NationStates Jolt Archive

Media bias study case: Tony Blair's speech on London bombings.

This (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks.blair.ap/index.html) is a CNN report on Blair's speech, which contains the following statements:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

..."I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots," Blair said. "As well as dealing with the consequences of this -- trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can -- you have to try to pull it up by its roots," he said.

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and [b]easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.

The bolded parts, the ones suggesting a link between the London bombings and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have been picked up and exploited by all the usual suspects. The anti-Israeli crowd made quite a celebration on them. The thing is, though, Blair have never said anything remotely like that in his speech. Someone made that stuff up and incorporated known falsehoods into the report. Who did it? Nope, not the CNN this time, but those who they got the report from: Associated Press, the world's leading news manufacturer.

After being flooded with complaints from people who actually listened to Blair, AP was forced to issue a highly embarrassing correction (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_bombings_corrective_1)

In a July 9 story about Prime Minister Tony Blair's comments on overcoming global terrorism, The Associated Press erroneously reported that he spoke of easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Blair did not specifically mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.


"Erroneously reported" is, of course, a code for "flat out lied" here, because its not a misprint we're talking about. Someone had deliberately put words into Blair's mouth that were not said.

Anyone still has any doubts as for who the media is biased against?

So for once, an american media company shows biased against a more right leaning political figure, and you think thats solid proof that the media is liberal?

As if.

The American media is a pack of dogs, and willing to lie and cheat BOTH sides.

"Erroneously reported" is, of course, a code for "flat out lied" here, because its not a misprint we're talking about. Someone had deliberately put words into Blair's mouth that were not said.

Anyone still has any doubts as for who the media is biased against?

I'm not sure I understand...Is this not the position of the "right wing" of the political spectrum? Is the easing of tensions between Palestine and Israel NOT on the agenda?

I thought that was always the goal, but HOW governments went about this goal was the question...am I wrong?

Or am I missing something? The AP somehow added a line about easing tenisons...and you say its baised to say that easing tensions is a goal?

I was under the impression that Mr. Blair would like to see peace between Palistine and Israel...Do you have information to contradict that?

This is disgusting. Especially since so many news organizations world wide use the Associated Press. O’Reilly is going to love this.

I'm not sure I understand...Is this not the position of the "right wing" of the political spectrum? Is the easing of tensions between Palestine and Israel NOT on the agenda?

I thought that was always the goal, but HOW governments went about this goal was the question...am I wrong?

Or am I missing something? The AP somehow added a line about easing tenisons...and you say its baised to say that easing tensions is a goal?
What is so difficult to understand? The AP lied, forcefully introducing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context where it didn't belong, thus allowing people like the Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat to claim that the London bombings are somehow Israel's fault.


I was under the impression that Mr. Blair would like to see peace between Palistine and Israel...Do you have information to contradict that?
So? How does it even matter?

What is so difficult to understand? The AP lied, forcefully introducing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context where it didn't belong, thus allowing people like the Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat to claim that the London bombings are somehow Israel's fault.


So? How does it even matter?


Frankly, I dont quite see the "lie".

Blair was referring to "the ongoing conflct in the Middle-East" as being a cuase for terrorism.
Now, either he is implying that the War in Iraq is a cause of terrorism, wich is unlikely, given his stance with Bush, or he is reffering to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Wich one was it?

Frankly, I dont quite see the "lie".

Blair was referring to "the ongoing conflct in the Middle-East" as being a cuase for terrorism.
Now, either he is implying that the War in Iraq is a cause of terrorism, wich is unlikely, given his stance with Bush, or he is reffering to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Wich one was it?
Of course you don't see the lie. :rolleyes:

Blair WASN'T referring to the "ongoing conflict in the Middle East AT ALL. Do read the "correction".

What is so difficult to understand? The AP lied, forcefully introducing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the context where it didn't belong, thus allowing people like the Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat to claim that the London bombings are somehow Israel's fault.


So? How does it even matter?

Again, I don't understand. Why do you attribute such negative emotions to this? It was retracted, clearly indicating their willingness to acknowledge that it was untrue, yet you attach malicious intent to it? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is talked about almost every day in the news, is it so hard to believe it didn't slip in out of context? (rhetorical question)

It matters because Blair was quoted as saying something he didn't...but seriously, would Blair deny he wanted just what he was misquoted as saying?

I'm asking you if you're saying Blair DOESN'T want easing of tensions, which would be a radical policy shift as far as I can see...or that he DOES and the AP quote is horrible somehow anyway.

You seem to be mad at Saeb Erekat taking political advantage of a typo, so why vent your wrath at the AP? Is it possible that you are simply venting at the AP?

Of course you don't see the lie. :rolleyes:

Blair WASN'T referring to the "ongoing conflict in the Middle East AT ALL. Do read the "correction".


Right..

Read it twice, even.

Did he say.."The underlying causes of terrorism"..and then mention the words.."ongoing conflict in the middle east".

Becuase if he did....what else could he have meant?

Right..

Read it twice, even.

Did he say.."The underlying causes of terrorism"..and then mention the words.."ongoing conflict in the middle east".

Becuase if he did....what else could he have meant?
For the third time: he didn't. Read the friggin correction, not the original "erroneous" report.

Blair did not speak of any Middle East conflict connection, it was inserted by AP. Do you get it NOW?

Blair said that "some of the critical issues in the Middle East" needed to be "dealt with and sorted out". Thats what the AP interpreted as reffering to the israeli-palestinian conflict. The entire interview can be heard here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/nb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4667123

The israeli-palestinian conflict is obviously the most critical issue in the Middle East. Its an understandable conclusion.

Again, I don't understand. Why do you attribute such negative emotions to this? It was retracted, clearly indicating their willingness to acknowledge that it was untrue, yet you attach malicious intent to it? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is talked about almost every day in the news, is it so hard to believe it didn't slip in out of context? (rhetorical question)
Sure, it was retracted, after the damage was done. The AP corrected themselves eventually, but those who got the original "erroneous" reports from them did not. The lie lives on.

It matters because Blair was quoted as saying something he didn't...but seriously, would Blair deny he wanted just what he was misquoted as saying?
If he wanted to say it, he would, now wouldn't he?


I'm asking you if you're saying Blair DOESN'T want easing of tensions, which would be a radical policy shift as far as I can see...or that he DOES and the AP quote is horrible somehow anyway.
Blair probably does want "easing of tensions", whatever that is. The question is whether he wanted to link the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the London bombings, and he obviously did not.


You seem to be mad at Saeb Erekat taking political advantage of a typo, so why vent your wrath at the AP? Is it possible that you are simply venting at the AP?
A typo??? Do explain how one can make such a "typo" without deliberate intent- twice in the same report.

What is with all this apologetic garbage for the media? They misquoted him completely, they lied on purpose. You can’t quote somebody as saying something just because you think that is what they are referring to. Just because they said they were wrong doesn’t make it all right.

Sure, it was retracted, after the damage was done. The AP corrected themselves eventually, but those who got the original "erroneous" reports from them did not. The lie lives on.

If he wanted to say it, he would, now wouldn't he?

Blair probably does want "easing of tensions", whatever that is. The question is whether he wanted to link the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the London bombings, and he obviously did not.

A typo??? Do explain how one can make such a "typo" without deliberate intent- twice in the same report.

So...If I understand you correctly...you're mad that the AP added a sentence to a speech that stated Mr. Blair's previous position of "easing tensions" in a vauge and decidedly non-specific way.

You're mad because you believe that this proves that the AP is biased towards peaceful relations of some kind in the future between two groups involved in a long-standing conflict. Something that Mr. Blair has previously and repeatedly worked towards.

...Am I missing anything? Or is that the entire reason you're mad, because the AP said "a little less killing please" where it shouldn't have?

What is with all this apologetic garbage for the media? They misquoted him completely, they lied on purpose. You can’t quote somebody as saying something just because you think that is what they are referring to. Just because they said they were wrong doesn’t make it all right.

They didnt misquote him. The quotes are accurate, its the analysis that is off. The only thing they quoted him as saying is:

"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots,"

and

"As well as dealing with the consequences of this - trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can - you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

Both of which he really did say. The rest is analysis which is where they made their error. They interpreted his refference to "some of the critical issues of the Middle East" to be a refference to the israeli-palestinian conflict, since it is the most critical issue.

The full interview they were reporting on is available here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/nb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4667123

Blair said that "some of the critical issues in the Middle East" needed to be "dealt with and sorted out". Thats what the AP interpreted as reffering to the israeli-palestinian conflict. The entire interview can be heard here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/nb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4667123

The israeli-palestinian conflict is obviously the most critical issue in the Middle East. Its an understandable conclusion.


Precisely my point.

If Blair was even hinting at "Middle eastern conflicts" and "Causes of terrorism" even if he didnt specifically mention Isreal, what other logical conclusions could be drawn, given his staunch support of Bush, and the Iraqi war?

Blair certainly isnt going to imply, even indirectly, that Iraq has exacerbated global terror.

I would like to read a full transcript of this speech, to see if the words "Middle eastern conflict" were even used, or implied.

At any rate, this is hardly a shining example of any sort of persecution towards the political right, or proof of liberal bias.

At best, this is the AP, putting thier foot in thier own mouth.

Precisely my point.

If Blair was even hinting at "Middle eastern conflicts" and "Causes of terrorism" even if he didnt specifically mention Isreal, what other logical conclusions could be drawn, given his staunch support of Bush, and the Iraqi war?

Blair certainly isnt going to imply, even indirectly, that Iraq has exacerbated global terror.

I would like to read a full transcript of this speech, to see if the words "Middle eastern conflict" were even used, or implied.

At any rate, this is hardly a shining example of any sort of persecution towards the political right, or proof of liberal bias.

At best, this is the AP, putting thier foot in thier own mouth.

