TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Honest Reporting
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 »

Word! Things just aren't the same without honest reporting

/looking forward to the flaming

who is this clown?

this is a damn good thread so informative!

i know the guys who made honestreporting they are working on a new project, to help free the world... the media is goign to be not so important anymore in a few years.. there will be groups that truly cater to different world issues, you will hear everything directly from them....

at least that is a theory...

On eve of Yom-Kippur, 19 Israelis killed, at least 60 injured, 9 seriously, when Palestinian bomber blew herself up, Saturday, in crowded Maxim restaurant in Northern city of Haifa.

These are 18 of the Israelis murdered on October 4th Haifa bombing attack: Bruria Zer-Aviv, 59, her son Bezalel Zer-Aviv, 30, his wife Keren Zer-Aviv, 29, and both their children, Liran, 4, and Noya, 1 year old all from Kibbutz Yagur, Ze'ev Almog, 61, his wife Ruth Almog, 60, their son Moshe Almog, 43, and grandson Tomer, 9, all from Haifa, Mark Biano, 29, and his wife, Naomi Biano, 25, Haifa, Nir Regev, 25, Nahariya, Osama Najar, 27, Haifa, Matanas Karkabi, 29, Haifa, Hana Naim Francis, 40, Fassouta, Sherbel Matar, 23, Fassouta, Zvi Bahat, 35, Haifa, and Irena Sofrin, 38, Kiriat Bialik.


horrible news...
But in any case arafat needs to be expelled, and the entire idea of 'palestinian' needs to go to where it came from! THE THIN AIR!

look at this picture, it is from a 'palestinian' newspaper. This is the message they send within their own people.
check http://www.pmw.org.il/new/Latest%20bulletin.html#4year for all the info.

I think we've gone over a million times that even if Arafat was forced into exile, there will still be terrorism.

striking terror in syria

LONG LIVE MELECH MIKE! WE MISS YOU BROTHER
STRIKING TERROR IN SYRIA
On Oct. 5, on the heels of the horrific Haifa suicide bombing that killed 19 Israelis, the Israeli Air Force struck the Ein Tzahab Islamic Jihad training base in Syria, destroying its key infrastructure. Though the IDF strike caused no loss of life (its occupants were out on maneuvers), The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called Israel's strike a "tit-for-tat" response to the Haifa restaurant massacre.


Section of Ein Tzahab terrorist camp destroyed by Israeli strike
Ein Tzahab had been used by Arab groups (including al Qaeda) to learn the trade of terrorism � a 1997 report indicated that Ein Tzahab "ranks as one of the preeminent training camps where it houses extreme fundamentalists from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Algeria. The training is run by officers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. They are instructed in street fighting, plane hijacking, hostage taking, and blowing up specific targets � Israeli, American, European, and other targets in certain Arab countries."

As expected, the Israeli attack triggered a torrent of media condemnation:

� New York Times editorialized that Israel is "drawing additional countries directly into its intractable conflict with the Palestinians."

� CNN decried Israel's "crossing of a red line."

The media criticism promulgates two widespread myths about Syria and the broader war on terrorism:

Myth #1: Syria has not been a direct participant in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In fact, Syria was already fully involved in the conflict long before the Israeli air strike. Damascus hosts the headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP, and supplies weapons and financial support for those groups and for Syria's Lebanese terrorist proxy, Hizbullah. To claim that the Israeli attack "draws Syria into" the Palestinian conflict is a blatant denial of Syria's longstanding and pivotal role in a terror campaign that has caused the murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens. That, if anything, "crossed the red line" years ago.

The Washington Post opined that "Mr. Sharon prodded a country suspected of supporting terrorism."

"Suspected"? Since 1979, Syria has never failed to make the U.S. State Department's annual listing of nations that sponsor terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Damascus in May, insisting upon the closing of the offices of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hizbullah, but the Syrian government has done nothing to satisfy Western concerns. A State Department official emphasized this week: "They are not merely information offices � there are very significant activities."

Myth #2: The Israeli strike will foment Islamic terror

USA Today warned Americans that Israel's attack in Syria "could aggravate anti-U.S. feelings in the region," and the Omaha World-Herald warned that "the ill advised raid...could destabilize a whole region."

Following 9/11, the U.S. reached the same conclusion that Israel recognized years before: Terrorist groups and rogue regimes cannot be stopped by threats of deterrence (which worked during the US-USSR cold war), but rather must be confronted in a pre-emptive manner (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom). This unfortunate reality is a product of the irrational nature of these organizations, as stated in the official U.S. National Security Strategy:

"Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."

Far from "destabilizing the region," therefore, military acts such as the Israeli strike against Ein Tzahab keep terrorists on the defensive and therefore yield greater regional stability. As President Bush stated on Oct. 6 in defense of Israel, "We would be doing the same thing."

