TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Honest Reporting
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »
LOL
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike Don't start annoying me... |
It's a thing I will continue... sort of in honour of Israel - think from my perspective and I'm sure you'll understand. Also, I know many people don't get a chance to read them, if they are not posted in full for them.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike It's a thing I will continue... sort of in honour of Israel - think from my perspective and I'm sure you'll understand. Also, I know many people don't get a chance to read them, if they are not posted in full for them. |
STUDY: REUTERS HEADLINES
Headlines are powerful elements of any news story, for a headline is the first (and oftentimes the only) item seen by the reader.
Recognizing this, HonestReporting monitored headlines of Reuters news agency reports on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the one-month period June 10 - July 10, 2003. This critical period commenced with the Israeli strike against Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and ended with the relative calm of the Palestinian hudna.
During this time frame, Reuters issued headlines describing six acts of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, and twelve acts of violence by Israel against Palestinians. Among these, HonestReporting found the following patterns of bias:
1) Named subject
In violent acts against Israelis, the Palestinian agent is named in 33% of the headlines.
In violent acts against Palestinians, the Israeli agent is named in 100% of the headlines. Moreover, Israel is always emphasized by appearing as the first word in the headline.
2) Named object
In violent acts against Israelis, casualties are labeled "Israeli" in 11% of the headlines.
In violent acts against Palestinians, casualties are labeled "Palestinian" or "Hamas" in 50% of the headlines. Considering "militant" as a Palestinian-specific term raises this figure to 71% of headlines.
3) Verb selection
Violent acts by Palestinians are described with "active voice" verbs in 33% of the headlines.
Violent acts by Israelis are described with "active voice" verbs in 100% of the headlines.
A few examples of Reuters headlining Israel in ferocious terms:
"Sharon Vows More Attacks on Militants Despite Talks" (June 15)
"Israel Threatens New Raids After Anti-Hamas Strike" (June 22)
"Israeli Army Swoops in Nablus After Security Talks" (June 23)
Here are three side-by-side comparisons of how Reuters headlines similar violent events involving Israelis and Palestinians:
Example 1:
"Israeli Troops Shoot Dead Palestinian in W.Bank" (July 3)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinian named as victim; described in active voice.
vs.
"New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce" (July 1)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israeli not named as victim; shooting described in passive voice.
Example 2:
"Israel Kills Three Militants; Gaza Deal Seen Close" (June 27)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians ("Militants") named as victims; described in active voice.
vs.
"Bus Blows Up in Central Jerusalem" (June 11)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; Israelis not named as victims; described in passive voice.
Example 3:
"Israeli Tank Kills 3 Militants in Gaza - Witnesses" (June 22)
Israel named as perpetrator; Palestinians ("Militants") named as victims; described in active voice.
vs.
"Israeli Girl Killed, Fueling Cycle of Violence" (June 18)
Palestinian not named as perpetrator; killing described in passive voice.
Not only acts of violence during this period generated biased Reuters headlines. To describe diplomatic events, Reuters consistently grants Palestinian statements neutral or pleading language, while Israeli positions are described in uncompromising, aggressive terms. Compare:
Example 1 � Palestinians are peaceful, while Israel is belligerent:
"Palestinian Islamic Militants Declare Truce" (June 29)
vs.
"Israel Pours Scorn on Peace-fire with Militants" (June 23)
Example 2 � Palestinians are peaceful, while Israel is belligerent:
"Palestinians Urge Israel to Free Prisoners" (July 4)
vs.
"Israel Sets Tough Terms for Prisoner Release" (July 6)
A full list of the Reuters headlines, and notes on our method of analysis, may be found by clicking here.
SUMMARY:
In the world of Reuters headlines, when Israel acts, Israel is always perpetrating an active assault, and the Palestinian victim is consistently identified. But when Palestinian terrorists act, their Israeli victims are faceless, and the Palestinian perpetrators are rarely named nor described in active terms. Moreover, Palestinian diplomats pursue peace, but are frustrated by their obstinate Israeli counterparts.
Reuters' obvious message? Israel is the aggressor, and Palestinians are the victims.
For the past three years, HonestReporting readers have intuitively sensed that Reuters is taking sides in this conflict. HonestReporting's one-month analysis of Reuters' headlines demonstrates that the claim of Reuters' bias is indeed grounded in fact.
In professional journalism, lack of objectivity is the cardinal sin. As one of the world's most broadly syndicated news agencies, Reuters has tremendous influence on Western perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict � thereby making its biased stance all the more reprehensible.
Comments to: [email protected]
Notes:
-- The June 26 murder of an Israeli telephone worker was not included in any Reuters headline.
-- The June 30 killing of a foreign worker by Palestinian terrorists was not included in the statistics above.
-- Reuters typically issues many versions of a report on a particular event. Headlines were counted just once per event, except when a headline change affected one of the three elements addressed in the study: subject named, object named, active/passive verb. In such cases, both the original and adjusted headlines were counted. (In effect, such changes occurred in two cases of violence against Palestinians, and in three cases of violence against Israelis.)
A JOURNALIST'S CRITIQUE
No one has a better angle on Mideast media bias than the journalists themselves.
Fiamma Nirenstein, veteran Italian journalist and Jerusalem correspondent for the daily La Stampa, recently penned a searing indictment of certain intellectuals and journalists � whom she calls "the real cradle of contemporary anti-Semitism."
"We have to know how to say that the free press is a failure when it lies, and that it does lie," writes Nirenstein. "We have to say that all human rights are violated when a people is denied the right of self-defense, and that right is denied of Israel."
Below we reprint for HonestReporting readers an excerpt from Nirenstein's important article, which provides a comprehensive overview of the sources of distorted coverage of the latest intifada. The full article may be found online here.
* * *
Somebody on a European radio program said that after the diffusion of the images of Muhammed al Dura, Europe could finally forget the famous picture of the boy in the Warsaw ghetto with his hands raised. The meaning of this statement, often repeated in other forms, is obliteration of the Holocaust through the overlapping of Israel and Nazism,
namely racism, genocide, ruthless elimination of civilians, women and children, an utterly unwarranted eruption of cruelty and the most brutal instincts. It means pretending to believe blindly, without investigation, the Palestinian version of a highly disputed episode and of many, many others; it means taking for granted the "atrocities" that the Palestinian spokespersons always talk about, and ignoring every proof or fact that doesn't serve this position...
As a journalist, I must mention the significant contribution of the mass media to this new anti-Semitism. Since the beginning of the Intifada, freedom fighter journalists, grown in the Guevara and Fedayeen campus, have given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict some of the most biased coverage in the history of journalism. Here are the main problems that lead to distorted reporting of the Intifada:
1) Lack of historic depth in attributing responsibility for its outbreak. In other words, failure to repeat the story of the Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and of Arafat's refusal which, in essence, is a refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state, and which continues the almost 70-year old Arab rejection of partition of the land of Israel between Arabs and Jews as recommended by the British in 1936, decided by the UN in 1947 and always accepted by the Jewish representatives.
2) Failure, right from the very first clashes at the checkpoints, to assign responsibility for the first deaths to the fact that, unlike in the first Intifada, in the second the IDF faced armed fighters hiding in the midst of the unarmed crowd.
3) Failure to recognize the enormous influence of the cultural pressure on the Palestinians from the systematic education in Palestinian schools and mass media, vilifying Jews and Israelis and idealizing terrorist acts of murder and mayhem.
4) Describing the death of Palestinian children without identifying the circumstances in which they occurred. The equating of civilian losses of Israelis with those of the Palestinians, as if terrorism and war against it were the same thing, and as if intentional killing was the same as a deplored consequence of a difficult and new type of fight.
5) Using Palestinian sources to certify events, as if Palestinian sources were the most reliable. I am thinking of Jenin, of the unconfirmed reports that passed to printed pages or TV screens as absolute truth. In contrast, Israeli sources, which are very often reliable, are seen as subservient, prejudiced and unworthy of attention, despite the country's aggressive, free and open journalism, and the equally determined criticism of government policies by opposition parties, conscience objectors, commentators and journalists.
6) Manipulation of the order in which the news are given and of the news itself. The headlines give the number of Palestinians killed or wounded in most articles, at least in Europe, before describing the gunfights and their causes, and linger on the age and family stories of the terrorists. The purposes of the IDF actions, such as capturing terrorists, destroying arms factories or hiding places and bases for attacks against Israel, are rarely mentioned. On the contrary, Israel's operations are often described as completely uncalled for, bizarre, wicked and useless.
7) Manipulation of language, taking advantage of the great confusion about the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist." This too is an old issue, connected to the concept of freedom fighter, so dear to my generation.
A few days ago, at a checkpoint, I was doing some interviews. It soon became clear to me that the use of the word "terrorist" sounded to each one of my Palestinian interlocutors a capital political and semantic sin. The press has learned this very well: the occupation is the cause of everything, terrorism is called resistance and does not exist per se. Terrorists who kill women and children are called militants, or fighters. An act of terrorism is often "a fire clash," even when only babies and old men are shot inside their cars on a highway. It is also interesting to note that a young shahid is a cause of deep pride for the Palestinian struggle, but if you ask how a child of twelve can be sent to die and why young children are indoctrinated to do such acts, the answer is: "Come on, a child can't be a terrorist. How can you call a 12 year old boy a terrorist?"
This is perhaps the most crucial point: Given the fact that there is a ferocious debate on the definition of terrorism, it is widely accepted that terrorism is a way of fighting. This is a semantic and substantial gift of the new anti-Semitism, where it is natural for a Jew to be dead. Namely, intentionally targeting civilians to cause fear and disrupt the morale of Israel is not a moral sin. It doesn't raise world indignation, and if it does, it hides in its folds some or much sympathy for the terrorist aggressor. What the European press fails to or doesn't want to understand is that terror is a condemnable and forbidden way of fighting, regardless of the specific political goal it tries to achieve.
8) The media have promoted the extravagant concept that the settlers, including women and children, are not real human beings.
They present settlers as pawns in a dangerous game they choose to play. Their deaths are almost natural and logical events. In a way, they asked for it.
On the other hand, when a Hamas commander is killed, even though he obviously "asked for it," an ethical, philosophical debate arises on the perfidy of extra-judicial death sentences. This would certainly be a licit debate, were it not for the grotesque double standard on which worldwide press bases it.
9) Not to go overlooked is that censorship and corruption within the PA and the physical elimination of its political enemies is hardly ever covered.
SECURITY FENCE SCRUTINY
Media coverage of Ariel Sharon's visit to Washington was dominated by one issue � Israel's security fence, currently under construction in the West Bank. Journalists followed the lead of Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, who lodged a complaint with President Bush regarding the fence during his visit last week, and Yassir Arafat, who on Tuesday called the security fence "a Berlin Wall."
The fence's contribution to anti-terror security is clear, but Ariel Sharon explained to columnist William Safire a further, diplomatic advantage it grants: "Arafat's strategy is to make terror a part of political negotiation...When you don't get all you want, you use terror - you start an intifada. The security fence, when it is finished, will close off this strategy. Losing this negotiating weapon bothers them."
While many news outlets presented balanced reports on this controversy, others went overboard:
-- Philadelphia Inquirer cartoonist Tony Auth issued this cartoon that depicts Palestinians caged within a Star of David:
In fact, the security fence is only on the Western side of most West Bank residents, and though the fence restricts some movement, legal Palestinian passage through official gates remains completely free. And by ignoring the fence's justification as an anti-terror measure, the cartoon shows an utter lack of context.
Comments to: [email protected][/email]
-- Salon magazine's profile of the fence, "When Security Becomes Apartheid," devotes the first 2,000 words of the article to the difficulties the fence causes local Palestinians. Only then are Israeli positions presented, in a cynical fashion � an Israeli cabinet minister is described as having an "air" about him, "sitting in an easy chair in his air-conditioned office in the Knesset."
