NationStates Jolt Archive


are you sure you get the whole picture?

Green israel
03-08-2006, 12:57
there were many threads on israeli-lebanon subject, so here his another one.
there are some thought-worthy pointed in that article:
The media aims its missiles (OR The BBC aims its missiles)
By Tom Gross

Large sections of the international media are not only misreporting the current conflict in Lebanon. They are also actively fanning the flames.

The BBC world service has a strong claim to be the number one villain. It has increasingly come to sound like a virtual propaganda tool for Hizbullah, and as it desperately attempts to prove that Israel is guilty of committing “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” it has introduced a new charge – one which I have heard several times on air in recent days.

The newscaster reads out carefully selected “audience comments,” and among these we are told that “Israel’s attack on Lebanon” will serve as “a huge recruitment drive for al-Qaeda worldwide.”

But if anything is going to win new recruits for bin Laden and his like, it will not be Israel’s defensive actions, which are far less damaging than western TV stations have been trying to convince us, but the inflammatory and hopelessly one-sided way in which they are being reported by those very same news organizations.

While the slanted comments and interviews are bad enough, the degree of pictorial distortion is even worse. The way many TV stations worldwide are portraying it, you would think that Beirut has begun to look like Dresden and Hamburg in the aftermath of World War II air raids. International television channels have used the same footage of Beirut over and over, showing the destruction of a few individual buildings in a manner which suggests that half the city has been razed.

A careful look at aerial satellite photos of the areas targeted by Israel in Beirut shows that certain specific buildings housing Hizbullah command centers in the city’s southern suburbs have been singled out. Most of the rest of Beirut, apart from strategic sites like airport runways used to ferry Hizbullah men and weapons in and out of Lebanon, has been left pretty much untouched.

From the distorted imagery, selective witness accounts, and almost round-the-clock emphasis on casualties, you would be forgiven for thinking that the level of death and destruction in Lebanon is on a par with that in Darfur, where Arab militias are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of non-Arabs, or with the 2004 tsunami that killed half a million in Southeast Asia. In fact Israel has taken great care to avoid killing civilians – even though this has proven extremely difficult and often tragically impossible, since members of Hizbullah, the self-styled “Party of God,” have deliberately ensconced themselves in civilian homes. Nevertheless the civilian death toll has been mercifully low compared to other international conflicts in recent years.

A CNN MAN LETS SLIP

The BBC, which courtesy of the British tax payer is the world’s biggest and most lavishly funded news organization, would of course never reveal how selective their reports are, since this might spoil their campaign to demonize Israel and those who support her. But one senior British journalist, working for another company, last week let slip how the news media allows its Mideast coverage to be distorted.

“CNN Senior international correspondent” Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah’s “press officer” and that Hizbullah have “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”

When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program “Reliable Sources,” Robertson acknowledged that Hizbullah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hizbullah “had control of the situation,” Robertson said. “They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

Robertson added that Hizbullah has “very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access into those areas. You don’t get in there without their permission. We didn’t have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hizbullah fighter by night.”

Yet “Reliable Sources,” presented by Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, is broadcast only on the American version of CNN. So CNN International viewers around the world will not have had the opportunity to learn from CNN’s “Senior international correspondent” that the pictures they saw from Beirut were carefully selected for them by Hizbullah.


Another journalist let the cat out of the bag last week. Writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, Time magazine contributor Christopher Allbritton, casually mentioned in the middle of a posting: "To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one."

Robertson is not the only foreign journalist to have misled viewers with selected footage from Beirut. NBC’s Richard Engel, CBS’s Elizabeth Palmer, and a host of European and other networks, were also taken around the damaged areas by Hizbullah minders. Palmer commented on her report that “Hizbullah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see.”

Palmer’s honesty is helpful. But it doesn’t prevent the damage being done by organizations like the BBC. First the BBC gave the impression that Israel had flattened the greater part of Beirut. Then to follow up its lop-sided coverage, its website helpfully carried full details of the assembly points for an anti-Israel march due to take place in London, but did not give any detail for a rally in support of Israel also held in London a short time later.

IN AZERI AND UZBEK, PASHTO AND PERSIAN

The coverage of the present war by the BBC has been quite extraordinary, and even staunch BBC supporters in London seem rather embarrassed – in conversation, not on the air, unfortunately.

