Subject:
|
Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 May 2002 12:27:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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;-)
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 by big tobacco as a classic example. I think Scott is
suggesting that you could find studies pointing to the notion that our media
has a pro-Palestinian bias, but that the agenda of those doing the study is
questionable.
I haven't read any of the studies, serious or not, but it seems to me -- Jenin
reporting notwithstanding -- that our media does have a pro-Israeli bias. And
I even think that makes sense. Their goals and "way of life" is more closely
convergent with our own. It is easier to understand their culture.
> The reason the rumours of a "massacre" lived so
> > long was because the Israel did not allow the press into the area
> 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.
Surely you don't mean that the actions of Israel with regard to admittance of
the international press had no bearing. Of course the major component of the
conclusion that was incorrectly jumped to _was_ the Israeli stance.
> 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?
Israel seemed to be hiding something. When a person is evasive about providing
information, is the your first reaction to believe whatever they say? It is
completely natural, understandable, and even right, to assume that a party
covering up information has something to hide. Israel and the media sources, I
think, share the blame for the Jenin misreporting.
On the other hand, if you're only getting information from one source, all your
evidence _does_ suggest whatever that source says.
> > "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?
Well, the article covered that. I'd assumed that you read it all. There have
been past miscalculations on the part of Sharon that lead (sort of) to massive
deaths. This precident, coupled with Israels seeming to hide stuff, lead to
false conclusions.
And it harms Palestinian credibility. But hopefully, and more to the point,
people will realize that depending on too few sources for information will
often lead you astray.
> They initially received only
> > apparently credible claims from the Palestinians.
>
> lol Why would the media consider Israel's side *not* to be "credible"?
Ummm....because they were refusing to let people in to look for themselves.
The Paestinians were not. It was quite one sided.
> It was prudent to keep the media out of harm's way in this type of fighting.
Why?
> 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?
Apparently not, by your own reckoning. They allowed their own to be killed in
the fighting, but not the reporters. So if they were merely protecting the
reporters -- and not shielding the truth, then they were obviously more
protective of the reporters.
> That it appeared as if Israel was hiding something is irrelevant.
> Why *assume* that they were hiding anything?!
That's insane. You are in essence asking "when somone acts like they're lying,
why assume that they're lying?"
> 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.
This is the real point, I think. They shouldn't have assumed this accuracy.
And I fear you're right about them never learning.
> > 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.
To what extent? By engaging in what behaviors? Would we have been within our
rights to simply nuke the hell out of Afghanistan to be sure of catching them
all? You don't address Scott's point about breaking international law.
> <warning: dirty little secret coming> Most of the Palestinians killed in Jenin
> *were terrorists*.
How do we know this? And what makes a person a terrorist?
> the press has no right to impose their[ opinion] in their
> reporting (unless, of course, it's intended as opinion and
> STATED as such)
How do you figure? What laws govern the presentation of opinion? And are
these laws constant across nations?
> +++++++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".++++++
It is? According to whom? I value the first amendment to our constitution
because it protects my right to present my opinion. _My opinion_.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) Correct:-) You know Chris, they don't call the right "right" for nothing;-) (...) Which leads to the question, why do "studies" at all? Seems to me that their purpose is to influence popular opinion by their results and advance agendas, (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) "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 (...) No, the rumors persisted because the media was so jaded by their bias (...) (22 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
