Want to know why coverage of Israel is so biased - it is because the reporters are biased against Israel - read and weep
Vultures AP, AFP reporters trash Israel in secret Facebook group
A “secret” Facebook group of foreign correspondents and human rights activists quickly devolved into an anti-Israel hate-fest on Tuesday following the release of a new Israeli government report that cleared the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of wrongdoing in the 2000 death of a Palestinian boy.
The Israeli government report contests the claim that the IDF killed a Palestinian boy, Muhammad al-Durrah, in a famous 2000 incident in Gaza that helped ignite the Second Intifada.
Journalists and activists mocked the report, attacked the IDF, and claimed pro-Israel lobbyists were influencing the media coverage, in a private Facebook group for foreign correspondents known as the “Vulture Club.”
Peter Bouckaert, a senior official at Human Rights Watch, dismissed the report as “typical IDF lies.” . . . Associated Press photojournalist Jerome Delay wrote, “The IDF thinks the earth is flat, btw.”
The journalists also took shots at Philippe Karsenty, a French media analyst who was sued by France 2 television after he accused the network of airing staged footage of the al-Durrah incident.
“And fuck no, it’s not true that ‘Everyone in France knows the footage is a hoax,’ as Karsenty says,” wrote AFP reporter Marc Bastian. “Everyone here knows that [France 2 journalist Charles] Enderlin is an honest man, and Karsenty is an extremist.” . . . full article: freebeacon.com/vultures/
Anti-Israel Journalists Exposed: Vultures and Human Shields: A group of supposedly objective reporters and human rights advocates get together in a closed Facebook group to bash Israel while video footage shows how some journalists allow themselves to be used as “human shields” to protect Israel’s enemies.
More News from the BIAS-sphere, otherwise known as the BEEB
More evidence of BBC double standards on terrorism
In a ninety word article dated June 14th 2013, the BBC rightly used the word ‘terrorist’, or versions of it, no fewer than five times.
But no – this is not ‘man seen on white donkey in Jerusalem’ week, or even a sign that the BBC has at long last come to its senses and begun describing Hamas or Hizballah activity for what it is.
This article is about a subject much closer to BBC home – terrorism in Northern Ireland – and it shows once again that the BBC’s supposed aversion to “value judgements” as outlined in the editorial guidelines on terrorism is entirely relative – and politically motivated.
On Sept. 21 the Guardian published ‘Life in Palestine 20 years on from the Oslo accord – in pictures‘, which included the following photo: (photo omitted) According to the Guardian, Jews ‘stormed the mosque’, an incendiary and completely fantastical claim typically only advanced by the Palestinian Authority (and their extremist supporters) to characterize Jews who simply visit the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. Indeed, the site of Friends of Al-Aqsa (a pro-Hamas UK organization which advocates Israel’s destruction) had an almost identical claim on the same day.
Regarding the specific Guardian photo in question, it actually depicts (per Getty Images) Palestinians in Gaza City . . . Further, the Temple Mount compound is closed to non-Muslim visitors on Fridays and Saturdays. As Yom Kippur fell on Friday night, Sept. 13, at sundown, and ended at sundown on Saturday, “Jewish settlers” weren’t present at the compound, and obviously couldn’t have “stormed” the mosque.