If the BBC were just a British problem that would be one thing, but it is not. No other station broadcasts so extensively in dozens of languages, on TV, radio and online.

Its radio service alone attracts over 163 million listeners. It pours forth its worldview in almost every language of the Middle East: Pashto, Persian, Arabic and Turkish. Needless to say it declines to broadcast in Hebrew, even though it does broadcast in the languages of other small nations: Macedonian and Albanian, Azeri and Uzbek, Kinyarwanda and Kyrgyz, and so on. (It doesn’t broadcast in Kurdish either; but then the BBC doesn’t concern itself with Kurdish rights or aspirations since they are persecuted by Moslem-majority states like Syria and Iran. We didn’t hear much on the BBC, for example, when dozens of Syrian Kurds were killed and injured in March 2004 by President Assad’s regime.)

It is not just that the supposed crimes of Israel are completely overplayed, but the fact that this is a two-sided war (started, of course, by Hizbullah) is all but obscured. As a result, in spite of hundreds of hours of broadcast by dozens of BBC reporters and studio anchors, you wouldn’t really know that hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been living in bomb shelters for weeks now, tired, afraid, but resilient; that a grandmother and her seven-year old grandson were killed by a Katyusha during a Friday night Sabbath dinner; that several other Israeli children have died.

You wouldn’t have any real understanding of what it is like to have over 2000 Iranian and Syrian rockets rain down indiscriminately on towns, villages and farms across one third of your country, aimed at killing civilians.

You wouldn’t really appreciate that Hizbullah, far from being some rag-tag militia, is in effect a division in the Iranian revolutionary guards, with relatively advanced weapons (UAVs that have flown over northern Israel, extended-range artillery rockets, anti-ship cruise missiles), and that it has a global terror reach, having already killed 114 people in Argentina.

The BBC and others have carried report after report on the damaged Lebanese tourist industry, but none on the damaged Israeli one, even though at least one hotel in Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, was hit by a Hizbullah rocket. There are reports on Lebanese children who don’t know where they will be going to school, but none on Israeli ones.

ET TU, TELEGRAPH?

The relentless broadcast attacks on Israel have led to some in the print media indulging in explicit anti-Semitism.

Many have grown accustomed to left-wing papers like the Guardian allowing their Mideast coverage to spill over into something akin to anti-Semitism. For example, last month a cartoon by the Guardian’s Martin Rowson depicted Stars of David being used as knuckle dusters on a bloody fist.

Now the Conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph, Britain’s best-selling quality daily, and previously one of the only papers in Europe to give Israel a fair hearing, has got in on the act. The cartoon at the top of the Telegraph comment page last Saturday showed two identical scenes of devastation, exactly the same in every detail. One was labeled: “Warsaw 1943”; the other: “Tyre, 2006.”

A politician had already given the cue for this horrendous libel. Conservative MP Sir Peter Tapsell told the House of Commons that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was “colluding” with U.S. President George W. Bush in giving Israel the okay to wage a war crime “gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw.”

Of course, there was no “Jewish quarter” of Warsaw. In case anyone need reminding (Sir Peter obviously does) the ghetto in the Polish capital, established in October 1940, constituted less than three square miles. Over 400,000 Jews were then crammed into it, about 30% of the population of Warsaw. 254,000 were sent to Treblinka where they were exterminated. Most of the rest were murdered in other ways. The ghetto was completely cleared of Jews by the end of May 1943.

ECHOING SCHINDLER’S LIST

The picture isn’t entirely bleak. Some British and European politicians, on both left and right, have been supportive of Israel. So have some magazines, such as the Spectator. So have a number of individual newspaper commentators.

But meanwhile anti-Semitic coverage and cartoons are spreading across the globe. Norway’s third largest paper, the Oslo daily Dagbladet, ran a cartoon comparing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to the infamous Nazi commander SS Major Amon Goeth who indiscriminately murdered Jews by firing at them from his balcony and was depicted by Ralph Fiennes in Steven Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List. (A month earlier Dagbladet published an article, “The Third Tower,” which questioned whether Muslims were really responsible for the September 11 attacks.)

Antonio Neri Licon of Mexico’s El Economista drew what appeared to be a Nazi soldier with – incredibly – stars of David on his uniform. The “soldier” was surrounded by eyes that he had apparently gouged out.

