TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Honest Reporting
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »
oh yes.... i forgot Viber. Anyone who is critical of your nation's actions, even when they are Isreali's, they are "stupid", "pieces of shit", or "pathetic"..... you truly are an 'outside' observer
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King oh yes.... i forgot Viber. Anyone who is critical of your nation's actions, even when they are Isreali's, they are "stupid", "pieces of shit", or "pathetic"..... you truly are an 'outside' observer |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King oh yes.... i forgot Viber. Anyone who is critical of your nation's actions, even when they are Isreali's, they are "stupid", "pieces of shit", or "pathetic"..... you truly are an 'outside' observer |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike If you know anything about this man you wouldn't be surprised at these comments. He is a hardcore leftist... HARDCORE! We all know that no leftist in the world likes military intervention in any conflict. Maybe he'd support an Israeli initiated terror group to take the attention of the war on terror (which makes the Arab-'Palestinians' look like the underdog) off Israel. He is living in an anti-Semitic society, and has been sucked into being a self-hating Jew. There have been many studies that show that some holocaust survivors have been traumatized so roughly that they do anything to disaffiliate themselves from a Jewish identity; assimilation. The organization that awarded him this "peace" prize is very suspicious in itself. Its bias anti-Israel nature is plastered throughout their website. So to answer your question Cyrus, I think Noam Chomsky will be the next to be awarded this "prestigious" prize.  |
| quote: |
| Dr. Reuven Moskovitz was born in 1928 in the Schtetl Frumsiaca in the northern part of Romania. In spite of persecution and expulsion, he survived the Holocaust and emigrated to Palestine in 1947, where he became a co-founder of the Kibbuz Misgav-Am situated on the Lebanese border. After studying history and Hebrew literature at the University of Tel Aviv and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he taught history. For almost 40 years, he has been warning against the danger of escalating terror and counterterror in the Middle East. He founded or co-founded several organisations in Israel which are doing practical peace work up to this day. So he is for example a co-founder of the peace village Neve Shalom / Wahat al Salam in Israel founded in 1972, where he also lived. Israeli Jews and Palestinians are living together with equal rights in this village, where they have a bilingual primary school (Hebrew and Arabic are equally spoken as official languages) and a peace school, where young Jewish and Palestinian Israelis often meet for the first time and use their joint seminar work for learning and practicing how to peacefully live together. |
TARGETED KILLINGS: ARE THEY EFFECTIVE?
Over the past two weeks, six IDF helicopter strikes have eliminated 11 Hamas leaders in Gaza. The latest hit, on Monday (Sept. 1), killed Khader al-Husari, a senior Hamas operative who was at that very moment transferring weapons to be used in attacks against Israel. The al-Husari strike was the latest application of what Israeli Defense Minister Mofaz has termed "a new chapter" in Israel's battle against the terrorist organizations: "Since the Palestinian Authority is not acting against these organizations, we will take care of them."
As frequently noted by HonestReporting, the media regularly construct a gross moral equivalence between these IDF missile strikes and Palestinian terrorists' indiscriminate murders of Israeli civilians � the media's "cycle of violence." As a result, IDF strikes are presented as not only unjustified, but also ineffective in achieving their desired goal.
But in fact, recent events indicate that just the opposite is true � the targeted killings are working. Here's a summary of their recent effectiveness:
1) Deterrence: Hamas terrorists are now in hiding, rather than openly organizing more bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants. Hamas has released a statement to its members, urging them to turn off cellular phones, stay home, and never travel together. They are even encouraged to wear disguises, since, as the directive states, "you do not know who is following you. It could be the store owner, or your neighbor, or someone in a car."
2) Requesting another hudna: Over the last few days, Hamas leaders have sent messages to both the PA and Egypt in an effort to revive the hudna (tactical cease-fire). Apparently, only when the terrorists are feeling the heat personally do they weigh the cost of their ongoing terror against Israelis.
3) Separation from PA: Hamas is convinced that the Palestinian Authority assisted Israel in the recent wave of targeted killings - as one Hamas leader said, "It is clear to us that no one in Ramallah [PA headquarters] is crying over what happened in Gaza." The targeted killings therefore drive a wedge between Hamas and the PA, which is precisely what is called for in the road map as a positive step toward regional peace.
