On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am vaguely familiar with FAIR. In fact, I was actually introduced to the > site by a listmember at one point or another. I am almost positive that > Camera isn't the only place I have read about an anti-Israeli bias by NPR, > and will try and take the time to research additional sources over the > weekend as time permits and will post what I find.
I think I saw a link to a Boston Globe report on the issue, but since the report was basically NPR vs. CAMERA, it's not as if the Globe did any independent research regarding NPR's practices. There may be others, though. > BTW, I used the word 'uproar' because I was sure I'd read the story in other > places than Camera's site. I don't think the word is mis-used in this > situation, but will modify it with a lighter term if I can't find backup > source material on other site. Well, to me "uproar" would mean that the accusers have managed to convince the rest of the media, or the general American public, that there's a serious problem. That doesn't mean that NPR wouldn't subjectively feel in the middle of some kind of uproar, though. Still, as I understand it, CAMERA's been making these accusations about NPR for 10 years or more, and I haven't seen any plausible neutral research on the subject. What I suspect is that the American media's stance towards Israel is so positive to begin with (the rest of the world certainly thinks so) that what I think of as NPR's comparatively neutral tone seems pro-Palestian by comparison. > My main question here is if there's a reason to disbelieve Camera's findings? > They claim to have conducted extensive reviews of NPR's reports, including > analyses of time allotted for guests on either side of the issue and the > wording of NPR reports to spin opinion against one side or another. Now > granted, they definitely are biased towards Israel (I made this clear in my > first post,) but does that mean we should discount their findings? Not discount entirely, but I would say we should take their findings with a big grain of salt. One thing that partisan media watch sites tend to have in common is an assumption that the journalist's job is to sort people into the Good Guys and the Bad Guys, and that it is the watchdog's job to bring pressure against a news organization every time it fails to portray Its Guys as the Good Guys. While this is an effective way of representing one's side in a controversy, it's not an effective way of measuring journalistic integrity against reality because the measurer, CAMERA in this case, has made no objective journalistic attempt of its own to determine what reality is. Or, since no journalism is 100% objective, perhaps I should say they've made no journalistic attempt at being objective on their own. In other words, in order to accept CAMERA's claims about NPR, I have to first accept in totum their interpretation of Middle East; since that interpretation is based on a set of partisan assumptions and not on an independent attempting-to-be-neutral journalistic effort of their own, it throws great doubt on their judgement of NPR. Now, if they manage to cost NPR a lot of money in the process, that's certainly newsworthy, but it doesn't automatically place NPR in the wrong. > I will spend some time on the FAIR site as well. I'm curious about what they > have to say on the issue. I assume they're more objective about the > situation? *I* think so, but then I'm a left-leaning treehugger to begin with so YMMV. One thing I noticed about FAIR was that you can find them issuing alerts about a pro-Israel bias in NPR's part, but you can also find them issuing alerts about anti-Semitic reporting in other contexts. But they don't spend nearly the energy on the Middle East that CAMERA or ADL do, for instance. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