The Guardian not only published a photo caption which was simply a lie, but, even more shamefully, actually used language that mirrored the propaganda of Palestinian terror groups whose goal it is, as always, to stoke riots and ‘spark’ violence. cifwatch.com/
and then there is the always reliably innacurate BBC and fact adverse Economist
Stealth Anti-Israelism from the British Media . . . The problem, however, becomes more acute when the fantasy emerges not from Egyptian sources that virtually no one takes seriously but rather from putatively respectable Western sources. Consider the case of the BBC’s “Learning Zone” website, an online resource for educators and researchers. In its brief synopsis of the Yom Kippur War, Learning Zone noted the following; “During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Egypt and Syria acted pre-emptively against Israel at the Suez Canal…”
The BBC’s summary is flawed on several levels. First, Syrian forces operated nowhere near the Suez Canal and were engaged in an area that was roughly 390 miles north of the Canal. More importantly, the Arab assault was an unprovoked surprise attack and Israel’s military posture on the eve of battle was anything but threatening. At war’s outbreak, Israel’s frontline positions along the Canal were manned by a paltry 500 soldiers and 3 tanks. Israel’s military prowess is known far and wide but the thought of 500 reservists making a mad dash for Cairo in a “Light Brigade,” Balaclava-like charge is a stretch even for the most imaginative. . . . Further evidence of fantasy finding its way into the stream of conventional discourse comes from that other British news stalwart, The Economist. In an article addressing Hamas’ growing isolation, The Economist notes the following; “Israelis still loathe Hamas, which carried out scores of suicide-bombings against Israelis in the early 2000s. Hamas, meanwhile, reviles Israel for its assaults on Gaza and its leaders.”
While the former sentence is accurate, the latter is pure drivel. The Hamas charter, which reads like Mein Kampf on steroids and is filled with a combination of hate-filled vitriol and Islamist dogma, was written and adopted by Hamas well before Israel’s “assaults on Gaza and its leaders.” Hamas does not need an excuse to hate Jews. Anti-Semitism is an integral part of their philosophy and ideology. . . . frontpagemag.com/2013/ari-lieberman/stea...
So you see it really isn't necessary to go to the hare sites frequented by a few of our fellow posters, you just have to goto the "respectable" media for bad information and out and out lies.
A Year of Biased Reporting: Why the New York Times Won
When HonestReporting readers were asked to choose the “winner” of the 2013 Dishonest Reporting Award, the prevailing displeasure was best summed up in a one-line email:
“The NY Times bludgeoned Israel all year.”
Much of the resentment focused on the paper’s op-ed section. A steady parade of commentaries disdainfully dismissing Israel’s Iranian anxieties certainly cemented the Gray Lady‘s award in the latter part of 2013. This wasn’t surprising. HonestReporting’s long-term study of the Times’s opinion section found similar problems in 2012.
But the NY Times built up a bona fide case to win this award even without the issue of op-eds.
The paper added a known anti-Israel conspiracy theorist to its editorial board, glorified stone throwers, raised questions about the way it corrects the record, and finished the year with a flourishing photo failure. None of the 2013 runners up such as the BBC, CNN, Haaretz, and others, came close to matching the tensions the Times stoked.
. . .
Why The New York Times Won the 2013 Dishonest Reporting Award
Glorifying Stone Throwers
Not once, but twice, the Times put stone-throwing Palestinians on a glowing pedestal. First was a March New York Times Magazine cover story about weekly protests at Nabi Saleh (accompanied by a photo slide show titled The Resisters).
. . .
Questioning Israel’s Right to Exist
Nobody questions, say, Japan’s right to exist. Denying Russian people their self-determination is anti-Russian. And invalidating inherent Irish national aspirations won’t score points among Irish people anywhere in world.
Yet the New York Times saw fit to publish a hefty 2,052-word commentary by Professor Joseph Levine in March arguing that it’s not anti-Semitic to question Israel’s right to exist. A Jewish state, asserts Levine, is “undemocratic,” while the trappings of statehood aren’t a big a deal anyway.
. . .
But the same rights the philosophy professor denies Jews are granted to the Palestinians. Self-determination? Jews need not apply.
A second op-ed calling for Israel’s demise was published in September. At face value, Professor Ian Lustick appeared to be calling for a one-state solution.
But a closer reading showed Lustick went beyond that to deny Jewish national aspirations.
. . .
Conspiracy Theorist Joins Editorial Board
In October, the Times announced the expansion of its editorial board. Newest members of interest to Mideast watchers include Israeli columnist Shmuel Rosner, former PA cabinet minister Ali Jarbawi, and the Iranian-born Professor Vali Nasr.
But also joining the board was an Egyptian writer who has spread anti-Israel conspiracy theories, Alaa Al Aswany.
Why is The New York Times Silent When Hamas Says to Harvest the Skulls of the Jews?
• Hamas TV tells Palestinians it is an "act of worship" to "harvest the skulls of the Jews," and the Times is silent.
• A Hamas official publicly declares it the duty of every Muslim to wage Jihad "to annihilate" the Jews of Israel, and the Times is silent.
• Hamas TV reenacts deadly stabbing and shooting of Jews, boasting of thousands of lethal attacks and vowing "this will never stop," and the Times is silent.
• The New York Times, the self-proclaimed "paper of record," habitually ignores genocidal anti-Jewish rhetoric.
• Such violent incitement whether expressed by Palestinian officials or in Palestinian media is newsworthy and a principle obstacle to peace.
This biased coverage is part of a pattern. CAMERA's six-month study of New York Times coverage found the newspaper consistently downplaying Israeli views and amplifying, or even promoting, Palestinian perspectives. Month after month, the newspaper obscured Palestinian attacks and Israeli deaths, diverting readers' attention instead to Palestinian casualties and acts of non-lethal vandalism by Israelis.
Can you believe it, our friends at the BBC caught out again?
Comparing the BBC’s coverage of two tragic stories from Gaza
Seventeen months ago the BBC gave extensive coverage to the story of a child killed in the Gaza Strip during the conflict between Hamas and Israel in November 2012. The corporation’s journalists rushed to promote an unquestioned and unverified version of the story of the death of Omar Masharawi – the son of a BBC employee – according to which he had been killed in an Israeli airstrike.
Months later, in March 2013, that already shaky story was shown to be even less rooted in accurate and impartial reporting when a UN report stated that the incident was most likely caused by a misfired rocket launched by one of the Palestinian terror organisations operating in the Gaza Strip. The BBC’s subsequent addition of a footnote to a report which had at the time appeared on its website for four straight months did little to correct the damage caused by the irresponsible and cavalier promotion of an inaccurate story which its journalists had not adequately verified, but which fit in with their own preconceived narrative.
Last week a two year-old child named Mohammed al Hamadin died as a result of injuries he had sustained in an explosion on March 11th at his family home in Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip.
. . .
“According to media reports that the explosion, which occurred last week in the home led to the deaths of three young men who were working on the processing of homemade rockets.”
The fact that no mention of this latest incident of a child being killed in the Gaza Strip because of the actions of Palestinian terror organisations has appeared in any BBC News report will not come as much of a surprise to readers because the BBC habitually turns a blind eye to the many cases of Palestinian casualties caused by short-falling missiles and other terrorist activity of the type which resulted in the death of little Mohammed al Hamadin.
That state of affairs raises uncomfortable questions about which factors in a story relating to Palestinian casualties make it newsworthy – or not – as far as the BBC is concerned and why an incident in which a child was killed that does not further a preconceived political narrative is not told to BBC audiences.
"Months later, in March 2013, that already shaky story was shown to be even less rooted in accurate and impartial reporting when a UN report stated that the incident was most likely caused by a misfired rocket launched by one of the Palestinian terror organisations operating in the Gaza Strip. The BBC’s subsequent addition of a footnote to a report which had at the time appeared on its website for four straight months did little to correct the damage caused by the irresponsible and cavalier promotion of an inaccurate story which its journalists had not adequately verified, but which fit in with their own preconceived narrative."
An interesting analysis of the bias in reporting by the NYT
In-Depth Analysis: The New York Times, Washington Post & LA Times
. . .
we decided to compare the NY Times’ coverage to that of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. If coverage of Israel by all three papers was close, then perhaps the NY Times’ argument would have merit.
On the other hand, if the NY Times presented a different picture of Israel than the other papers, it would add to the evidence that it reports from a biased, anti-Israel perspective. How else could one explain that the NY Times covers Israel differently to other sources reporting on the same events?
So what did we find?
In every category we measured, the coverage of Israel by the New York Times was far worse than that of the LA Times and Washington Post.
Bias is often fairly subtle and the uninformed, casual reader is unlikely to notice. This is what makes purposeful bias by a sophisticated news organization so dangerous. (There are news outlets which hit you over the head with their bias, but no one should take Fox, RT, Press TV etc... seriously as news outlets)