A cartoon in the South African Sunday Times depicted Ehud Olmert with a butchers knife covered in blood. In the leading Australian daily The Age, a cartoon showed a wine glass full of blood being drunk in a scene reminiscent of a medieval blood libel. In New Zealand, veteran cartoonist Tom Stott came up with a drawing which equated Israel with Al-Qaeda.

At least one leading European politician has also vented his prejudice through visual symbolism. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero wore an Arab scarf during an event at which he condemned Israel, but not Hizbullah, who he presumably thinks should not be stopped from killing Israelis.

THE ASHES OF AUSCHWITZ

It’s entirely predictable that all this violent media distortion should lead to Jews being attacked and even murdered, as happened at a Seattle Jewish center last week.

When live Jews can’t be found, dead ones are targeted. In Belgium last week, the urn that contained ashes from Auschwitz was desecrated at the Brussels memorial to the 25,411 Belgian Jews deported to Nazi death camps. It was smashed and excrement smeared over it. The silence from Belgian leaders following this desecration was deafening.

Others Jews continued to be killed in Israel itself without it being mentioned in the media abroad. Last Thursday, for example, 60-year-old Dr. Daniel Ya’akovi was murdered by the Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the terrorist group within Fatah that Yasser Arafat set up five years ago using European Union aid money.

But this is far from being an exclusively Jewish issue. Some international journalists seem to find it amusing or exciting to bait the Jews. They don’t understand yet that Hizbullah is part of a worldwide radical Islamist movement that has plans, and not pleasant ones, for all those – Moslem, Christian, Hindu and Jew – who don’t abide by its wishes.

(Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph. www.tomgrossmedia.com)
Hydesland
03-08-2006, 13:46
I don't understand how people still think that Israel are not targetting legitimate targets.
Laerod
03-08-2006, 13:55
That's hilarious! The Lebanese I hang out with refer to BBC as a bunch of pro-Israeli liars! :D
Green israel
03-08-2006, 18:35
That's hilarious! The Lebanese I hang out with refer to BBC as a bunch of pro-Israeli liars! :D
basically every group think the media make them look bad, but the article had some strong points.
Demented Hamsters
03-08-2006, 19:15
I don't understand how people still think that Israel are not targetting legitimate targets.
ummmm...maybe cause of things like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/30/mideast.main/index.html

a (IDF) raid that killed more than 60 civilians in Qana, Lebanon...The dead included 37 children.
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 19:23
ummmm...maybe cause of things like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/30/mideast.main/index.html

Could it also be because of the types of buildings that house their command structures? Could it be because of where they place their rocket launch pads as well? Could it be beause of where they store their weapons? Where they have their bunkers?

As the thread says, look at the whole thing. What causes those casualties?
WangWee
03-08-2006, 19:30
If I wanted biased crap for the mentally-stunted I'd watch Fox "news". If Fox news were a poster on NSG it'd one of those 11 year old yanks (or mental equivalent) who flood the forum with "MUSLIMSORZ Is teH SUCK!!!111!"
Hydesland
03-08-2006, 19:46
If I wanted biased crap for the mentally-stunted I'd watch Fox "news". If Fox news were a poster on NSG it'd one of those 11 year old yanks (or mental equivalent) who flood the forum with "MUSLIMSORZ Is teH SUCK!!!111!"

I guess you didn't read the article then. As it didn't say anything about muslims, only the hezbollah. Now you don't think that hezbollah represent muslim belief do you?
Green israel
03-08-2006, 19:47
If I wanted biased crap for the mentally-stunted I'd watch Fox "news". If Fox news were a poster on NSG it'd one of those 11 year old yanks (or mental equivalent) who flood the forum with "MUSLIMSORZ Is teH SUCK!!!111!"
and BBC would be the same thing from the opposite side.

what point you try to make by bashing fox news?
Neo Undelia
03-08-2006, 19:50
A fire buildings singled out? Sorry no.
I’ve seen the footage. Whole blocks are right the fucked up.
Teh_pantless_hero
03-08-2006, 19:53
Now if we can get other side story from a source not obviously biased in one direction who could care less about actual facts themselves.
Gravlen
03-08-2006, 19:55
The whole picture? Both sides are bastards. Different kinds of bastards, but bastards still.
Laerod
03-08-2006, 19:58
and BBC would be the same thing from the opposite side.

what point you try to make by bashing fox news?Because it falsely assumes the title of "news". It isn't. The articles I've read on there usually leave too much out and emphasize things that the target audience, conservative America, wants to hear. It's a good business plan, but not news.
Laerod
03-08-2006, 19:59
and BBC would be the same thing from the opposite side.

what point you try to make by bashing fox news?Nah, the websites my Lebanese friends were looking at would probably qualify for that.
Laerod
03-08-2006, 20:02
Could it also be because of the types of buildings that house their command structures? Could it be because of where they place their rocket launch pads as well? Could it be beause of where they store their weapons? Where they have their bunkers?

