Subject:
|
Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 May 2002 17:56:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
Correct:-) You know Chris, they don't call the right "right" for nothing;-)
>
> 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.
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,
thereby making them propaganda tools from the git-go. Because honestly, who is
going to take the time and spend the money on a study that will negate or
disprove their own ideas?
> 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.
Equating our media with our culture is a big mistake. Culturally the US is
more akin to Israel, but idealogically our culture is right of the majority of
the media. So while the average Joe may sympathize with Israel, the average
Jack in the media doesn't.
>
> > 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.
Sure, it was the excuse given for such a blunder, but it wasn't the cause. The
cause was irresponsible "journalism". What ever happened to the idea that if
you can't get the facts straight, don't print the story? Now it's, if you
can't get the facts that support your idealogy, make them up to advance it.
>
> > 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.
No, no, no. Yeah, I understand how it *appeared*. Fine. But there is a huge
difference between believing something *may* be true and going ahead and
reporting that it *is* true.
"Janine di Giovanni writing in the London Times even claimed the devastation
was on a worse scale than anything she had seen in Bosnia, Chechnya or Sierra
Leone, where scores, even hundreds, of thousands of people had died"
Are you kidding me? What a hack!
>
> On the other hand, if you're only getting information from one source, all your
> evidence _does_ suggest whatever that source says.
Anyone knows that. Hopefully, that's Journalism 101. But again, that's my
point. They didn't *care*. They had the story *they wanted*. They didn't
want to know the truth. They wanted a massacre, and that is what we (GP) were
given.
>
> > > "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.
Of course I read it. All three of them. Again, it shows the jade of the
media. As if any past miscalculations could guarantee the occurance of factual
events in the present. That's just sloppy, irresponsible and biased reporting.
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.
So you are saying that the appearance of guilt = guilt? Maybe it *was* too
dangerous for them to enter (as Israel claimed)
>
> > It was prudent to keep the media out of harm's way in this type of fighting.
>
> Why?
Ummm.... so the idiots wouldn't get themselves killed?
>
> > 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.
??? They didn't "allow" their own to be killed (unless you would be referring
to the decision not to just bomb the hell out of Jenin from the air, which
would have guananteed *no* lose of life by the Israelis). Come on, Chris-- do
you really believe that Israel doesn't take *every* precaution it can to
minimize lose of Israelis soldiers??? One Israeli soldier's death is too many
to her! And yet casualities were high.
I'm convinced that one or more of those crybaby reporters who weren't allowed
in wouldn't be alive today had they been. *Then* the media would blame
Israel, because there isn't a life more precious on earth than that of a
journalist. (Sidebar) see:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052402.asp
So if they were merely protecting the
> reporters -- and not shielding the truth, then they were obviously more
> protective of the reporters.
They were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
>
> > 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?"
Again, you miss the *whole point* (the whole point being the media's bias).
Israel appeared to be hiding something *ONLY TO THOSE WHO THOUGHT THEY HAD
SOMETHING TO HIDE* When they said it was too dangerous, it was the truth.
Israel suffered heavy casualities. If it's dangerous to the guys protecting
you, it's dangerous to you. But the media *wouldn't* accept that. They had to
conjure up another explanation-- it was because Israel was *hiding* something!
Or that it was too dangerous like you were told, you chowderheads!
>
> > 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?
I don't think so. And neither would Israel had she bombed Jenin from the air.
But we didn't and neither did she, because we both care about innocent life
(as opposed to Palestinian terrorists, who hold *no regard* for innocent life).
You don't address Scott's point about breaking international law.
Breaking international law? Do you really think that the Palestinian's
possession of weapons and explosives are *legal* under international law?
Where is the indignation over that? I'm so tired of people constantly holding
Israel up to laws to which their side holds nothing but contempt. I really
miss the point.
Honestly, the Palestinians would be a lot better off if they had
stuck to stone throwing-- it plays a lot better.
>
> > <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?
You have to ask?
>
> > 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?
According to *them*. *They* are the ones who tell us that their reporting is
fair and balanced. It is the hallmark of journalistic integrity.
I value the first amendment to our constitution
> because it protects my right to present my opinion. _My opinion_.
Of course. But you don't go around presenting your opinions *as fact*. But
you are correct. Using the word "right" was a poor choice. The press has the
right to spew any gibberish that they want (as long as it isn't libel). And I
am here to state my opinion that the European press is a bunch of biased,
agenda-pushing hacks and I offer the story of Jenin as proof.
Take it or leave it.
-John
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) is (...) I hope that the majority of scientists are out trying to prove the null hypothesis! The whole goal of the scientist is to devise every possible way of disproving their idea and carrying out those tests. Only when they are unable...and (...) (22 years ago, 25-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) Speaking of damned if they did, damned if they didn't... (and otherwise only VERY LIGHTLY linked to this thread if at all) (URL) so happens that I do not quite support the theory that KP is advancing (that we need to line up docilely for the (...) (22 years ago, 27-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) John, You really are a worry. I wish I could just dismiss all the news I dislike as being part of some sort of conspiracy. Life would be so much easier! The facts were: 1. Heavy gunfire coming form Jenin 2. Israel, a nation with an appalling (...) (22 years ago, 27-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
