Subject:
|
Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 May 2002 01:27:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
335 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> As I have said before, serious academic studies have shown that the Western
> Media has a pro-Israel bias.
"Serious"??? As opposed to what other kind?:-) Well anyway, from the left,
the center does appear to be the right;-)
The reason the rumours of a "massacre" lived so
> long was because the Israel did not allow the press into the area (indeed
> they would rather attack them). The links you provide support that view:
No, the rumors persisted because the media was so jaded by their bias that they
couldn't see the truth even after it was apparent, as stated in the last
sentence you quoted below. Israel *denied* that a massacre occured all along--
why weren't *they* believed? Why necessarily take the word of one side over
the other? And then why blame Israel for the media's own complete incompetence?
>
> "Not allowing media reporters into Jenin during the military struggles there
> proved to be a major miscalculation. Barred from direct access,
> international reporters feared the worst.
PRECISELY. *Why* fear the worse? And what does this say about Palestinian
credibility?
They initially received only
> apparently credible claims from the Palestinians.
lol Why would the media consider Israel's side *not* to be "credible"?
By the time they got to
> Jenin themselves, many of them were strongly predisposed, therefore, to
> believe what they had already heard."
From *the Palestinians*, NOT *the Israelis* Why?
>
> "...the Israelis haplessly and inadvertently dug a public relations trap for
> themselves and then promptly fell into it. They prevented the international
> media from covering what was certainly extremely fierce fighting in the
> refugee camp and streets of Jenin.
It was prudent to keep the media out of harm's way in this type of fighting.
Many Israeli soldiers lost their lives in the fighting-- don't you think Israel
cares more about her own than a bunch of biased reporters? That it appeared as
if Israel was hiding something is irrelevant. Why *assume* that they were
hiding anything?! Why believe Palestinian reports which have been shown to be
consistently inaccurate? Will they be more wary of Palestinian reports in the
future? I doubt it.
As a result, international media
> reporters could not see with their own eyes that a massacre in fact was not
> taking place. But they were receiving claims from the Palestinians that it
> was. And since the Israeli military were preventing the international media
> from going into Jenin and seeing what was happening with their own eyes, it
> was only too easy and obvious to conclude that they were covering up the
> truth of the Palestinian allegations."
And so you make my point. Rather than try and uncover *the truth*, they were
only too happy to report what they wanted to believe in the first place. This
is *not* journalism!
> But John & Sheree, none of this answers why the Israelis did not let the UN
> into Jenin. Does it? What do they have to hide?
Merely because it *appears* to somebody (who is already pro-Palestinian) that
they are hiding something doesn't necessarily mean that they are! How lazy at
best; how biased at worst!
>
> The lack of a ?massacre? does not justify Israel?s actions. The lack of a
> ?massacre? does not mean Israel did not break international law. The lack of
> a ?massacre? does not mean Israel did not abuse human rights. Do you agree?
Israel has the right to defend herself against terrorism as any country does.
<warning: dirty little secret coming> Most of the Palestinians killed in Jenin
*were terrorists*.
That said, your point is irrelevant, except for the fact that the press
probabley thinks the same way you do. Maybe Israel didn't committ a massacre,
but they are still guilty of x, y, and z, so our glaring error is excusable,
because it is our intention to incriminate Israel (who, we already know, is
guilty), even at the cost of our own credibility.
In this conflict, you and the press are so quick to point out *alleged* human
rights violations on Israel's part, and yet so silent about the obvious ones
(such as murdering civilians) or worse, considering *those* violations to be
justified resistance to oppression.
You have the right to your opinion, Scott, but the press has no right to impose
theirs in their reporting (unless, of course, it's intended as opinion and
STATED as such)
+++++++The whole point is that the job of the press is to report the *facts*,
not spew their ideological agendas in the guise of "balanced reporting".++++++
BTW, I wonder if the BBC will print an apology to Israel for printing such
gross misrepresentations of the facts-- I won't hold my breath...
-John
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) This is more of an unobtainable goal than an actual job description. Balanced reporting is a moving target and the best a reader can hope for is to understand the bias of the author of any given text -- then the reader is well positioned to (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) Just like the center appears to be the left when viewed from the right. Right? Non serious studies are those that set out to support a point as part of a funded agenda rather than to seek the truth. I would suggest tobacco health studies done (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| I think Richard and Chris answered most of your other points. (...) Well why did they not let the UN in? (...) Indeed it does. (...) Do you have proof of that, or is this your old view: Palestinians = terrorists. (...) It should be the press's aim (...) (22 years ago, 27-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) As I have said before, serious academic studies have shown that the Western Media has a pro-Israel bias. The reason the rumours of a "massacre" lived so long was because the Israel did not allow the press into the area (indeed they would (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
