There have been analysis of news headlines that have shown that when two events happen, if the event was caused by Israel, the mention that it was Israel's 'fault' is in the headlines. When the event was Palestinian (for example), the headline was neutral without an identifying nationality. http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/pdf/The_Age_Newspap_version2.pdf http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/The_BBC_Report.asp http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Study_Reuters_Headlines.asp http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/In-Depth_Study_Of_BBC.asp http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2004/12/the_independent.html This page also has a number of related links: http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/09/index.html
The point is that the language used and the focus of the reporting is systematically against Israel. Is it because there is a liberal bias against israel? Because Israel is held to a higher standard? Because the papers are in fear of the Arabs (Hezballah is said by reporters to hold copies of all of their passports). I can't say why, but there is a clear pattern of onesidedness against Israel. In addition, greater belief is given to to the words of Palestinians, Lebanese, Hamas, Hezballah, etc. over Israel on many occasions. I've seen time and again the words "Israel claims" used when quoting officials from the Israeli government while never seeing it used for Palestinian sources. The dead child or the firing on the funeral incidents are perfect examples. No question of the events, no "claims" or "alleged". Only words of fact despite the events being false. The problem is the language and the effect it has on people. "two die in attack" says nothing about the attacker being a terrorist of a particular national background or one of the two killed being a baby. And they didn't just die, they were murdered. "Israel kills 3 in attack on refugee camp" is totally loaded against israel. Both of these are real headlines. There is a strong feeling that certain media outlets are particularly anti-Israel including the BBC, NY Times, AP, AFP and Reuters. The BBC is an extreme example in many ways as they do go out of their way to be one sided. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1149 as an example I'd love to know the types of other lists your on (not necessarily the names) that feel that the media is pro-Israel. I'd also question their biases. My biases are for facts, truth and balance. I don't see that in the media. I'd suggest looking over this media review site which details some of the issues with what has been reported and the attemps to get them corrected. http://www.camera.org/ The honestreporting.com site is also good but less polished and professional than camera. This does not mean its lacking, just more grass roots. I could go on and on pointing to things like the "angry American Muslim" who attacked a Jewish organization because it was Jewish while ranting against Jews and show how some media outlets downgraded the story to remove his rants, remove information about the child he took hostage, and even in an extreme case, removed his religion. All important facts in the story because he made them important by his actions. but I'll stop now and actually go to sleep. :) > I'm very curious about this statement. Do you really believe that > the > media has an agenda of bias against Israel to the extent that they > deliberately publish stories that make Israel look bad? Or simply > that > they are quicker to assume that Israel is in the wrong while giving > all other countries the benefit of the doubt? The reason I ask is > because on most other lists I'm on, the media is being accused of > having a pro-Israeli bias, and I'm trying to reconcile the opposing > views with what I see in the media. As you know, I have a family > member who makes some of the decisions for a very large news > organization on what gets shown, and I have a hard time conceiving of > her saying "oh, this makes Israel look bad, lets run it without > checking it first". And that seems to be what you are saying they do. > > > On 8/12/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If it's Israel, there is proof time and again of the media's jumping > all over it. If it's any other country or group, the reports or > speculation is held back. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:213077 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
