaining loudly about it.

BTW, good call BRussell, the gaps are all issues from the pro-Palestinian side. It's quite likely viewers don't know much about Israel's historical perspective, either.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
I haven't watched the BBC or CNN International in a while so I can't honestly say anything from experience. I have heard from plenty of folks who used to think CNN was biased against Israel though, and as I recall a lot of Israelis were complaining loudly about it.

BTW, good call BRussell, the gaps are all issues from the pro-Palestinian side. It's quite likely viewers don't know much about Israel's historical perspective, either.

What historical perspective?

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Troll:
That whole post is one single sentence!!

And it's about as unreadable as the previous post. Is English your first language? Do you have a spellchecker enabled? Does your keyboard have an apostrophe on it?

In two posts, we get, "liying, didnt, dosnt, beilve, gods chosen people, were all human here, somtimes, turthfully, havnt, unlikley, thats". Everyone makes typos, but it's hard to take you seriously when an extraordinary amount of effort is required just to construct your words into phrases that make sense. If it is your fourth language then perhaps this is forgivable, otherwise, I think people would take you more seriously if you tried to write English.

The other people quoting me and such didnt seem to have a problem understanding so maybe english isnt (oh no! I didnt put a ' I will be damned to hell!!!) YOUR first language.

See I dont like spending more time then neccisery on Forums and the Net just typing stuff when I could be talking to freinds doing somthing constructive. you spend as much time as you like spellchecking your posts but dont blame me for not wanting to waste my life on a computer.

If anyone dosnt understand a sentence I write they can feel more then free to ask me about it (and they have) and i repost and clarify. its not a big deal... and if its a big deal for you then you need a new hobby. stamps maybe?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Splinter:
If anyone dosnt understand a sentence I write they can feel more then free to ask me about it (and they have) and i repost and clarify. its not a big deal... and if its a big deal for you then you need a new hobby. stamps maybe?

Well, I don't expect a pro-Zionist to be able to construct a complete and faultless sentence in English so I didn't bother to complain

But it would be great if you could perhaps at least try to keep the English somewhat readable. There's too much chance people won't completely understand you and that can result in the typical Macnn flamefest

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Well, I don't expect a pro-Zionist to be able to construct a complete and faultless sentence in English so I didn't bother to complain

But it would be great if you could perhaps at least try to keep the English somewhat readable. There's too much chance people won't completely understand you and that can result in the typical Macnn flamefest

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
What historical perspective?

As BRussell said, the points of context that the researchers pointed out were all stated from a Palestinian POV. A full historical context wouldn't say 'the Palestinians were forced from their homes,' it would include a lot more detail than that.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by itai195:
...A full historical context wouldn't say 'the Palestinians were forced from their homes,' it would include a lot more detail than that.

What detail would that be?

[itai195]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What detail would that be?

I imagine you and Logic know what I mean but you're trying to lure me into saying something political that I'll have to argue for, tisk tisk

[Troll]

Originally posted by Splinter:
The other people quoting me and such didnt seem to have a problem understanding so maybe english isnt (oh no! I didnt put a ' I will be damned to hell!!!) YOUR first language.

See I dont like spending more time then neccisery on Forums and the Net just typing stuff when I could be talking to freinds doing somthing constructive. you spend as much time as you like spellchecking your posts but dont blame me for not wanting to waste my life on a computer.

If anyone dosnt understand a sentence I write they can feel more then free to ask me about it (and they have) and i repost and clarify. its not a big deal... and if its a big deal for you then you need a new hobby. stamps maybe?

Oh yeah right, because it takes absolute ages to put the apostrophes in! I bet it took me longer to work out that your "were" was supposed to be "we're" than it would have taken you to type the apostrophe! If you couldn't be bothered to take the 14 milliseconds it takes to type the apostrophe, then I wonder how much time went into formulating the point you're making. Besides, you consistently spell "doesn't" "dosnt".