The media constantly urge Israel to demonstrate long-term vision for peace, but in this case, media critics of the Ein Tzahab strike are themselves demonstrating a remarkable lack of vision. It's time for media outlets to wake up and recognize � as the Bush administration has � that a war on terrorism demands a unique and bold strategy. The hazardous alternative of failing to respond grants terrorists the upper hand to pursue even more deadly attacks against Western targets.

Did your local paper join in condemning the Israeli anti-terror strike in Syria?
If so, write your editor today, raising the myths and facts noted above

Why not continue a great thread?

BLAMING ISRAEL FOR ISTANBUL

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,


British Consulate, Istanbul (Reuters photo)
Today's coordinated bombings against British targets in Istanbul, occurring just days after the dual bombings of Istanbul synagogues, make the Islamic terrorist message brutally clear � their targets are the Jewish people and Western democratic civilization. What most Americans recognized after 9/11, Europeans are now also beginning to see: radical Islamists threaten every Western citizen, and Israel is merely a convenient front line for their battle.

Given this, HonestReporting is concerned about the re-emergence of a trend we witnessed after 9/11 � the media's shift of focus away from this stark reality, and onto Israeli policy as a scapegoat for Islamic terrorism. Recent examples:

(1) The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, on the Istanbul synagogue bombings: "[T]he reaction of Arabs, Muslims and others to Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza is spilling over into anti-Semitism and violence directed against Jewish populations normally living in peace in countries like Turkey...The United States could help by returning to a credible policy of seeking a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians."

Comments to: [email protected][/email]

(2) In Germany, Wolfgang Guenter Lerch wrote in Frankfurter Allgemeine: "The criminal attacks on two synagogues in Istanbul were mainly directed against Israel...Even secular Turks are dismayed when the see what is happening in the Israeli occupied Palestinian territories."*

(3) Lerch is just one step short of the Egyptian newspaper, Al Wafd: "Why do we not say that the attack was plotted in order to improve Israel's image in the EU after the recent poll that showed it as the primary threat to global peace? Why do we exclude Turkish Jews as perpetrators?"*

(4) K Gajendra Singh, India's former ambassador to Turkey, writes in the Asian Times: "Many Turkish experts suspect that the twin bombings were a warning to Turkey, one of the few Muslim countries to have ties with Israel...The blasts could be an act of revenge for the daily killings of Palestinians and the Israelis building a much-opposed wall that encroaches on Palestinian land."

This media trend recasts the radical Islamic war against the Jewish people and the West as something else entirely � an Israeli-specific disaster that now everyone's suffering from.

Coverage of President Bush's powerful speech on Tuesday in London further illustrates the problem. Bush, after pointed reference to the pre-WWII failure to confront Nazi tyranny, called for democratic reform in the Mideast:

As we work on the details of peace, we must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a viable Palestinian democracy. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, who tolerate and profit from corruption, and maintain their ties to terrorist groups...The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders, capable of creating and governing a Palestinian states...Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause. And Europe's leaders � and all leaders � should strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East.

Though Bush himself called Palestinian reform "the heart of the matter" and warned of the dangerous new wave of anti-Semitism, these Reuters' headlines focused instead on Israeli policy:

� "Israel Defiant Over Barrier After Bush Criticism"

� "Bush Urges Israel Not to Prejudice Peace Talks"

� "Israel Spurns Bush Call Over West Bank Fence"

Comments to Reuters: [email][email protected]

As the radical Islamic war against the innocent tragically expands, HonestReporting encourages subscribers to monitor your local media to ensure that Israel does not again emerge as a scapegoat for mass terror, and that the Western resolve to fight the terrorists themselves receives accurate coverage.

--- INDIANA ARSON ---

On November 18, the CANDLES Holocaust Museum in Terre Haute, Indiana was burned to the ground, the target of apparent arson. CANDLES, which stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Experiments Survivors, was founded in 1995 by Holocaust survivor Eva Kor, and housed artifacts from Auschwitz and documents relating to Dr. Josef Mengele.

One would expect that such a hate crime � in the heartland of America � would attract widespread media attention. Yet few newspapers covered it.

SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE PA

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

The U.S. and Israel have long held that the Palestinian Authority, in its present configuration with Yasser Arafat at the head, lacks the credibility necessary to move forward on any peace initiative.

The media, however, too often ignore overwhelming evidence of PA terror support and corruption, and grant the PA the peace-loving image it so desperately seeks.

Reuters, with nary a hint of skepticism, headlined its Nov. 12 article, "Arafat Happy with Israel as Neighbor," then began it with metaphorical flourish: "Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has held out an olive branch to Israel, saying it has a right to live in security alongside a future Palestinian state and calling for an end to bloodshed."

It is beyond belief that after volumes of Arafat speeches urging jihad, and the mountains of evidence linking Arafat to terror activities, a major news agency like Reuters can keep a straight face while promoting Arafat as a prince of peace.

