Now I know why the English side with the Palestinians

fuck

This thread was just too painful to read... I really had to stop after a few posts...

I think my favorite part was when the OP mentioned that Byrnzie has no idea what's going on in the Middle East...

As far as I can tell, the OP needs to step back into reality for a few seconds...

timsinclair

Not all of us english suffer from this but some do as you rightly say. There's more to it though, European media is Extremely Anti-Israel, you guys have a more balanced view I think.

angelica

_outlaw wrote:

This thread was just too painful to read... I really had to stop after a few posts...

I think my favorite part was when the OP mentioned that Byrnzie has no idea what's going on in the Middle East...

As far as I can tell, the OP needs to step back into reality for a few seconds...

Not only that...but the OP is calling Byrnzie out for his inability to discern information on the subject, while the OP, himself, is making vast sweeping generalizations about the 'English'.

Byrnzie

timsinclair wrote:

Not all of us english suffer from this but some do as you rightly say. There's more to it though, European media is Extremely Anti-Israel, you guys have a more balanced view I think.

You think the European media is Anti-Israel? And that the U.S media offers a balanced view? Are you serious?

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/bbcmisleading.html
'The BBC's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "incomplete" and "misleading", including failing to adequately report the hardships of Palestinians living under occupation, an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors has found.

The report urges the BBC to be bolder in setting a policy for using the word "terrorism" to describe acts of violence perpetrated against either side and suggests a senior editorial figure should be appointed to "give more secure planning, grip and oversight".

The latest of several reports into contentious areas of the BBC's news provision, it praised the quality of much of its coverage and found "little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" but listed a series of "identifiable shortcomings".

Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the review said output failed to consistently "constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture".

The panel, which also included former ITN chief executive Professor Stewart Purvis, said the BBC should not let its own requirements of balance and impartiality become a "straitjacket" that prevented it from properly relaying the "dual narrative" of both sides.

In particular, it highlighted a "failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation".

On the emotive issue of whether acts of violence perpetrated against either side should be called "terrorism", the review said the BBC should use the term because it is "clear and well understood" and that once it had decided on a policy for the correct use of language it should be more consistent in applying it.

Like other major media organisations, the BBC regularly deals with a flood of complaints from both sides.

An internal BBC News review, led by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen, led to greater resources being allocated to the Middle East and the appointment of a specific editor, veteran foreign correspondent Jeremy Bowen. But the review said more should be done to provide a stronger editorial "guiding hand".

The BBC should do more to put the conflict in context for viewers, it said. This could include doing more to direct viewers to resources offering more depth and background. Too often, it suggested, news stories were chosen on the basis of the pictures available to accompany them.

The recommendations met with some disquiet among BBC News managers, who felt the appointment of a senior editorial figure to oversee all output on the topic would contradict the findings of a review following the Hutton inquiry.

"We are confident we have the right editorial structures and processes in place to provide high quality, impartial journalism and to ensure we continue to make progress in developing the authority and comprehensiveness of our output," said BBC News management in a statement.

The Council for Arab-British Understanding said "the panel quite correctly highlighted that there was little reporting of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in their daily lives".

Daniel Shek, of the British Israel Communications & Research Centre, said: "The report argues that the Israelis and Palestinians are not on equal terms, since the Israelis possess a fully functioning state and the Palestinians do not. It then implies that an imbalance in BBC coverage could be acceptable. If such an argument absolves the BBC from offering balanced reporting then it is a slippery slope towards biased coverage."

Deadly Distortion
Associated Press Coverage of
Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

'...In 2004, there were 141 reports in AP headlines or first paragraphs of Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been 108 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).
percentage of deaths reported by AP

During the same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines or first paragraphs. During this time, 821 Palestinians had actually been killed.4

In other words, 131% of Israeli deaths and 66% of Palestinian deaths were reported in AP headlines or first paragraphs.

That is, AP reported prominently on Israeli deaths at a rate 2.0 times greater than Palestinian deaths.

In reality, 7.6 times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis in 2004.

II. Coverage of Children’s Deaths

9 Israeli children’s deaths were reported in the headlines or first paragraphs of AP articles on the Israel/Palestine conflict in 2004, when 8 had actually occurred. During the same period only 27 out of 179 Palestinian children’s deaths were reported. (Children are defined by international law as those who are 17 and younger.)

Additionally, Palestinian children made up a disproportionately large number of Palestinian deaths in general. Children’s deaths accounted for 21.8% of the Palestinians killed, while children’s deaths accounted for only 7.4% of Israelis killed during this period.
actual number of children killed
actual number of children killed

22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children.

AP reported on 113% of Israeli children’s deaths in headlines or first paragraphs, while reporting on only 15% of Palestinian children’s deaths.

That is, Israeli children’s deaths were reported at a rate 7.5 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths.

Comparing running totals for actual deaths and reported deaths once again reveals that while AP’s reporting on Israeli children’s deaths closely tracks the reality, the reporting on Palestinian children’s deaths lags far behind the actual number, following a path similar to Israeli children’s deaths. This is in stark contradiction to the reality, in which Palestinian children were being killed at a rate over 22 times greater than Israeli children.