I would probably care much more about your point if I wasn't sitting there wondering whether a person that writes this badly is actually capable of making an intelligent point. Communicating is not just about getting your point across. Communicating is equally about how you make your points. It's like watching a retarded kid asking for a drink. Everyone understands that the twitchy movements mean he wants the soda, but the way in which he asks communicates much more than his desire. That's the impression I get when reading your posts. It may be that your point is actually interesting but I can't help thinking, "The poor handicapped kid," as I read it and I find it difficult to take you seriously. Which I concede is maybe not fair (particularly if English isn't your first language). I just think you should know what impression you're giving. Frankly, if playing with your friends is more important than taking the few seconds it would require to make your point in the forum coherently, then why do you even bother making the point and why should I even bother reading it?

I make mistakes like anyone else, but I'll often edit the post if I pick one up so that it's easier for others to understand my point. And most people here do that. EVERY post you make is riddled with errors.

Anyway, I can't believe I got this worked up either. Who was it that said, "The Ignore Button is your friend."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Logic:
What historical perspective?

There's obviously a helluva lot. They could talk about the ancient history of Jerusalem as the center of Jewish life, the Roman capture of it, the Arab Muslim capture of it, the holocaust and the creation of modern Israel, the Arab opposition to that and the wars that followed, etc. etc.

Obviously it would be ridiculous to expect the news to go into the whole sordid history every time Israel or Palestine is mentioned. But it is interesting to think about what specific context should be provided. The authors seemed to be saying that pro-Palestinian context was missing, and that it should be pointed out the Israel is the occupier. Well, what about pointing out that the reason they're an occupier is that their surrounding Arab countries have always seen Israel as an illegitimate nation and have gone to war over and over in order to try to "occupy" Israel themselves.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh yeah right, because it takes absolute ages to put the apostrophes in! I bet it took me longer to work out that your "were" was supposed to be "we're" than it would have taken you to type the apostrophe! If you couldn't be bothered to take the 14 milliseconds it takes to type the apostrophe, then I wonder how much time when into formulating the point you're making. Besides, you consistently spell "doesn't" "dosnt".

I would probably care much more about your point if I wasn't sitting there wondering whether a person that writes this badly is actually capable of making an intelligent point. Communicating is not just about getting your point across. Communicating is equally about how you make your points. It's like watching a retarded kid asking for a drink. Everyone understands that the twitchy movements mean he wants the soda, but the way in which he asks communicates much more than his desire. That's the impression I get when reading your posts. It may be that your point is actually interesting but I can't help thinking, "The poor handicapped kid," as I read it and I find it difficult to take you seriously. Which I concede is maybe not fair (particularly if English isn't your first language). I just think you should know what impression you're giving. Frankly, if playing with your friends is more important than taking the few seconds it would require to make your point in the forum coherently, then why do you even bother making the point and why should I even bother reading it?

I make mistakes like anyone else, but I'll often edit the post if I pick one up so that it's easier for others to understand my point. And most people here do that. EVERY post you make is riddled with errors.

Anyway, I can't believe I got this worked up either. Who was it that said, "The Ignore Button is your friend."

Dude I'm just saying that putting in a comma here an apostrophe there will make my sentence look nicer and more organized but I really cant be bothered to go over every post word by word making sure that I did'nt mistype anything.

It's mostly bad habit. Even now while typing out this post those couple of times I used ' I had to stop go back and redo the word... I learned for to long just to skip them. now every time I am writing fast and not trying to catch myself I habitchually write words like "jsut" "thier" stuff like that... and no English technically is'nt my native language...

We can make a deal. You will try to overlook my bad spelling and grammar and I in turn will try to spellcheck and skim over my posts whenever possible. (Like right now... I'm home for the night and I am typing this message at a slow pace trying to sound coherrent, but in the morning when I just wake up and am in a rush to leave the house... well you know. Maybe I should'nt post at all in those situations.)

[Troll]

Originally posted by Splinter:
We can make a deal. You will try to overlook my bad spelling and grammar and I in turn will try to spellcheck and skim over my posts whenever possible. (Like right now... I'm home for the night and I am typing this message at a slow pace trying to sound coherrent, but in the morning when I just wake up and am in a rush to leave the house... well you know. Maybe I should'nt post at all in those situations.)

Okay, deal!

PS The apostrophe shows the spot where you left a letter out. Should not --> shouldn't - because the "o" has been left out.