Comments to: [email protected]

--- HONESTREPORTING BREAKTHROUGH ---

Meanwhile, due in part to constant pressure from HonestReporting and other activists, some media agencies have started to change their pattern of parroting the Palestinian propaganda line. The results were near-immediate.

An important meeting of international Palestinian Authority donors has been postponed due to last week's corruption revelations by the BBC and CBS' 60 Minutes, and a "damning" International Monetary Fund report published in September. This PA donors' organization � the "Ad Hoc Liaison Committee" � is the main channel for foreign governments' funding of the PA, authorizing over $2 billion transferred from world taxpayers to the PA over the past two years.

HonestReporting has repeatedly called on news agencies to conduct more hard-hitting investigations into PA affairs � on July 24 we addressed PA funding of terrorist groups, and on October 16 we focused on PA use of Palestinian media to distort facts and foment anti-Israeli sentiment. Here we see the fruits of such efforts: The CBS and BBC exposes on the PA have halted (at least for now) a massive cash flow that would almost certainly have reached Palestinian terror groups.

--- ARAB MEDIA CENSORSHIP ---

Those investigative reports caused a stir in the West, but in the PA's own backyard it seems nobody's aware of them. From the Jerusalem Post (Nov. 14):


Most Palestinians did not hear about the CBS program that disclosed that Yasser Arafat transferred $100,000 a month to his wife, Suha, who lives in Paris.

Nor did they hear about the $1 billion which he reportedly diverted from the PA budget to secret bank accounts. The reason: censorship.

"You can publish almost anything in our media, except for sensitive stories related to corruption and embezzlement of public funds," says one Ramallah journalist. Arab satellite stations, particularly Al-Jazeera, also refrain from dealing with sensitive issues. All these stations have correspondents based in Ramallah and Gaza and they don't want to risk their lives.

In the latest example of intimidation, masked gunmen belonging to the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades went on a rampage in the offices of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya TV in Ramallah and threatened to shoot staffers. The reason: the station had been reporting on the power struggle between Arafat and former prime minister Mahmoud Abbas in a way that infuriated Arafat.

As one Palestinian editor summed it: "Thank God we have CBS and BBC to tell us about what is happening in our areas."


HonestReporting encourages subscribers to contact your local editor and encourage coverage of these three key stories: 1) the BBC and CBS exposes of PA corruption, 2) the subsequent halting of world funding of Palestinian terrorists, and 3) the ongoing censorship in Arab media.

quote:

--- HONESTREPORTING BREAKTHROUGH --- Meanwhile, due in part to constant pressure from HonestReporting and other activists, some media agencies have started to change their pattern of parroting the Palestinian propaganda line. The results were near-immediate. An important meeting of international Palestinian Authority donors has been postponed due to last week's corruption revelations by the BBC and CBS' 60 Minutes, and a "damning" International Monetary Fund report published in September. This PA donors' organization � the "Ad Hoc Liaison Committee" � is the main channel for foreign governments' funding of the PA, authorizing over $2 billion transferred from world taxpayers to the PA over the past two years. HonestReporting has repeatedly called on news agencies to conduct more hard-hitting investigations into PA affairs � on July 24 we addressed PA funding of terrorist groups, and on October 16 we focused on PA use of Palestinian media to distort facts and foment anti-Israeli sentiment. Here we see the fruits of such efforts: The CBS and BBC exposes on the PA have halted (at least for now) a massive cash flow that would almost certainly have reached Palestinian terror groups.

CBS' 60 Minutes report available here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain582487.shtml

For some odd reason when i click for the report on BBC' website, they redirect me to CBS' page. Am I the only one who finds that strange?

All Hail The King is Back!

(melech = king in hebrew)

CHILD'S PLAY IN GAZA?


On Monday (Dec. 1), a group of Israeli and Palestinian activists and politicians held the formal signing of the Geneva Accord, a non-official proposal to resolve the conflict.

According to a recent opinion poll, less than a third of Israelis support the Geneva Accord. In large part, this is due to the plan's lack of insistence on the uprooting of Palestinian terror organizations and confiscation of illegal weapons as a precondition for significant Israeli concessions � terms present in the official road map agreement.

In short, it's scenes like this that continue to worry the typical Israeli, who genuinely seeks a lasting peace. Note the Associated Press caption:


A Palestinian boy carries a toy gun as he marches at the front of a small demonstration against the Geneva Accord, in the Jabaliya refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 1, 2003.
(AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

A "toy gun"? It certainly appears to be a very real, modified Russian-built Draganov sniper's rifle:


Thousands of Draganovs and AK-47s remain in the hands of Palestinian terrorists (young and old). The weapon, openly brandished on the Palestinian street, is a consummate symbol of the unregulated terrorist wave that continues to threaten Israeli civilians, leaving them skeptical of the idealistic Geneva Accord. But the AP caption leaves readers thinking that's all child's play.