There are more than 2 conflicts in the Middle East. Ever heard of Iran building a nuclear program; Saudi Arabia being swarmed with anti-government terrorists; Lebanon going through a rough, transitional phase; or Syria supposedly sending insurgents into Iraq? I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that if he wasn’t talking about Iraq, he must have been talking about the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Why couldn’t he be thinking of Saudi Arabia or Syria being a breeding ground for terrorists?

There are more than 2 conflicts in the Middle East. Ever heard of Iran building a nuclear program; Saudi Arabia being swarmed with anti-government terrorists; Lebanon going through a rough, transitional phase; or Syria supposedly sending insurgents into Iraq? I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that if he wasn’t talking about Iraq, he must have been talking about the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Why couldn’t he be thinking of Saudi Arabia or Syria being a breeding ground for terrorists?


He certainly could, however, remember that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been raging for decades now, and remains one of the longest running and bloodiest examples of day to day terrorism there is. Despite several attempts at peace, terrorist groups such as HAMAS have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that there will never be such an agreement, even if both countries leaders had found an agreement. Remember also that Yasser Arafat was known *during the 60s and 70s I believe) to reward the families (unofficially of course) of suicide bombers who attacked Israeli settlements, and IIRC, his connecion to the P.L.O., a known terrorist group, was pretty widely known.

So... he could have been speaking of plenty of things, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely sits in most people's minds as a rather prominent issue when discussing "peace in the mid-east".

There are more than 2 conflicts in the Middle East. Ever heard of Iran building a nuclear program; Saudi Arabia being swarmed with anti-government terrorists; Lebanon going through a rough, transitional phase; or Syria supposedly sending insurgents into Iraq? I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that if he wasn’t talking about Iraq, he must have been talking about the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Why couldn’t he be thinking of Saudi Arabia or Syria being a breeding ground for terrorists?

Because it doesn't make him look bad, and western governments only ever say what we want them to say to make themselves look bad. Aopparently.

Bah, this is more like a case of erroneous reporting than an outright lie, attempt to spread misinformation or deceitful bias.

He certainly could, however, remember that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been raging for decades now, and remains one of the longest running and bloodiest examples of day to day terrorism there is. Despite several attempts at peace, terrorist groups such as HAMAS have made it quite clear, repeatedly, that there will never be such an agreement, even if both countries leaders had found an agreement. Remember also that Yasser Arafat was known *during the 60s and 70s I believe) to reward the families (unofficially of course) of suicide bombers who attacked Israeli settlements, and IIRC, his connecion to the P.L.O., a known terrorist group, was pretty widely known.

So... he could have been speaking of plenty of things, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict definitely sits in most people's minds as a rather prominent issue when discussing "peace in the mid-east".

Very true, “Peace in the Middle East” is sometimes used as a euphemism for that one conflict. What I still think makes it unlikely that Blair would be speaking about it, though, is that I don’t see the connection to the London bombings. Both sides have shown the capacity and willingness to use force against the other side, but it has largely remained limited to those two. Are you saying that Blair implied a Palestinian group like Hamas came over to London to bomb the British people? Seems farfetched to me. I would, personally, conclude he was talking about the situation in Saudi Arabia or Syria because those satiations have shown a greater propensity for exporting terror than the Israeli-Palestinian one. That is, assuming he was even talking about the Middle East at all.

Very true, “Peace in the Middle East” is sometimes used as a euphemism for that one conflict. What I still think makes it unlikely that Blair would be speaking about it, though, is that I don’t see the connection to the London bombings. Both sides have shown the capacity and willingness to use force against the other side, but it has largely remained limited to those two. Are you saying that Blair implied a Palestinian group like Hamas came over to London to bomb the British people? Seems farfetched to me. I would, personally, conclude he was talking about the situation in Saudi Arabia or Syria because those satiations have shown a greater propensity for exporting terror than the Israeli-Palestinian one. That is, assuming he was even talking about the Middle East at all.


Actually, I think that the link would be drawn through 'terrorism' in general, not linking the London bombings to any particular group. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the longest running instances of terrorism being used as a war front. There has rarely been a true and all out conflict between Palestinian and Israeli military forces. I struggle to think of a single instance, though that doesn't imply the lack thereof. Instead, we have raids on border towns, suicide bombings and car bombs with staggering regularity. Until 9/11, the word "terrorism" invoked in most Americans the idea of that particular conflict, where people were dying on an almost daily basis. Indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains in most people's mind the very definition of terrorist forces.


As for the Saudi-Arabian conflict, I see that as a mostly civil issue. While I'm sure some groups are taking the fight to other nations, the issues there seem to be more against the established monarchy than the world or any other nation in general. Syria could be an issue, but the current internal strife seeminly prevents a large scale exodus into anywhere but Iraq, so they'd be pretty much tied directly into the Iraq issue, though on a minor scale. (i.e., the majority of people fighting in Iraq (I hesitate to call them "terrorists" or "insurgents") are of Iraqi decent, IIRC, not Syrian.) Iraq, on the other hand, is a mess, and I readily agree with that.