In order to discover the impact of repetitions on the study, we examined AP’s coverage of children’s deaths without counting repetitions. We found that AP repeated two Israeli children’s deaths once, and one Palestinian child’s death three times. Hence, not counting repetitions, AP covered 88% of Israeli children’s deaths – a rate of coverage 6.5 times greater than their coverage of Palestinian children’s deaths (of which AP covered 13%.)

III. “Clashes” – A Case Study of AP’s Diction

Many qualitative observations may be made about bias in news coverage. One interesting aspect is the terminology used by a news source in reporting on this conflict. We examined AP’s usage of the words “clash” and “clashes”. Of all the conflict deaths AP reported in 2004, 47 deaths were stated to have taken place during a clash. Every one of those 47 was a Palestinian death, which suggests a more unilateral violence than the word is commonly understood to convey.'

More on media bias in favour of Israel:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/bias.html

Byrnzie

timsinclair wrote:

Not all of us english suffer from this but some do as you rightly say. There's more to it though, European media is Extremely Anti-Israel, you guys have a more balanced view I think.

I notice that your first post on the message pit is on the Israel/Palestine issue. Weird!

NMyTree

sponger is embarrassing himself.

He came to a gun fight with a roll of toilet paper.

sponger

NMyTree wrote:

sponger is embarrassing himself.

He came to a gun fight with a roll of toilet paper.

Yes, in some twisted, imaginary world, it's important for people to save face on an internet message board.

It's apparent that people will only believe what they choose, and will achieve that end with a copy/paste filibuster rather than with their own wits.

If that's what you call a "gun fight", then by all means feel as proud as you like to be a "respected" moving train contributer, lol.

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

Yes, in some twisted, imaginary world, it's important for people to save face on an internet message board.

It's apparent that people will only believe what they choose, and will achieve that end with a copy/paste filibuster rather than with their own wits.

If that's what you call a "gun fight", then by all means feel as proud as you like to be a "respected" moving train contributer, lol.

It's just that I back what I say with source material and evidence, as opposed to just spouting unsubstantiated gibberish, and lies. That's all.

I blame it on my education. Maybe you should try getting one yourself sometime.

Heineken Helen

sponger wrote:

He goes, "Remember the IRA, and how they 'terrorized' England day after day?"

"Yeah."

He went, "Before 9/11, you Americans sympathized with the northern Irelanders. After 9/11, you Americans finally realized what it means to be terrorized."

sorry, but that's a pile of bollox. Using the IRA rhetoric... the English should be supporting Israel... cos the IRA, like the Palestinian 'terrorists', were initially set up to counter all the bad stuff that was being done 'legally' by the English... and to shut them up. It worked!

Byrnzie

For the benefit of those like Sponger who are confused about what's happening in the Middle East due to a concerted, and proven effort, by Western media to muddy the waters with half-truths, obfuscations, and outright lies...

http://www.mininova.org/tor/819069

spiral out

timsinclair wrote:

Not all of us english suffer from this but some do as you rightly say. There's more to it though, European media is Extremely Anti-Israel, you guys have a more balanced view I think.

You and i must be watching very different media then, because i only ever see support of Israel on the news here.

polaris

what a weird thread!

Byrnzie

spiral out wrote:

You and i must be watching very different media then, because i only ever see support of Israel on the news here.

Some analysis of BBC media bias in favour of Israel:

Bad News from Israel - July 15, 2004 By Greg Philo
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/8195


Bad News from Israel
Reviewed by Inayat Bunglawala

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2075
'This is a book that comes highly recommended. The veteran investigative journalist John Pilger has praised its authors as "pioneers in their field" and insisted that "every journalist should read this book; every student of journalism ought to be assigned it" (New Statesman, 28 June 2004).

In a remarkable and scientific study of the manner in which the main UK terrestrial news broadcasters (BBC and ITV) cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Professor Greg Philo and Dr Mike Berry of the Glasgow University Media Group, have detailed how that news coverage tends to promote the Israeli perspective while ensuring that viewers remain ignorant of the actual causes that lie behind that long-running tragedy.

To compile their data, the authors brought journalists, academics and ordinary viewers together to study the influence of news on public understanding. More than 800 people were interviewed and researchers examined around 200 news bulletins.

According to the authors, television news is the main source of information on the Israel-Palestine conflict for about 80% of the population. Their research found that on British television, particularly on BBC1, there was a preponderance of official 'Israeli perspectives'. Israelis were interviewed or reported more than twice as much as Palestinians. There were also a large number of statements broadcast from US politicians who tended to strongly support Israel. These in turn were interviewed twice as much as politicians from Britain, with the strange result being that many British viewers will perhaps have come to know more about the US position on the Middle East than their own government's position.