Comments to Associated Press: [email protected]

(hat tip: LGF)

--- PALESTINIAN SUPPORT FOR GENEVA ---

Yassir Arafat's belated letter of support for the Geneva Accord was widely praised in media coverage of the event. For example, the Chicago Tribune reported: "In a dramatic turnaround after a lukewarm initial response, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat sent a message warmly praising the Geneva plan, calling it 'a brave initiative that opens the door to peace.'"

But Abdel Kader (another official in Arafat's Fatah faction) has said, on the record, regarding Palestinian support for Geneva: "Our aim was to create divisions inside Israel and block the growth of the right-wing in Israel."

That motive doesn't sound anything like the pure expression of good will the media attributed to the Palestinian delegation and Arafat. But Kader's statement appeared nowhere in the European or North American press.

HonestReporting encourages subscribers to write a letter to your local paper, including the Kader quote, to ensure that the full picture of Palestinian support for Geneva is presented.

AP, REUTERS OMIT TERROR IN ISRAEL


On Nov. 8, the Associated Press released a list of "Recent Terror Attacks Around the World" to accompany reports on Saturday's deadly bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The list notes Islamic terrorism all over the world since 1998, but completely ignores all Palestinian terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel. On Nov. 9, Reuters released a similar list of "Worst guerrilla attacks since September 11" that also omitted terror in Israel entirely.

This is becoming a disturbing pattern in media chronicles of Islamic terror � if it happened in Israel, it just doesn't count: AP published a similar list of "Recent World Terror Attacks" on May 19, which also omitted attacks in Israel, and The New York Times Online devotes a special section to world terror that leaves Israel conspicuously absent. [In response to HonestReporting subscribers' complaints, the Times adjusted not the content of the section, but rather its title, eliminating the word "terror."]

Curiously, AP and Reuters do note the bombing of the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel in Kenya (11/2002). Certainly Kenya isn't the first place that springs to mind when recalling recent Palestinian terror. Are we to conclude that these news agencies consider terror attacks against Israeli civilians in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem somehow less objectionable than those conducted offshore?

For a list of "major" Palestinian terror attacks in Israeli in the past years � none of which are included in the AP or Reuters lists � click here.

Comments to AP: [email protected][/email]
Comments to Reuters: [email][email protected]

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

SECURITY FENCE DISTORTIONS


Photos portraying the Israeli security fence as a massive wall, towering over hapless Palestinians, are in news outlets everywhere these days � these are from AP and Reuters this week:



This wave of pictures distorts the physical reality of the security fence. While nearly all news photos show an enormous concrete structure, in fact only 3% of the security fence will be constructed from concrete. Such sections are in high terror-risk locations such as eastern Jerusalem (above) and adjacent to Kalkilya, where in June Palestinian snipers burrowed under the fence, shot and killed 7-year old Noam Leibovitch in her family car.

Fully 97% of the barrier will be a chain-link fence:



The fence � necessitated by three years of relentless Palestinian terror � is a temporary, defensive measure, supported by 80% of Israelis. Death at the hands of terrorists is permanent and irreversible. The inconvenience caused to Palestinians by the security fence will end once terrorism stops and peace is achieved.

Meanwhile, the media is falsely presenting the fence as a new "Berlin wall" � which makes for a far more dramatic news photo.

* * *

In print, such distortions are sometimes exacerbated by outright factual errors: On December 3, the Boston Globe published an op-ed by Tom Wallace entitled "Israel's Unholy Wall," a completely one-sided screed against the security fence that contains this claim:

If built according to current maps, the wall will confiscate 55 percent of the Palestinian West Bank, including eight critical water wells.

Whose map is Wallace using? The map pictured here, courtesy of the left-wing B'Tzelem, is based on the Israeli Ministry of Defense's operative plan and places the fence very close to the "Green Line":


As illustrated here, no more than 10-15% of the West Bank will be on the western side of the security fence. It's also important to remember that the West Bank's "Green Line" has never represented an international boundary � the 1949 armistice agreements specifically refer to this fact. And there's never been a recognized sovereign entity in the West Bank.

So on what basis did Wallace make his exaggerated claim of "55 percent of the Palestinian West Bank"?

Comments to: [email protected]

Here is a succinct response to the security fence's critics, by Israel's ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon:

Those who oppose the fence say it's really a land grab, that we are prejudging any political outcome and making life harsher for the Palestinians. But we say no, it's not any of these. Categorically, this is a buffer zone. It's certainly not a political border because it can be removed at any time. If the Palestinians stop terrorism, we won't need a fence. By stopping terrorism I mean dismantling their infrastructure, collecting illegal weapons and closing the explosives labs. We can't allow them to regroup; the leaders must be arrested. Do this and we won't need a fence.

More excellent background material on the security fence is online at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which contains information like this:

Israel has made the use of public lands a priority in building the security fence, in order to avoid, as much as possible, the use of private lands. If this is not possible, then private land is requisitioned, not confiscated, and it remains the property of the owner. Legal procedures allow every owner to file an objection to the use of their land. When private lands are used, owners are offered full compensation, in accordance with the law; this compensation is offered both as a lump sum and also on a monthly basis.

Also, see the explanatory site of the Israeli Defense Ministry.

HonestReporting encourages subscribers to respond to distorted and inaccurate portrayals of Israel's security fence in your local media.

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

HonestReporting.com

WHY THE "CALM" ?


The major news outlets have determined that since there has not been a successful Palestinian suicide bombing for awhile, Israel is now in a "period of relative calm":

▪ Christian Science Monitor (11/25): "Israel is enjoying a period of relative calm - there has not been a Palestinian suicide bombing in seven weeks."

▪ BBC (12/1): "Our correspondent says Israelis never stopped making arrests during the recent period of relative calm."

▪ Reuters (12/10): "Signals that Israel is getting ready to impose its own arrangement have increased pressure on the Palestinians at a time of renewed interest in the road map, thanks to a spell of relative calm and a new Palestinian government."

This description is highly misleading, for it implies that Palestinian terrorists have made a recent, peaceful gesture to "calm down."

In fact, the head of the IDF Intelligence Corps states that no less than 25 suicide bombing attempts have been made in recent weeks � all but one foiled by the tireless efforts of Israeli security forces. Events such as these two recent IDF intelligence successes receive little media coverage:


IDF officers plan Gaza anti-terror mission
12/8: Israeli security caught a 40-year-old Palestinian mother of seven trying to carry a bomb belt for a suicide bombing in Rosh HaAyin. The Tanzim militia, exploiting IDF humanitarianism, recruited her to smuggle the bomb from Nablus because IDF soldiers rarely do body searches on women.

12/3: Two suicide bombers � both members of the PA security forces � were en route to attack Israeli schoolchildren in Yokne'am (near Haifa) when they were captured by Israeli security forces while hiding in a West Bank mosque.

[For a longer account of attempted terror attacks against Israeli civilians since the Oct. 4 Haifa restaurant bombing, CLICK HERE.]

By describing this as a "period of relative calm," the media suggest Palestinian terrorist efforts have abated. They haven't � IDF diligence has simply won out. But foiled bombings don't make headlines.

A more accurate term for the past few weeks: "A period of thwarted terror"

--- SECURITY FENCE IS WORKING ---

This week, the UN General Assembly voted to ask the World Court to rule on the legality of Israel's security fence. Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman said, "Israel regards this vote as a moral victory" since the countries who voted in favor were "mostly tyrannical dictatorships, corrupt and human-rights defying regimes."

The security fence has also played an important role recently in deterring terror. UPI reports that because of the fence's effectiveness, life is returning to normal in Netanya:

(A Netanya resident) marveled at the city's signs of recovery. "You see more people in the streets! All the shops are open! People are eating in restaurants!" she said...

The atmosphere changed after Israel built a formidable security barrier, at the edge of the West Bank, 10 miles east of Netanya...

Wednesday the army caught an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber on his way to attack an Israeli school in Yokne'am south east of Haifa. The bomber and his guide first went to a remote village to skirt the fence's northern section, which is still under construction. They were arrested in a mosque in that village.

In reporting on the UN decision, did your local media note the fact that security fence has already proven itself an effective anti-terror measure? If not, HonestReporting encourages you to contact your local editors to make them aware of the fence's effectiveness and of the failed terrorist efforts above.

For three years, HonestReporting has been chipping away at the media, encouraging them to reverse biased policies that vilify Israel while downplaying Palestinian terror.

Good news: Their armor is beginning to crack. And we need your help now to crack it wide open.

Julie Burchill, a columnist for the (UK) Guardian, one of Europe's most influential dailies, has published an open letter recognizing that paper's anti-Israel bent (what she calls a "dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance") has simply gone overboard:


If there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. ~ Nov. 29, 2003
Thanks to your vigilance, journalists are now beginning to question the accuracy and fairness of their own Mideast reporting.


Other positive signs:


▪ The NY Times and BBC have both, for the first time, appointed ombudsmen to serve as internal watchdogs for accurate reporting.


