Actually, we don't know that this is exactly what the police chief said. Reuters, AP and others (mainly the British services) have been know to alter some wordings to replace terrorist with militant and other terms. But as you say, I don't provide all of the evidence of past 'misdeeds'. As indicated in the original post, it was a rant. I'm powerless to do anything to help in this case and all I can do is sit back and watch the world fall straight to hell. Its frustrating and when I see news services acting in ways that I believe they shouldn't, it gets me even more upset. Here's a site dedicated to the rather one sided news reporting. http://honestreporting.com/ Actually, looking at the site now, I see the famous picture that shows the media bias. The one that the AP said was an Israeli policeman standing over a bloodied man said to be a Palestinian. Turns out the picture was 100% wrong as the man was a Jew and was beaten by a Palestinian mob and was being saved by that policeman. Where was the apparently then?
> I'm sorry, I just don't see a bias in that report. "Apparently" is used > to indicate something that is overwhemingly likely, but for which the > writer has not yet received independent verification. > > The did, specifically call them "attacks" (thus eliminating natural > causes) and quoted Yossi Sedbon (the local police chief) as saying "It > seems according to evidence in the area that we are talking of two > suicide bombers." > > So, it seems to me that if the chief of police is willing to quantify > the statement then the Times absolutely must quantify it. > > Not knowing the rest of your evidence this may simply be the straw that > broke the camel's back, but this article, taken in isolation, doesn't > indicate any biad to me. > > Jim Davis > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 1:21 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: apparently!?! > > > > > > <CF_Rant> > > I don't know who to be more upset with. The suicide scum > > who's killing my people or reuters for their overwhelmingly > > biased reporting of it. APPARENTLY. That's how they describe > > it. Not that it WAS an attack, but that it may have been one. > > Doesn't matter that a call came in from Syria claiming it > > (Syria who's on the UN security council at the moment). Their > > approach is to cast doubt on it. Of course, if the report was > > against Israel, then there would be no room for doubt. > > There's no 'apparently' when it comes to any allegation > > against Israel. And just about every story comes out touting > > the X Palestinians killed vs. Y Israelis. The numbers are > > totally skewed as they don't look at the how and why, but who > > cares about facts. They show Israel has to be wrong. I'm > > getting so pissed at reuters, AP, the NY times and many of > > the other related papers that I'd like to just ban them all. > > No access to anything I run, no access to any information I > > have. Problem is, I can't do that. If I do that then I'd be > > hurting CF if its used in these places. Sometimes its really > > hard hosting a public resource. </CF_Rant> > > > > Michael Dinowitz > > Master of the House of Fusion > > http://www.houseoffusion.com > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
