> 1.) To the Middle East, the media is a powerful tool and it's > manipulated by all parties. For Hezbollah, it's one of their major > weapons. But it is a minor weapon for Israel too. Further not all > sources are or should be objective. For example, Haaratz is not > objectively covering the events, they're covering them from an Israeli > perspective. But the difference is that Hezballah fakes the news and provides it to others as truth. Israeli papers are not doing that. As for Ha'aretz, I don't know what spin they can put on the events to make them other than what they are.
> 2.) The American "mainstream media" is biased on this issue, seeming > to cover the aggression by Israel more than Hezbollah, and the > innocents caught in the middle more in Lebanon more than Israel. > > I think you view an open and appropriate coverage zone as negative > when it isn't. I don't follow what you mean. I'm all for an open coverage of the war. A truthful and fair one rather than a focus on only one side. If by appropriate you mean only looking at one side, then no, I don't agree. What do you consider appropriate? > For example, USA Today doesn't cover a hurricane's > effect on Montego Bay vs Ocho Rios. They'll just say that it hit > Jamaica and then get more in depth for Florida. But that's not the case here as your example is one where the foreign event is less 'important' than the local one. The war is a foreign event across the board. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213060 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