4) Collateral damage minimized: The unfortunate downside of the targeted killings is the loss of innocent lives, but IDF technology is becoming incredibly sophisticated in order to lessen injury to Palestinian civilians. Collaborators now dab the terrorists' vehicles with an invisible dye that is detected by sensors on Israeli helicopters. The IDF recently stopped using an American missile that caused excessive damage; cameras on the tips of the new, Israeli missiles allow for "real-time" aiming. As an IDF insider said, "'We can abort up to a couple seconds before impact. On occasion the terrorist's face shows up on camera for final confirmation.''
5) Dispelling the great Palestinian illusion: Finally, the targeted killings allow both peoples to pursue a true, lasting peace on the diplomatic level. As analyst Yisrael Neeman writes, "There are those who claim there is no military solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. There is no exclusively political solution either, but rather a combination of the two. Terror must be defeated and afterwards the political solution can be worked out. Only then will the illusion of defeating Israel disappear, allowing for the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith."
Yet despite the clear strategic and diplomatic effectiveness of the targeted killings, Associated Press' recent assessment (Sept. 2) focused almost entirely on criticism of the approach. The AP title: "Critics: Israeli Strikes Doing More Harm."
The article quotes six pro-Palestinian spokespersons (and only one pro-Israeli) to repeatedly drive home its point: the IDF anti-terrorist strikes are "counterproductive," "extremely dangerous," "provoke more attacks," "add to resentment among Palestinians," "escalate [terrorist] responses," and are a mere "aspirin to cancer."
Given our five points above, why is the AP article so one-sided in criticizing the targeted killings?
Comments to: [email protected]
Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy summarizes well Israel's justification for targeted killings:
"Were Israel to use massive force to snatch 'wanted men,' the result would undoubtedly be heavy casualties on both sides � but especially on the Palestinian side. Alternatively, relying only on arrests and passive defensive measures would likely lead to more mass casualty attacks in Israel...Israel's current approach � which employs "targeted killings" as part of a comprehensive approach to fighting terror � has proven reasonably effective, averts escalation, and compared to other options available, entails fewer risks to innocent civilians. For this reason, as long as the PA is not fulfilling its obligation to arrest Palestinians involved in attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel will likely feel compelled to continue such activities."
I'd also like to add that despite the terror that continued throughout the "ceasefire", Israel has yet again issued goodwill gestures. Today (sept 4th) Israeli security chiefs approve entry of 18,000 Palestinian workers to Israel in addition to 10,000 over-35s who crossed from Gaza Strip Wednesday. Passage halted after 21 Israelis murdered in August 19 Jerusalem bus bombing.
I'm sure there will continue to be many who say Israel doesn't want peace.
Maybe those of you who truly believe that should check yourselves, and your objectivity.
The PA has yet to gather any credit for itself. Making "official statements" that mean nothing more then PR is meaningless on the ground. Terror will continue unless they move away from Arafat as a key figure, and terrorism as a key political tool.
Wow, Melech posting something pro-palestinian??? Will wonders never cease? 
Why not... I figured Cyrus needed the Help.
I'd just like to point out that innocent Arab-Palestinians are accidently being killed when terror groups hide amounst average citizens. If i was a civilian there, I'd DEMAND and start activism AGAINST the terror groups who are only making the situation worst for the Palestinian peoples, and the Israels. No politcal goals of theirs will be reached as long as we have Arafat, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and all the other terror-monkeys playing their deadly games.