As the thread says, look at the whole thing. What causes those casualties?Is this the incident that Israel recently admitted was a mistake and that it didn't think there were civilians in the building?

(To be fair, there were less dead, about 28, by now plus those still missing)
Green israel
03-08-2006, 20:04
Because it falsely assumes the title of "news". It isn't. The articles I've read on there usually leave too much out and emphasize things that the target audience, conservative America, wants to hear. It's a good business plan, but not news.
claim which I may agree, but it isn't relevant here since the author was in the "Sunday Telegraph". fox has nothing to do with it.
CNN and other channels reporters gave examples in the article about the hizbulla demagogy.
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 20:04
Is this the incident that Israel recently admitted was a mistake and that it didn't think there were civilians in the building?

(To be fair, there were less dead, about 28, by now plus those still missing)

Accidents do happen in war unfortunately but I was not really talking about the incident in Qana.
Tactical Grace
03-08-2006, 20:05
The article fails to back up its claims. It's the old immature "Why didn't the liberal/conservative media report this?" attitude. Your story didn't get covered? Daaamn. I'm really feeling the pain. But hey, someone else did, so in the end, who cares? Not everyone has ears in every wall.

I have read the coverage on CNN and FOX too, and for the most part, it's the same events getting reported. FOX led with with kids getting killed too, and sounded every bit as outraged as the BBC and CNN. BBC showed photos of Israeli cars riddled with shrapnel in a city square. CNN has the day-by-day diplomatic talks angle covered.

And if you really don't give a damn about human suffering on either side, and just want to know what the impact is on commodity prices and likelihood of interest rates going up, the Financial Times and CNBC are your friends.

There is no bias in the coverage overall, that is what matters. You have the free choice of reading what interests you most, and little right to criticise others for their choices.
Cluichstan
03-08-2006, 20:05
there were many threads on israeli-lebanon subject, so here his another one.
there are some thought-worthy pointed in that article:

Robertson's said on numerous occasions -- not just on Reliable Sources -- the Hezbollah led them around by their noses. He fully acknowledges, and has done so repeatedly, that those reports were slanted, but it was the only information available. So he reported it, all the while noting that Hezbollah propagandameisters were only letting them see the things Hezbollah wanted them to see. Nothing wrong with that, as long as he points out that that's what was going on, which he did.

Contrast that, though, with Peter Arnett's coverage from Baghdad during the first Iraq War, during which he reported just what Saddam's regime wanted him to report. That fuckstick got a Pulitzer. And Robertson's getting tagged for bias? Come now.
Green israel
03-08-2006, 20:10
Now if we can get other side story from a source not obviously biased in one direction who could care less about actual facts themselves.
so you see bias only in one side?
Nodinia
03-08-2006, 20:14
basically every group think the media make them look bad, but the article had some strong points.

Nope, it didnt.
Green israel
03-08-2006, 20:15
Robertson's said on numerous occasions -- not just on Reliable Sources -- the Hezbollah led them around by their noses. He fully acknowledges, and has done so repeatedly, that those reports were slanted, but it was the only information available. So he reported it, all the while noting that Hezbollah propagandameisters were only letting them see the things Hezbollah wanted them to see. Nothing wrong with that, as long as he points out that that's what was going on, which he did.

Contrast that, though, with Peter Arnett's coverage from Baghdad during the first Iraq War, during which he reported just what Saddam's regime wanted him to report. That fuckstick got a Pulitzer. And Robertson's getting tagged for bias? Come now.
I think robertson used in the article as example to the hizbulla tactics, rather than target for bias blaming
Kamsaki
03-08-2006, 20:21
I for one will continue to trust the Times, though it is complimented by the Guardian and Telegraph, my trawls online and the other UK news stations.

But even the Times, run by Rupert Murdoch's media consortium, remains critical of the Israeli offensive. They have to. To describe either side as anything other than misguided is political suicide.