▪ After our unremitting campaign about "the T-word," a leading Florida paper finally began using the term "terrorists" to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and is even changing the language of incoming wire reports to call terror by its name!

quote:

Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef Julie Burchill, a columnist for the (UK) Guardian, one of Europe's most influential dailies, has published an open letter recognizing that paper's anti-Israel bent (what she calls a "dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance") has simply gone overboard:

Here is the whole letter:
Good, bad and ugly

Julie Burchill
Saturday November 29, 2003
The Guardian

As you might have heard, I'm leaving the Guardian next year for the Times, having finally been convinced that my evil populist philistinism has no place in a publication read by so many all-round, top-drawer plaster saints. (Well, that and the massive wad they've waved at me.) Once there, I will compose as many love letters to the likes of Mr Murdoch and Pres Bush as my black little heart desires, leaving those who have always objected to my presence on such a fine liberal newspaper as this to read only writers they agree with, with no chance of spoiled digestion as the muesli goes down the wrong way if I so much as murmur about bringing back hanging. (Public.)
Not only do I admire the Guardian, I also find it fun to read, which in a way is more of a compliment. But if there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. Which, for all its faults, is the only country in that barren region that you or I, or any feminist, atheist, homosexual or trade unionist, could bear to live under.

I find this hard to accept because, crucially, I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad. Judeophobia - as the brilliant collection of essays A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia In 21st-Century Britain (axt.org.uk), published this year, points out - is a shape-shifting virus, as opposed to the straightforward stereotypical prejudice applied to other groups (Irish stupid, Japanese cruel, Germans humourless, etc). Jews historically have been blamed for everything we might disapprove of: they can be rabid revolutionaries, responsible for the might of the late Soviet empire, and the greediest of fat cats, enslaving the planet to the demands of international high finance. They are insular, cliquey and clannish, yet they worm their way into the highest positions of power in their adopted countries, changing their names and marrying Gentile women. They collectively possess a huge, slippery wealth that knows no boundaries - yet Israel is said to be an impoverished, lame-duck state, bleeding the west dry.

If you take into account the theory that Jews are responsible for everything nasty in the history of the world, and also the recent EU survey that found 60% of Europeans believe Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world today (hmm, I must have missed all those rabbis telling their flocks to go out with bombs strapped to their bodies and blow up the nearest mosque), it's a short jump to reckoning that it was obviously a bloody good thing that the Nazis got rid of six million of the buggers. Perhaps this is why sales of Mein Kampf are so buoyant, from the Middle Eastern bazaars unto the Edgware Road, and why The Protocols of The Elders of Zion could be found for sale at the recent Anti-racism Congress in Durban.

The fact that many Gentiles and Arabs are rabidly Judeophobic, while many others are as horrified by Judeophobia as by any other type of racism, makes me believe that anti-semitism/Zionism is not a political position (otherwise the right and the left, the PLO and the KKK, would not be able to unite so uniquely in their hatred), but about how an individual feels about himself. I can't help noticing that, over the years, a disproportionate number of attractive, kind, clever people are drawn to Jews; those who express hostility to them, however, from Hitler to Hamza, are often as not repulsive freaks.

Think of famous anti-Zionist windbags - Redgrave, Highsmith, Galloway - and what dreary, dysfunctional, po-faced vanity confronts us. When we consider famous Jew-lovers, on the other hand - Marilyn, Ava, Liz, Felicity Kendal, me - what a sumptuous banquet of radiant humanity we look upon! How fitting that it was Richard Ingrams - Victor Meldrew without the animal magnetism - who this summer proclaimed in the Observer that he refuses to read letters from Jews about the Middle East, and that Jewish journalists should declare their racial origins when writing on this subject. Replying in another newspaper, Johann Hari suggested sarcastically that their bylines might be marked with a yellow star, and asked why Ingrams didn't want to know whether those writing on international conflicts were Muslim, Christian, Sikh or Hindu. The answer is obvious to me: poor Ingrams is a miserable, bitter, hypocritical cuckold, whose much younger girlfriend has written at length in the public arena of the boredom, misery and alcoholism to which living with him has led her, and whose trademark has long been a loathing for anyone who appears to get a kick out of life: the young, the prole, independent women. The Jews are in good company.

Judeophobia: where the political is personal, and the personal pretends to be political, and those swarthy/pallid/swotty/philistine/aggressive/ cowardly/comically bourgeois/filthy rich/delete-as-mood-takes-you bastards always get the girl. I'll return to this dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance next week and, rest assured, it'll get much nastier. As the darling Jews them-selves would say (annoyingly, but then, nobody's perfect), enjoy!

90-Second Video on Reuters' Bias


Here's something new and exciting from HonestReporting: Take a moment to view our compelling 90-second video that exposes the blatant bias of the Reuters news agency � the recipient of our 2003 Dishonest Reporting 'Award.' View the video by clicking here.

BBC'S SELECTIVE SENSITIVITY


Observers have long recognized BBC as one of the worst violators of media objectivity when covering Arab-Israeli and Jewish-Muslim issues. This latest example of BBC corporate policy adds to that mountain of evidence:


Robert Kilroy-Silk
On Jan. 9, BBC took Robert Kilroy-Silk's morning program off the air after Kilroy-Silk made offensive statements against Arabs in a newspaper article. The BBC action followed a complaint from the Muslim Council of Britain.