Their terror hurts everyone!
i think someone has hacked into his account
the story is not completly true becuse there was at least 32 israelies that were killed in this "cease fire"
and about the 17 pal" getting killed during the hodna - i would like to see articles from decent places about it
10x
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike I'd just like to point out that innocent Arab-Palestinians are accidently being killed when terror groups hide amounst average citizens. If i was a civilian there, I'd DEMAND and start activism AGAINST the terror groups who are only making the situation worst for the Palestinian peoples, and the Israels. No politcal goals of theirs will be reached as long as we have Arafat, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and all the other terror-monkeys playing their deadly games. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Yeah, because you wouldn't be killed or anything if you protested the presene of terrorism in the Palestinian terrories...ok. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike Well then they need to make a plea to the world.. or even Israeli soilders! Have them come onto the world media to denouce the actions of terrorist groups. right now, they side with them... i consider many of them to be terrorists as well for the simple fact that they are marching with them on the streets!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Lots of people suppourt sharon, but you don't see me calling them old, fat, warmongering fools, do you? Don't be so quick to judge. Also, i'd expect someone like you not to generalize. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike You see hundreds of masked men with weapons in there hands. Bullets are blasting in the air; a loudspeaker chanting slogans of hate and encouragement of Murder of the Jews. If you�re walking in that crowd pumping your fist in the air to the music of semi-automatic guns, then in my eyes you�re a terrorist....or at least a supporter of it, which in me view is just as bad! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 i understand that, but just because they support the terrorists does not mean they are terrorists. You gotta remember this...lots of these Palestinians are uneducated and ignorant. To them, these terrorist groups seem to be the only salvation from the Israeli onslaught. To the general Palestinian public, these groups are the key to their freedom. Now, there are still maaaany Palestinians that do not condone the use of terror. So like I said, it's wrong to generalize. |
CYCLE OF ARAFAT
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has resigned and Yassir Arafat has hastily nominated his close associate Ahmed Qurei (pronounced ku-RAY-uh) as Abbas' replacement.
How does this bode for the peace process? The situation may be summed up best by a pointed joke making the rounds of Palestinian politicians:
Mr. Arafat is riding in a car with Mr. Abbas, when he spots an obstacle. "Abu Mazen, there's a tree in the road!" Mr. Arafat cries, using Mr. Abbas's nickname. But the car continues on its way. Mr. Arafat's warnings grow more frantic.
Finally, the car hits the tree, and as the two Palestinian leaders stumble from the wreckage, battered and bruised, Mr. Arafat turns to Mr. Abbas and says, "Abu Mazen, I told you there was a tree."
Mr. Abbas replies, miserably, "But you were driving."
In covering Arafat's latest push for power, many media outlets are demonstrating an remarkable ignorance about what got us into this mess in the first place. As the London Daily Telegraph wrote in their Sept. 8 editorial: "In the West, our grasp of the Middle East is afflicted by a kind of amnesia. For some 30 years, Mr. Arafat's fingerprints have been found on each failed peace initiative."
Given the media's notoriously poor memory, let's review how we reached this juncture:
1) In the wake of the horrific 9/11 attacks, a consensus developed in the West that terrorism is a fundamental threat that must be eliminated to ensure the very survival of the free world. To that end, President Bush made the war on terror a cornerstone of American policy, and he has undertaken to lead this mission.
2) In an effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, President Bush stated unequivocally in June 2002 that any advance of the peace process is predicated on "a new and different Palestinian leadership...not compromised by terror" � an unmistakable call for the replacement of Yassir Arafat.
President Bush's objection to Arafat went beyond the decades of plane hijackings, schoolyard shootings and Munich murders. Rather, it was the promise that Arafat undertook in 1993 to foreswear the methodology of violence and terror. (This week marks the 10th anniversary.) Seven years later, Arafat proved incorrigible, unable to grasp the truly historic opportunity to embrace peace and leave the terror behind.
As the Americans recognized, nobody could afford to go down Arafat Lane again � not Palestinian citizens who are suffering socially and economically, not Israelis who are under daily siege, and not the West in its effort to uproot terror. For the sake of peace, Yassir Arafat had to be sidelined.
3) Release of the U.S.-backed road map was therefore delayed until a new Palestinian leader emerged. In April 2003, within hours of Mahmoud Abbas' assuming the post as Palestinian prime minister, the official road map was released and diplomatic progress began.
4) It soon became painfully clear that Abbas was not in fact the Palestinian leader, but rather subordinate to Arafat. As Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat stated in May: "There is no one who is more loyal to Arafat than Abu Mazen and no one who is more loyal to Abu Mazen than Arafat."
Or as Abbas himself said on July 26, when asked by Newsweek if Arafat has to approve the prime minister's actions: "All the actions, all the actions. He is the leader of the Palestinian people."