England, in particular, sees too many parallels between our shambles of a venture into Iraq and the Israeli offensive. The notion that military conflict can defeat terrorism was never popular with the British, and the middle east crisis at the minute is perceived as two sets of irrational fundamentalists deliberately trying to inflame tensions between each other and anyone who gets in their way. We want it to stop, we want nobody to win and we want to do it immediately. They are going to sit down that table and talk if we have to force them to, since we refuse to let this joint effort by the IDF and Hezbollah to further pave the way to global conflict succeed in its aims.
Laerod
03-08-2006, 20:21
Accidents do happen in war unfortunately but I was not really talking about the incident in Qana.DM, the person you were quoting, was. I find it interesting that this incident is so unfortunate that Israel is reconsidering its strategy for assessing targets.
Laerod
03-08-2006, 20:22
claim which I may agree, but it isn't relevant here since the author was in the "Sunday Telegraph". fox has nothing to do with it.
CNN and other channels reporters gave examples in the article about the hizbulla demagogy.I misinterpreted your earlier post. Sorry. :)
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 20:23
DM, the person you were quoting, was. I find it interesting that this incident is so unfortunate that Israel is reconsidering its strategy for assessing targets.

I would in Israel's case. Despite popular belief, Israel is really trying to cut down on civilian casualties.
Green israel
03-08-2006, 20:24
I misinterpreted your earlier post. Sorry. :)
never mind :)
Teh_pantless_hero
03-08-2006, 20:25
so you see bias only in one side?
I see this as a bullshit thread based on a bullshit story from some one whose extreme bias is already known and is attacking other people's mild bias because it is biased.
I see hypocrisy disguised as balance and counterpoint, poorly.
Green israel
03-08-2006, 20:31
I see this as a bullshit thread based on a bullshit story from some one whose extreme bias is already known and is attacking other people's mild bias because it is biased.
I see hypocrisy disguised as balance and counterpoint, poorly.
he biased and Fox biased, but BBC aren't better and some of the caricatures regarding israel acts are antisemitist.
if you attack one side it wan't change the bias of the other.
Hydesland
03-08-2006, 20:33
I see this as a bullshit thread based on a bullshit story from some one whose extreme bias is already known and is attacking other people's mild bias because it is biased.
I see hypocrisy disguised as balance and counterpoint, poorly.

Him being biased doesn't stop a lot of the things he said being true.
Nadkor
03-08-2006, 20:46
If doing a history degree has taught me anything, and it has, it's that bias is not a reason to disregard a source. Much of what a source says may very well be true irrespective of any bias you may see in it.

And, frankly, I'm inclined to believe the BBC. Maybe what the World Service broadcasts in Israel or wherever is different to what BBC News broadcasts in the UK, but all I've seen is fair reporting of both sides.
Kamsaki
03-08-2006, 20:48
Him being biased doesn't stop a lot of the things he said being true.
His observations were indeed true; his explanations for them not so much so. Apparently, any criticism of Israeli action is anti-semitism. In fact, it is primarily in reaction to these claims that the criticism grows stronger.

The neurotic, diseased and violent Hezbollah are hiding behind citizens as a means of creating tragedy to further their own political agenda; on the other hand, it is globally perceived that the Israeli government is hiding behind its own tragedy of persecution as a means of furthering its own political agenda, and the fierce reactionary stance taken to any analysis of their tactics does nothing to improve this perception.
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 20:50
If doing a history degree has taught me anything, and it has, it's that bias is not a reason to disregard a source. Much of what a source says may very well be true irrespective of any bias you may see in it.

I can actually agree with this.
Teh_pantless_hero
03-08-2006, 21:14
he biased and Fox biased, but BBC aren't better and some of the caricatures regarding israel acts are antisemitist.
if you attack one side it wan't change the bias of the other.
If I havn't made one yet, I now create a Godwin adaptation that states "the longer a thread about actinos taken by Israel goes, the chance of some one accusing some one else who opposes Israel of anti-semitism approached 1-fucking-thousand."

Him being biased doesn't stop a lot of the things he said being true.
It does if what he says is based on counterpointing bias with bias instead of, you know, fact.


“CNN Senior international correspondent” Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah’s “press officer” and that Hizbullah have “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”
Let slip my ass, I watched this or something basically the same as this, he was walking around saying "Hezbollah lets us see the, or tells us to see that, it is obvious this is all coordinated."