While one can understand the offense taken by the Muslim community to Kilroy-Silk's views, HonestReporting is startled by the quick action of the BBC in this affair, in light of the years of BBC tolerance of vicious anti-Israel statements by its on-air personalities � in particular, poet and frequent BBC host Tom Paulin.

In April 2002, Paulin stated in an interview to the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram that "Brooklyn-born" settlers in the occupied territories "should be shot dead." "I think they are Nazis, racists. I feel nothing but hatred for them," Paulin said, adding: "I never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all." Despite complaint from the Jewish community about these statements and Paulin's other comparisons of Israelis to Nazis, the BBC continued to allow Paulin to be a regular contributor to the BBC Newsnight Review arts program.


Tom Paulin
A British parliament member, quoted in the Telegraph, questions the BBC's double standard:

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP, said he found it hard to understand why the BBC had moved against Mr Kilroy-Silk but had not taken any action against Mr Paulin. "I am not defending anything Mr Kilroy-Silk has said, but I was greatly upset by what Mr Paulin said, and I think the rules should apply to people equally," said Mr Dismore. "Mr Paulin said awful things about Israel and Jewish people. He should have been kept off BBC screens while his own comments were investigated. I was surprised that that did not happen. It smacks of double standards on the part of the BBC."

A number of American universities, including Harvard, cancelled planned readings by Paulin after his call to murder, but the BBC never sought to remove Paulin from Newsnight Review. BBC had only this to say: "[Paulin's] polemical, knockabout, style has ruffled feathers in the US, where the Jewish question is notoriously sensitive."

The 'Jewish question'? This is the language of official 1930's Germany, where the Jewish people were considered a 'question' to be 'solved'. And why does BBC consider sensitivity to these issues as 'notorious'?

BBC was the ignoble recipient of the 2001 Dishonest Reporting 'Award', and last year the government of Israel broke all official contact with BBC (after BBC broadcast the false accusation that Israel used nerve gas against Palestinians). And now, the parallel circumstances of Tom Paulin and Robert Kilroy-Silk demonstrate even further that a level of tolerance exists for Israel-bashers that BBC will simply not countenance elsewhere.

How ironic that the Muslim Council of Britain's complaint to the BBC was worded as follows: "We wonder whether you would consider it proper to give the same kind of prominence to a presenter who was so openly anti-black or anti-Jewish?"

In fact, with Tom Paulin, the BBC is doing just that.

--- BBC's Royal Charter Renewal ---

The British public, meanwhile, pays for BBC's irresponsible journalism: The BBC is largely funded by the 2.3 billion pounds ($3.9 billion US) it receives yearly from a mandatory 109 pound ($175) licensing fee levied upon every UK television owner. In return, BBC's Royal Charter demands "authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world" � a far cry from what BBC delivers.

It is high time that the BBC be forced to compete in the open marketplace like all other news agencies. In that scenario, the general public could demand journalistic integrity from the BBC front office, editors and reporters.

The time is right to act � the BBC's Royal Charter and funding are presently under British governmental review. HonestReporting encourages subscribers to support the cancellation or non-renewal of the charter by writing to UK Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell: [email protected]

British citizens are further encouraged to support the petition drive to end the TV licensing fee that funds the BBC: just click here.

can we do the same to FOX News and CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian can we do the same to FOX News and CNN.

I don't really want to get into the whole pointless Israeli/Palestinian debate, but why is it that every time someone finds evidence of journalism with an anti-Israeli slant, you immediately bring up some completely unrelated (and often unsubstantiated) example of pro-Israeli slant?

I'm not denying that there is plenty of biased journalism on both sides, but why is it so hard to just accept that someone is guilty of an anti-Israeli bias without whining about the other people who have pro-Israeli bias? Do you have to get defensive every time this comes up?

It's like the papers here in Toronto, man... everybody knows that the Star is a left-wing paper, but when you say that to someone, they don't whine "yeah but the Post is a right-wing paper!" Yes, we know it's a right-wing paper, that doesn't justify the Star's left-wing bias. How about, rather than trying to fight biased reporting with even more biased reporting, someone tries to actually report objectively?

see I don't exactly buy that the BBC is any more anti-Israeli biased than it is anti-Palestinian biased. And I didn't say that I didn't acknowledge it being anti-Israel biased, but if "Honest" Reporting wants to point fingers at BBC, then it should also point fingers at FOX and CNN; guess "Honest" Reporting is also BIASED. The BBC also needs to actually report the many Palestinians that were killed in the past month and the current seige of Nablus that left 15 killed this week and of all the Palestinians that were beaten up and handcuffed to trees and left alone last month at a checkpoint. And of the Palestinian that was bitten by an IDF dog all over his body and face. In reality, the BBC is also disgustingly anti-Palestinian biased since it has failed to report on these incidents.

This "honest" reporting thread is a joke...

Not only does it pick and choose exactly what they need to fufill thier agenda, they hold only once stance, a biased one where Israel is made to look innocent.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian see I don't exactly buy that the BBC is any more anti-Israeli biased than it is anti-Palestinian biased. And I didn't say that I didn't acknowledge it being anti-Israel biased, but if "Honest" Reporting wants to point fingers at BBC, then it should also point fingers at FOX and CNN; guess "Honest" Reporting is also BIASED. The BBC also needs to actually report the many Palestinians that were killed in the past month and the current seige of Nablus that left 15 killed this week and of all the Palestinians that were beaten up and handcuffed to trees and left alone last month at a checkpoint. And of the Palestinian that was bitten by an IDF dog all over his body and face. In reality, the BBC is also disgustingly anti-Palestinian biased since it has failed to report on these incidents.

Again with the defensiveness...

Nobody is trying to say that the IDF are saints. I think it's unfair to say that the BBC is not reporting honestly because they don't report every single Palestinian death at the hands of the IDF; I'm quite certain that they don't report every Israeli death at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers and other terrorists either. I would venture to say that the BBC may have better things to do than supply up-to-date statistics on exactly who is being killed in the middle east and when. It's a tiresome, drawn-out issue, and it really would not surprise me in the slightest if many media entities would prefer to just avoid it altogether, because it seems as though no matter what they report, they'll take flak from someone.

Ilan posted a very rational and valid criticism of the BBC and how they chose to censor a journalist with pro-Israeli bias but neglected to do the same with an anti-Israeli journalist. This issue is completely divorced from the particulars of which killings they do and do not report. We're talking about what appears to be favouritism on part of the BBC's entire management, which has the potential to be far worse than the slant of a single reporter.

Again, I don't think any of us are trying to imply that Israel is innocent, which is how you seem to be interpreting the situation. It's simply a well-deserved criticism of the BBC. If you have other articles and links which criticize CNN and Fox then you can feel free to post those too. Although I don't think it's necessary, since we already know that CNN and Fox are a joke - I think a lot of people expect the BBC to be a little more objective, which is where the significance of his article really lies.

I just think your retort at the article he posted was uncalled for. If you wanted to post examples of how the BBC was actually showing pro-Israeli bias as opposed to anti-Israeli bias, then that would have been fine, but there's no need to get emotional about it. If you have a rational rebuttal to his article then great, post it - but I don't think that posting slurs against CNN and Fox are really helping your side of the debate.

But I'll admit, I came into this thread a little late, so I'm not positive what kind of history you all have. All I could see was Ilan posting what appeared to be a fairly-written article and you trying to shoot it down with an angry retort. I'm sorry if I've managed to misinterpret the situation, I just think we're heading down the wrong path if our aim is to have an intelligent discussion.

I'm simply criticising "Honest" Reporting for having their own bias. I strongly disagree with your claim that it's unfair to say that the BBC is not reporting honestly because they don't report every single Palestinian death at the hands of the IDF. I'm not asking them to report every single death. But they don't even report large amounts of deaths that are happening now. Yesterday the BBC reported one Israeli settler's death. But the BBC failed to report 12 Palestinians who were killed in one week. My point is that I accuse the BBC of being increasingly more biased against Palestinians than it is against Israelis. It views Palestinian blood as less precious than Israeli blood. My other point is that "Honest" Reporting is also a biased joke. I find it disturbing that "Honest" Reporting doesn't criticise BBC for that.

First and foremost, great posts DigiNut. Very clearly written, for those who aren't so clearly seeing the problem (...or so they make it seem).

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian The BBC also needs to actually report the many Palestinians that were killed in the past month and the current seige of Nablus that left 15 killed this week and of all the Palestinians that were beaten up and handcuffed to trees and left alone last month at a checkpoint. And of the Palestinian that was bitten by an IDF dog all over his body and face. In reality, the BBC is also disgustingly anti-Palestinian biased since it has failed to report on these incidents.

Sources to some of these entertaining fallacies would be helpful to you right about now!

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King This "honest" reporting thread is a joke... Not only does it pick and choose exactly what they need to fufill thier agenda, they hold only once stance, a biased one where Israel is made to look innocent.

Exactly it's point! It was created to expose an extreme upsurge of anti-Israel sentiment in the mainstream media! It's dangerous and I�m extremely happy to see people standing up to this powerful wave of plain and simple hatred! As has been pointed out to you in the past - on numerous occasions I might add... they are not hiding their agenda from anyone. Their own website clearly states their objectives in raising awareness to such issues currently tainting the mainstream media as the ones I have posted throughout this thread.
*CLICK HERE* I'll make it easy for you to get to the link this time... I�d hate to see you recycle those same baseless arguments...again! *CLICK HERE*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.