Arafat's ongoing reign contradicted the sole prerequisite to the new peace initiative (see point 2 above).
5) Arafat's power grip became most evident in recent weeks when Abbas, in an effort to implement the road map, asserted more authority than Arafat was willing to allow. Arafat undermined Abbas, and Abbas was given no choice but to announce his resignation, decrying his Palestinian opponents for their (in his words) "harsh and dangerous" incitement.
This left Arafat as the lone Palestinian leader, and we're right back where we started. It's a veritable "cycle of Arafat."
A number of news agencies recognized that Arafat's appointment of Qurei � a high-ranking official in Arafat's own Fatah faction � is another step backward for the peace process. As stated bluntly in the Chicago Tribune, "If Palestinian leaders cling to the notion that they can send out a conciliatory face as prime minister while providing safe harbor for terrorists such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then Qureia will fail, too...It was a good weekend for Yasser Arafat, and a disaster for the Palestinian people."
Or, in the words of the editorial desk of Denver's Rocky Mountain News: "In the long run, friends of peace can only hope that the Palestinians outgrow their affection for the man who once again, through his sabotage of Abbas' leadership, has dashed the hopes of permanent peace."
Yet some news outlets followed the lead of Reuters, who reported (editorialized, actually, with no attribution) that Israel's attempt to completely sideline Arafat is actually to blame, for it "added to the sense that a battered U.S.-led peace plan may now be beyond rescue."
Reuters goes on to paint Qurei glowingly: "His credentials as a highly regarded moderate and an architect of the 1993 interim Oslo peace accords with Israel could endear him to the United States and help salvage a U.S.-led peace plan."
Taken together, Reuters' strange editorial line becomes clear: Arafat and his hand-picked associate Qurei are the ones capable of "salvaging" the road map � a peace plan preconditioned on the removal of Arafat from power and influence.
Comments to Reuters: [email protected][/email]
And while Arafat's political machinations and ongoing support of terror has tied the peace process in knots, Pat Oliphant � the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world � would have us believe that Israel's been doing the tying. Oliphant's August 26 cartoon shows Uncle Sam doomed to failure in his peace effort, due to Israeli targeted strikes (the soldier's newspaper is headlined "Hamas Leader Killed").
Amazingly, Israeli's insistence on one of the road map's primary points � "confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure" � is portrayed by Oliphant as actually ruining the road map!
Comments to Oliphant's distributor, Universal Press Syndicate:
[email][email protected]
FOLLOW-UP TO:
EDITORS CONSIDER THE "T-WORD"
available here. (very interesting read!)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Viber and about the 17 pal" getting killed during the hodna - i would like to see articles from decent places about it 10x |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Viber i still cant find articles about thoes 17 pal" who were killed by israel during the hodna |
Someone please confirm that article, as my search have turned up fruitless. If the case is that no other sources can confirm this information, than I will delete that posted article.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by melech_mike Funny thing is niether have I. Someone please confirm that article, as my search have turned up fruitless. If the case is that no other sources can confirm this information, than I will delete that posted article. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Honest Reporting
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cyrus King Melech-mike.. you just got raped! Blik.. i actually thought that myself when i read it |
The Israeli government's startling announcement that the Palestinian perpetrators of the (Sept. 9) dual terror attacks in Tsrifin (7 murdered, 30 wounded) and Jerusalem's Caf�� Hillel (8 murdered, 50 wounded) were both, just six months ago, released from administrative detention in an Israeli prison.
INS AND OUTS OF
CHOOSING THE NEWS
Journalists covering the Mideast conflict have to answer a hard question each day: "Given the range of newsworthy items that constantly emerge, what should I run with, what's my story?" Whatever they deem "in" will be zapped to tens of thousands of newspapers, radio stations and TV screens worldwide; what's ruled "out" will disappear from world consciousness. This, in a nutshell, is how the media's content decisions shape public opinion.
In the past week, such decisions on three major topics fell into a curious pattern �D when the news item challenged Israeli policy, it made it "in," but when the item bolstered Israeli policy, it was deemed "out":
1) Israeli Restrictions on Palestinians
IN: Both Reuters and the Associated Press released articles on September 8 trumpeting a new Amnesty International report that condemned, among other IDF practices, Israel's use of administrative detention against Palestinians active in terror organizations.