The whole thing is bullshit stating their bias as fact by accusing the opponent of anti-semitism, which has been acknowledged by a mod of this site as not conducive of debate.
Hydesland
03-08-2006, 21:17
It does if what he says is based on counterpointing bias with bias instead of, you know, fact.

Would you please point out the things in the article that wern't facts (not the explenations why though as they are bias.)
Teh_pantless_hero
03-08-2006, 21:22
Would you please point out the things in the article that wern't facts (not the explenations why though as they are bias.)
The entire section where the author accuses Western sources of media bias as fact is not fact at all. A handful of reporters did not "let it slip," it is being acknowledged from the start, not denied at all. What do you expect when reporting from Beirut? Hezbollah controls the area and media disemmination.
Wait, that's the whole article. Look I just debunked the whole thing.

This whole topic is trolling.
Lunatic Goofballs
03-08-2006, 21:25
I have my doubts that the OP's article is showing the 'whole' picture. I think the surviving families of innocent people killed in this conflict on both sides of the border have a slightly different view of the picture.
Nodinia
03-08-2006, 23:16
he biased and Fox biased, but BBC aren't better and some of the caricatures regarding israel acts are antisemitist.
if you attack one side it wan't change the bias of the other.

Do you honestly think some fella in Australia thought "maybe I can sneak in the blood libel by using a glass of the stuff"? Get a grip man. Look at the venom of the stuff aimed at Blair and Bush.
Nodinia
03-08-2006, 23:28
Actually, that article gets worse the more I look at it.

For example, last month a cartoon by the Guardian’s Martin Rowson depicted Stars of David being used as knuckle dusters on a bloody fist.

"Is it the national flag of Israel?" "Yes". "Then fuck off please."

The cartoon at the top of the Telegraph comment page last Saturday showed two identical scenes of devastation, exactly the same in every detail. One was labeled: “Warsaw 1943”; the other: “Tyre, 2006.”

During Sharons term, did not a member of the Israeli cabinet liken an arab woman sitting in the ruins of her house to the experience of his grandmother in poland? Was there not an incident where a man played a violin at an Israeli chjeckpoint that caused similar disquiet amongst people within Israel?

At least one leading European politician has also vented his prejudice through visual symbolism. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero wore an Arab scarf during an event at which he condemned Israel, but not Hizbullah, who he presumably thinks should not be stopped from killing Israelis.

Apart from not believing that to be the truth re condemnations etc. there was a time when a particular scarf of Arab origin was a fashion item widely worn in the west.

In New Zealand, veteran cartoonist Tom Stott came up with a drawing which equated Israel with Al-Qaeda.

O thats just whining...really.
The Lone Alliance
04-08-2006, 00:06
The media do not only exist to report Violience.

They exist to CAUSE violience also.

Why? Because it makes the news.

A News show will make some unconfirmed rumor. (The throwing of the Quran into a toliet in Gutamano for instance) Broadcast it to the world.

Then when the riots start, they have free reports on that,
Ratings go up.
When a fight breaks out because of whatever they report, People watch. Ratings go up!

When they start mass hysteria over a stupid Virus that barely infects or kills 1% of the country that has it. (*Cough* SARS) RATINGS GO WAYY UP!!


The news media loves fear mongering, hatred igniting, and starting conflict.
It's what they life for. It's how they make money.

Next time you watch the news, Think, they're not reporting to inform you, they are reporting to either, anger, Frighten, or basicly anything to give them Free news from your reactions. It's all about the ratings.

Believe nothing you hear, when a reporter starts something that will lead to public outcry, his producer is thinking. (Free Bonus)
Nadkor
04-08-2006, 02:53
I can actually agree with this.

I think that's the first time on this forum that anybody has agreed with me and actually said it.

Thanks :)
Alleghany County
04-08-2006, 02:56
I think that's the first time on this forum that anybody has agreed with me and actually said it.

Thanks :)

I am also a student of history and sometimes have to use bias sources so I use bias sources from both sides. :D Samething when it comes to my Political Science papers. It is just impossible to find a non-bias source anymore.

And you are most welcome. :)
The Aeson
04-08-2006, 02:58
This logic makes my brain wonder...

There's a lot of threads about this so I should make another one?