And only at the very end does Salon reporter Ferry Biedermann come clean about his own, false apartheid comparison: "the Palestinian use of the term 'apartheid' in connection with the wall is misleading...There is no systemized structure of racial discrimination in place that is comparable to the apartheid that used to define South African society."
Submit comments to Salon by clicking here.
-- In England, The Newcastle Journal both grants Palestinian statehood and misrepresents the security fence's aim in its headline, "Israel Vows to Fence Off Palestine."
Comments to Newcastle Journal: [email protected]
London's Independent, meanwhile, paints Sharon as sly and evasive in Washington � the Israeli Prime Minister "reverted to the familiar tactic of laying the blame on the Palestinians for not moving more forcefully to crack down on terrorism." And The Independent is apparently irritated by the warm personal relationship the two leaders have built: "Though Israel gave so little discernable ground, the two men were all smiles and friendliness, referring to each other as 'Ariel' and 'George'."
Comments to Independent: [email][email protected]
The security fence, originally proposed by the previous Labor-led government, is an extremely expensive project ($2 billion) that is viewed favorably by most Israelis, but only as a last resort. In the midst of a severe economic downturn, Israel can only justify this project to save the lives of its citizens, who remain vulnerable to constant and ongoing terror attacks. The Palestinian Authority has not done their job of reining in terror, so Israel must do so. Israel's options are either constant invasion of Palestinian towns, or building a passive fence. Nearly everyone prefers the latter.
While the media scrutinize the security fence, the central issue � indeed, the only issue � has fallen away. As U.S. Congressman Tom DeLay stated while addressing the Knesset yesterday, "An immediate and total end to Palestinian terrorism is not a concession the civilized world asks of the Palestinian Authority to advance the peace process. It is a prerequisite to the Palestinian Authority's invitation to it."
melech where are you??! i dont see you on the "crulety" of israel
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=119391
please i need help im too disgusted from cyrus i think i cant take it any more! please come and place an opinion
News from israel: playboy is in BBC is out!
the israeli goverment is trying in this very days to remove the Nazi
channel "BBc news" becuse of their hypocrite, one sided, and anti israeli pro palastinian reports and specials in the meantime israel will give a hard time for this ass holes
and while the trash is out the gold is in!
the playboy channel is beck!
BBC is da best channel,it is shame that they got kicked out,now it is gonna be all CNN with their one sided anti palastanian views!
ooh well at least we have Al Gazeera!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Viber News from israel: playboy is in BBC is out! the israeli goverment is trying in this very days to remove the Nazi channel "BBc news" becuse of their hypocrite, one sided, and anti israeli pro palastinian reports and specials in the meantime israel will give a hard time for this ass holes and while the trash is out the gold is in! the playboy channel is beck! |
Cnn are ass holes too the best news channeles are the israeli news channels becuse simply everything is from an objective point of view and with the Sympathy tone that you expect to hear about someone death and things like that (yes palastinians deathes too)
and besides the israeli news channels tells the whole picture and not just one side of it or little part of it
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Viber Cnn are ass holes too the best news channeles are the israeli news channels becuse simply everything is from an objective point of view and with the Sympathy tone that you expect to hear about someone death and things like that (yes palastinians deathes too) and besides the israeli news channels tells the whole picture and not just one side of it or little part of it |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer Iam sure you are right!! too bad we dont get the Isreali news channels here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer BBC is da best channel,it is shame that they got kicked out,now it is gonna be all CNN with their one sided anti palastanian views! ooh well at least we have Al Gazeera!! |
And CNN is not exclusively anti-palestinian. Once again, know what you're talking about.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Viber Cnn are ass holes too the best news channeles are the israeli news channels becuse simply everything is from an objective point of view and with the Sympathy tone that you expect to hear about someone death and things like that (yes palastinians deathes too) and besides the israeli news channels tells the whole picture and not just one side of it or little part of it |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Not Gazeera...Jazeera... And CNN is not exclusively anti-palestinian. Once again, know what you're talking about. |
MILITANT JOURNALISM
On numerous occasions, many have critiqued the media's widespread use of the term "militant" to describe Palestinian terrorists. A Wednesday Washington Post editorial provides an ideal illustration of the precise problem with the term.
The Post editorial repeatedly calls Palestinian terrorist organizations "militant groups," and then � sandwiched among those references � refers to "militant Jewish settlers." The editorial claims these two groups constitute "the extremists on both sides."
As noted by James Taranto's weblog, the term "militant" has two separate dictionary definitions:
1) engaged in warfare or combat
2) aggressively active (as in a cause)
A Hamas leader may be (generously) granted the first definition, and some Jewish settlers fit the second definition. But by calling both groups "militants" in the same editorial breath, the Post entirely eliminates this distinction, and implies equivalence between mass civilian murderers and dwellers on a disputed land.
Would a Washington Post editorial ever equate a militant environmentalist with Osama bin Laden?
Comments to: [email protected][/email]
--- SECURITY FENCE ---
The Atlantic Monthly profiled a Rand Corporation study of "top ten international-security developments that aren't getting the attention they deserve." Heading the list: the security wall that Israel is presently constructing to protect against West Bank terrorist incursions.
Though recognizing that "[t]he logic behind the wall is unassailable," the article claims that the wall could "deepen Palestinian rage and enmity, of course, prompting escalated mortar and ground-to-ground missile attacks against targets inside Israel. The wall could also prompt further attacks on Israelis overseas, like the suicide bombing last November of a Mombasa hotel filled with Israeli tourists and the accompanying attempt to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane."
The Atlantic, it seems, believes it credible to claim that Israel � by attempting to stave off terror against its civilians � bears responsibility for future attacks.
Furthermore, as editorialized in the Jerusalem Post, "Israel is not building the fence, [in effect] the Palestinians are. It took thousands of attacks and dozens of dead before Israel began to contemplate building it, and even now it is being built reluctantly."
Comments to: [email][email protected]
but remember that news reporting is biased by the individual who writes it. There is no such thing as an unbiased story..take it with a grain of salt and move on.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by torontotrance but remember that news reporting is biased by the individual who writes it. There is no such thing as an unbiased story..take it with a grain of salt and move on. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer it seems like you know everything eh!!too bad we are not perfect like you!! and stop telling me what I know,and what I dont know,I have my own opinions,just liek everyone else. |
PRISONERS: FACT VS. FICTION
On Wednesday, Israel released 339 Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill gesture to support the road map peace process, despite the absence of any such Israeli obligation under the actual terms of the road map.
In response to Israel's announcement of the prisoner release, Yassir Arafat made the following derisive statement to reporters on Tuesday: "They say they are going to release 400, and then they turn around and arrest 800. What is this? Deception? Are they laughing at us? Is this the implementation of the road map?"
The world media asks: What 800 recent arrests was Arafat referring to? No reports in the recent past indicate any arrests of that magnitude (though scattered IDF anti-terror raids have included some 50 arrests).
Yet London's The Guardian not only quoted Arafat in full, but repeated his "mass arrests" claim as actual fact: "The list of 342 [prisoners] fell about 200 short of the number the Israelis said they would free...Hundreds more have been arrested in the meantime."
Anyone reading this is encouraged to challenge The Guardian to provide evidence for their claim that "hundreds" of Palestinians have been recently arrested � a claim used by The Guardian to downplay, in cynical fashion, the significance of Israel's large-scale prisoner release.
Comments to: [email protected]
Comments to: [email protected]
Comments to: [email protected]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 It may seem like that to you, but I have never claimed that I know everything. Quite the contrary, I know that I do not know everything. Just because I post on this forums in an intellectual manner does not mean that I know everything or claim to. In addition, I have never said I am perfect, and I do not believe I am near perfect. It would also be greatly appreciated if you did not pluralize. the "we" should be "I". The people in this forum know that my posts are humble and factual, and I would not pursue something unless I truely see fit. Also, I have never told you what you do or don't know. All I simply ask is that you "know what you're talking about", meaning please make factual posts. It's fine to post your opinions, but back that up in some way. Don't just jump on a bandwagon without reason. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer ok so u are not perfect!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 congratulations, got something thru your thick skull. treat yourself to a cookie. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.