OUT: The Israeli government's startling announcement that the Palestinian perpetrators of the (Sept. 9) dual terror attacks in Tsrifin (7 murdered, 30 wounded) and Jerusalem's Caf�� Hillel (8 murdered, 50 wounded) were both, just six months ago, released from administrative detention in an Israeli prison.
Israeli policy is to continue administrative detention when necessary. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
2) Arafat and Peace
IN: Both Reuters and AP (Sept. 13) painted Yassir Arafat as a peace-lover under siege. AP's headline was "Arafat Urges Israel to Return to Peace Talks," while Reuters quotes Arafat saying, "I appeal to you the Israeli people, together we can make peace."
OUT: That very day (Sept. 13), masked gunmen from Arafat's own Fatah movement stormed the TV station Al Aribiya in Ramallah, held the employees at gunpoint, then systematically destroyed their equipment as "a warning" for unflattering reports on the PA. Acknowledging his involvement, Arafat later apologized to Al Aribiya in the middle of the night.
[The media frequently quote voices of dissent within Israeli politics, but almost never bring equivalent Palestinian dissent. For example, also deemed "out" this week was a remarkable voice of protest from a prominent Palestinian journalist, who wrote an article in a Palestinian daily critical of the Arafat-led PA's "all or nothing" policy. Said Tawfiq Abu Bakr, "It is difficult to find a greater and more deeply rooted culture of self-deception than that in our Arab and Palestinian arena; a culture of daydreams in the height of a burning summer. People cling stubbornly to rosy dreams and delude themselves that these are the facts."]
Israeli policy is to remove Arafat, as an obstacle to peace, enemy of Palestinian moderation, and undemocratic strongman. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
3) Palestinian Schoolchildren
IN: Both Reuters and AP reported large gatherings of Ramallah schoolchildren rallying in support of Yassir Arafat (Sept. 13). AP adds the detail that the children shouted "With our souls and our blood we defend Abu Ammar [Arafat's nom de guerre]," while Arafat "waved and blew kisses from a window."
OUT: The Jerusalem Post reported that the children had some other things to say (which apparently didn't interest AP and Reuters): "I'm prepared to go to the Jews myself and to kill them wherever they are," and "At school they tell us, go to liberate Palestine...We have to carry out suicide attacks because the Jews are killing us."
And outside Arafat's compound, one group of supporters shouted, "We will sacrifice millions of martyrs on the road to Jerusalem."
Israeli policy is to remove Arafat's grip on Palestinian culture, in order to eliminate the ongoing incitement in textbooks and classrooms calling for the murder of Israeli citizens. The media's method of selective reporting, however, leaves Israeli policy woefully unexplained.
Comments to Associated Press: [email protected][/email]
Comments to Reuters: [email][email protected]
ROSH HASHANA NIGHTMARE
On Friday night (Sept. 26), an Islamic Jihad terrorist opened fire on a West Bank (Negohot) home filled with families sharing a Jewish New Year meal, murdering 7-month-old Shaked Abraham and 26-year-old Eyal Yerberbaum.
Media reports included many of the disturbing breaches of fair journalism that have characterized coverage of the past three years of Palestinian violence:
� BBC's headline, "Three Dead in West Bank Attack," presents a gross moral equivalence between the terrorist and victims � all of whom are grouped together, without specifying that one of the "three dead" murdered the other two in cold blood.
Further, the BBC headline fails to identify either the (Arab) attacker or the (Jewish) victims. Nor does BBC mention the newsworthy fact that one victim was a baby.
Given this most benign, nondescript headline, we can only conclude one of two possibilities: 1) the BBC headline writer is inept, unable to capture the essence of the incident, or 2) BBC purposely drafted this headline in keeping with an agenda to whitewash acts of Palestinian terror and Israeli victimhood.
Comments to: [email protected][/email]
� Reuters included this background information to rationalize the terrorist act:
"Palestinians regard Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as major obstacles to peace and have regularly attacked them."
Reuters' description suggests � preposterously � that Palestinian terrorists perpetrate the willful murder of civilians out of a quest for peace.
Comments to: [email][email protected]
While the Palestinian terror continues, it is unsettling to see the media's pattern of cloudy headlines and rationalization of barbaric terrorism continue apace.
THE 10 PRINCIPLES OF MEDIA PATROLLING THE MID-EAST CONFLICT
Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter or editor. They are more receptive to constructive criticism than they are to pressure. Don't just demand that the media be pro-Israel -- but rather, factual, impartial, and honest. Always ask yourself: What would make this report better? Show the news agency not only what's wrong with their story, but how there is a more balanced alternative. One way to do this is by showing how their competitors reported the story more fairly. This is this difference between complaining and constructive criticism.
Mobilize a local monitoring group to increase your impact. Build an email list and alert the entire group when bias is spotted. This is the principle behind HonestReporting: One person acting alone may not be able to make a difference, but hundreds or thousands working together can. Be in touch with others from your city, for coordinated patrol activities.
Clearly document any bias you see. Keep a log-book and note the specific article (with URL), or the exact date and time of a broadcast. What exactly did the reporter say? Then pinpoint why it is a problem, by citing relevant facts, etc. Also note examples of excellent reporting.
You will never be able to convince the media to do things 100% your way. Refrain from nitpicking little points. Instead, pick one point that is the key to many others. For example, demanding that suicide bombers be labeled "terrorists" frames the conflict in completely different terms. Another example is contrasting Palestinian corruption and incitement with Israeli democracy. Choose your main battle and hammer away until your point is heard.
Conduct an extensive study of your local media to determine if there is an objective pattern of bias. Analyze every article for one month, and systematically tabulate the frequency of photos for each side, the frequency of spokespeople quoted, etc. Individual examples intuitively indicate anti-Israel bias, but the typical response from media agencies is: "Our reporters are under extreme deadline pressure, and occasionally there will be an error in judgment. But it all balances out -- sometimes skewed toward one side, and sometimes toward the other. But overall, our reporting is 100 percent fair and impartial." This month-long content analyses will lay rest to that claim.
Arrange a meeting with local writers and editors to express your concerns, to better explain the Israeli position, and to hold the newspaper accountable for what it publishes. Formulate a name for your group -- e.g. the Gotham City Concerned Citizens Coalition; this demonstrates broad-based community support for your position. At the meeting, make your case persuasively and with as much documentation as possible; present your month-long content analyses. Instead of attacking the newspaper's character, focus on their work and appeal to their professional integrity. A newspaper's entire ability to stay in business is based on their perception of being accurate and impartial. If you have evidence to the contrary, they will listen.
Meeting: Phase Two. At the end of the meeting, make them a deal: If they will agree to regular meetings, you will promise to restrain your rapid-response team and to restrict your complaints to only major errors. This takes tremendous pressure off the media, who abhors beings flooded with email complaints and all the bad publicity. This also creates an ongoing dialogue, whereby local editors will eventually turn to HonestReporting activists as a resource on the Israeli perspective. You can then encourage local editors and reporters to visit Israel to see the complex issues first hand. Offer to help plan their itinerary and meet former local citizens who now live in Israel. And you can invite local reporters to meet with visiting Israeli academics or decision-makers.
If the media agency refuses to meet with you, or if they continue to display a anti-Israel bias, then consider a public protest. This may take the form of a rally in front of their building (this must be coordinated with the local police department), or it may involve a campaign to cancel subscriptions (even for one day). Beware, however, that these methods can have a negative backlash, as it strikes some people as an attempt to limit freedom of the press. These tactics must be used wisely, and only when other methods have failed to produce results.
Don't limit yourself to print and broadcast media. Make your voice heard as well in Internet chat rooms, bulletin boards, and radio call-in shows. Hand out informational flyers at your local community center, school, and house of worship.
Expand your horizons. Get your news from a variety of sources in order to get a good sense of how different media groups promote different views. Also visit pro-Palestinian websites (e.g. ElectronicIntifada.net) to see how the other side is operating, and the arguments they use. You can also use this information to encourage your local media to report examples of incitement in the Arab world.
* * *
HOW TO ANALYZE THE MEDIA
You click on MSNBC.com and notice a hot new development in the Mideast. How should you go about analyzing the news report? There are certain questions you can keep in mind that may reveal underlying bias. For example:
Are acts of violence directed against civilians termed "terror"? If not, does this conform to the media's policy regarding other areas of conflict around the world?
In reporting violence, is the sequence of events clear, as to which side was attacked and which side retaliated?
Is sympathy being elicited for one side of the conflict, through the portrayal of its victims in humanizing terms (e.g. including personal information like the victim's name, age, familial relationship, or profession)?
Though both sides blame each other for perpetrating the violence, is one side portrayed as the more violent aggressor?
Are the perpetrators of violence described in passive or active terms?
Does the media attempt to give justification for an act of violence -- e.g. for reasons of poverty, frustration, or national liberation?
Are suicide bombers and collaborators included in Palestinian casualty counts? Are causality counts expressed unqualified, or is a distinction made between combatants and civilians?
Is "equal time" granted to both sides of the conflict, or is one side given preferential treatment -- hence lending more weight and credibility to that side's position?
When one side makes a claim, is the other side given a chance to refute, or does the claim stand unchallenged? Does one side usually "get the last word"?
Does the media quote dissenting or extremist opinions within each camp, or does the media only quote moderate voices that parrot the leadership's line?
Does the headline skew the story by failing to identify which side was the aggressor and which side the victim?
Photos and captions: Are these pertinent to the story, or do they diverge from the main story and garner out-of-context sympathy for one side or the other?
And finally, look specifically for the "7 Violations of Media Objectivity":
Did the story contain misleading definitions and terminology?
Was the reporting one-sided and imbalanced?
Did the reporter editorialize in what was supposed to be an objective news story?
Did the reporter fail to provide proper background and context?
Was key information missing (selective omission)?
Did the reporter use true facts to draw false conclusions?
Did the reporter distort the facts?
* * *
TIPS FOR WRITING GOOD LETTERS
Tips adapted from Camera.org
Be quick. Respond while the issue is still fresh. Ideally, try to send your letter within 24 hours of publication of the article.
Be clear. If you cannot summarize your message in one or two sentences, it's not clear enough in your mind. Pinpoint in stark, unambiguous terms what you want to communicate.
Be specific. Why was the article unfair? Did it show lack of context, imbalanced reporting, or omission of key facts? For example: "Your report inappropriately quoted only pro-Palestinian sources, leaving the Israeli position unrepresented."
Be concise. Most publications will not print a letter to the editor longer than 250 words. Editors are more likely to publish a letter that they don't have to spend time shortening.
Be focused. While an article may contain numerous instances of bias, focus your critique on just one or two. It's better to fully explain one point than to inadequately cover five.
Know the goal. You want your letter to inspire the media to change. When possible, ask the media to issue a correction based on your points. A good way to end your letter is to ask: "Can I expect a rethinking of your editorial policy on this point?"
Request a reply. Let the media know there is a consequence to biased reporting -- even if the consequence is having to answer hundreds of e-mails! You could end your letter with: "I would appreciate a response explaining why you have allowed such a biased article to appear in your fine publication."
Stick to the facts. Preserve the integrity of the HonestReporting campaign by keeping your comments clean and respectful. Hostile or overly-emotional language is counter-productive. Accusing the media of anti-Semitism will always be met with great resistance (besides being frequently untrue). This is not the place to vent your frustration.
Write as a concerned individual. Mentioning that you are part of an organized campaign may lessen the impact of your letter.
Use the CC button. Maximize your efforts by sending a copy of your letter not just to the editor, but also to the reporter, foreign editor, publisher, and even advertisers and members of Congress.
Include contact info. Before publishing a letter, most papers will call to verify that you wrote it. Remember to include your full name, title (if applicable), address, and daytime phone number.
Follow up. When possible, follow up with a phone call to the comments editor to ask if your letter will be published. If the editor doesn't remember your letter, offer to read it over the phone.
Keep us in the loop. Whenever you receive a response to your correspondence (other than a simple acknowledgement), send a copy of that response along with your original correspondence, to: [email protected]
Good luck!
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.