The most important of the omissions the authors found was the almost total lack of context and history in the reporting. Scant effort was made to provide information about the motives or rationale behind the actions of either side. The research reveals that television viewers - and one wonders, perhaps many British Muslims - are largely unaware of the origins of the conflict and are therefore confused by what they are told and see in nightly reports. There are substantial gaps in their knowledge, with few showing any awareness of the 1967 occupation let alone the 1948 founding of the Israeli state on Palestinian lands. Some viewers told the researchers they saw today's conflict as a border dispute between two countries instead of a modern regional superpower that had dispossessed much of the indigenous population and had been grabbing more Palestinian territory ever since.

How did this situation arise where dedicated news organisations have failed to impart the most basic information to their viewers? Senior BBC journalists told Philo and Berry that they were explicitly instructed by their news editors at TV Centre in Wood Lane, London, not to give explanations about the causes of the conflict - the focus was to be on "bang-bang action" (p102).

Because no historical background is provided - such as the Palestinians having lost their homes - in much of the news coverage there was a tendency for viewers to see the Palestinians as initiating trouble and the Israelis are then presented as "responding" or "retaliating" (p162).

The viewers are not told about Israel's ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, the increasing number of illegal Jewish settlements that are designed to exert military and strategic control over the Palestinians or the hardship caused by the Israeli expropriation of scarce water resources. There is little mention of the daily humiliations and economic deprivation endured by the Palestinians.

During a focus group discussion a middle class male from Glasgow explains how shocked he was when he heard that the illegal Jewish settlements controlled over 40 percent of the West Bank: "I had absolutely no idea it was that percentage. I was gob-smacked when I heard it. I saw them as small, embattled and surrounded by hostile Palestinians - that's entirely thanks to watching the TV news" (p220).

The authors also found a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though the Palestinians had suffered around three times the number of deaths as the Israelis). In one week in March 2002 which the BBC reported as having the most Palestinian casualties since the start of the second Intifada, there was actually more coverage on the news of Israeli deaths.

In a passionately argued comment piece for The Observer (20 June 2004), the former BBC Middle East correspondent, Tim Llewellyn, excoriated the BBC News Management saying that: "The [BBC news management] is, by turns, schmoozed and pestered by the Israeli embassy. The pressure by this hyperactive, skilful mission – and by Israel's many influential and well-organized friends - is unremitting and productive."

The consequence, Llewellyn says, is widespread viewer ignorance about the predicament of the Palestinians.

"That 37 years of military occupation, the violation of the Palestinians' human, political and civil rights and the continuing theft of their land might have triggered this crisis is a concept either lost or underplayed. Nor are we told much about how Israel was created, the epochal dilemma of the refugees, the roots of the disaster...The result is that the Israelis have identity, existence, a story the viewer understands. The Palestinians are anonymous, alien, their personalities and their views buried under their burden of plight and the vernacular of 'terror'. I am not confident of change. The reasons for this tentative, unbalanced attitude to the central Middle East story are powerful...The general BBC and ITN attitude is to bow to the strongest pressure. The Arabs have little clout in Britain, and their governments and supporters have much responsibility to bear for not presenting their side of the story and for abysmal public relations."

Philo and Berry point out, however, that the reporting is not universally biased in favour of Israel and single out Channel Four News for its attempts to tell a more balanced story to its viewers. The BBC correspondent, Orla Guerin, too, has been the target of pro-Israeli lobby groups for daring to give airtime to show images of Palestinian suffering.

The publication of Bad News From Israel has predictably attracted the ire of Zionists. In a dismissive review, the Jerusalem Post described the book as "a modest study conducted by an unknown academic" (2 July 2004). Apart from the honourable exceptions of The Guardian and The Observer, most of the UK press seem to have taken the decision to ignore this book's publication. In fact, this book represents the largest study ever undertaken in this area. Also, Professor Philo has been with the Glasgow Media Group for over 25 years and is the author of a number of publications including Market Killing (Longman, 2000).

In an area where there is so much disinformation and even calculated attempts to prevent the truth being given an airing, this is a vitally important book that will help remove the scales from a lot of peoples' eyes. Indeed, in an added bonus, the first ninety pages of this book are devoted to a superb concise history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the perspective of both Israeli and Palestinian sources. It is a gripping and frequently shocking read.

Pilger got it slightly wrong. EVERYONE who wants to know why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to generate such heat should buy this book. An essential and truly enlightening guide to arguably the world's most important conflict and the way it has been presented to us by TV news. You will never watch another TV news bulletin in the same way again. You may even decide to do something about the pro-Israel bias in much of the British media. Now that would really upset the Zionists.'

Flannel Shirt

How sweet would a live video chat forum be where you can schedule debates and shit online? Split screen face shots of the two debating. All you would need is a camera. Obviously there would need to be a moderator, and the questions could be submitted by viewers.

I'd watch these two verbally spar with one another. Then, the viewers vote for a "winner", and the loser cannot post for a week.

I came up with this because I am too lazy this morning to read the entire thread.

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

what a weird thread!

I dunno... seems just like every other Israel/Palestine thread to me :rolleyes: :cool: