What is the evidence that the media is biased against Israel?

Diamond Cross · 11-28-2006, 08:15 PM

Journalists are supposed to be objective and independent, delivering reporting that is as close to the "real truth" as humanly possible. Journalists insist they belong to a profession that does just that. But, sadly, there often seems to be an unwarranted bias against Israel and in favor of Israel's opponents when covering events in the Middle East, a bias that ranges from blatant unfairness to much more subtle misrepresentation of Israel's situation.
This discussion does not include partisan publications that obviously advocate for one side or another. No one expects the Tehran Times (Iran) to have anything postive to say about Israel. Rather, the concern is with the elite media, the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC, among others, organizations that should represent the highest journalistic ethics but frequently fail to do so.
Some examples:

ABC's Nightline, in covering the March 27, 2002 suicide bombing in a Netanya hotel that had occurred just hours earlier, reduced the Israeli dead and wounded to mere statistics, while they gave Arab spokesmen free rein to portray the Palestinians as the real victims of terror attacks. Reporters rarely make clear that most Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism are innocent civilians, while most Palestinian casualties have been killed with weapons in their hands as a result of their participation in violence against Israel.
Andrea Koppel of CNN, in a report about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process which aired on October 16, 2000 said, "When Camp David ended without an agreement, Palestinian despair eventually led to violence." The reference to "dispair" implies little was offered by Israel at Camp David, when in fact most of the Palestinian demands were met. Reporters almost never ask Palestinian representatives, "Why did you resort to terror when an agreement was so close?" They rarely mention that President Clinton blamed Yasser Arafat for the collapse of the Camp David talks.
On a more subtle level, words are often chosen by reporters that bias the impression that news consumers will get from the account. For example, Palestinian terrorist killers are called "activists" or "militants". An Israeli anti-terrorist military operation will be called an "invasion" or "incursion". The term "occupied territories" is almost always used to describe the West Bank and Gaza, even though under the Oslo peace process Israel has withdrawn so that over 90% of the Arab Palestinian population has been governed by the Palestinian Authority for years. Even the nomenclature "West Bank" is misleading since that area that was historically Jewish Judea and Samaria until Jordan invaded and captured it during Israel's 1948 War of Independence.
News organizations and individuals have largely accepted the basic propaganda of the Palestinian Arabs. They accept "facts" that are not facts, probably out of ignorance of the history of the region. They refer to the "Palestinian National Authority" even though no such institution exists (Yasser Arafat inserted the word 'National' with no official standing), they say Israel violates international law when no such law applies, they speak of crimes by Israel under the Fourth Geneva Convention even though this is a complete sham, they talk of Palestinian oppression and humiliation in the "occupied territories" even though most Palestinians were better off economically and politically before the Palestinian Authority took over in 1994. And they repeat the Palestinian version of the meaning of UN resolutions like Security Council Resolution 242, an interpretation that the authors of the resolutions have disputed.

AP
Woman Staged at Security Fence, 7 Feb 2004

These examples are only the tip of a massive iceberg of biased reporting against Israel. Reasons have been advanced for such media bias and the best explanation would seem to be some combination of the following factors, operating in a different mix in the case of each individual journalist:

A three-month investigation of the foreign press in Israel concluded that some foreign correspondents do impose their private sympathies on the news they report
Palestinian intimidation of journalists and manipulation of the journalistic process in the areas they control has been rampant, although not well reported. In March 2001, Marwan Barghouti, leader of the PA's Tanzim militia, warned outright that any Israeli journalist who entered PA areas would be killed. Since then, most Israeli journalists either stay home or make sure to be accompanied by well-connected Palestinians. In 2003, Dr. Riyad Al-Hassan, the director general of the PA State Information Service (SIS), admitted in an interview that newspapers and journalists can be subjected to, "Sometimes a little punishment, [laughter] sometimes."
Ignorance of history erases the context of events and makes it easy to accept bogus claims.
Palestinians are perceived as the underdog, skillfully portrayed that way by propagandists. "Children with rocks against Israeli tanks" is a popular image, ignoring the rifles, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and more that are utilized against Israeli troops by Palestinian fighters lurking in the background.
The open, democratic Israeli society includes vibrant debate that uncovers weaknesses, failures and contradictions. Instead of seeing this as a strength, and a mirror of American values, the press often uses it against Israel. The autocratic, media-suppressed Palestinian Authority has been more successful in "controlling the message".
Because Israel is a western, secular, democratic society, the press and the public have higher expectations of Israel and therefore find fault more quickly when Israel is less than perfect.

For an excellent discussion of media bias and how to recognize it, see "What is Bias" on the Honest Reporting web site.
Sources and additional reading on this topic:

KinkL

Media Bias Against Israel

Note: the link to what is bias doesn't work.
Note: the link to "What is Bias doesn't work

RMNIXON · 11-28-2006, 08:26 PM

I would also credit the attitudes that come out of left leaning Journalism departments over the years. No doubt they reflect the overall negative bias at these colleges and if you don't think this has an effect on reporting I have a bridge to sell you. But I would also agree that we have higher expecations of Israeli behavior as a whole and that says alot about how we view middle east society!

Donkey® · 11-29-2006, 01:37 AM

And there are right leaning media outlets to counter-act this. Why do we keep having the same threads over and over? The media is biased one way or the other. Period.

Nonphixion · 11-29-2006, 09:41 AM

Your embedded links do not support your inaccurate and intellectually dishonest claims. The amount of money Israel pours into it's media PR firms is unprecedented and is unrivaled by any other cause.

I would rather trust the findings of an MIT Professor, with doctorate and experience in overall Linguistics, than the spewings of some intellectually dishonest internet poster.

Why the US media shouldn't be relied on for mideast coverage

Bob the Goat · 12-04-2006, 01:34 AM

"No one expects the Tehran Times (Iran), to have anything positive to say about Israel" just as Christian America with its evangelical end-time leanings tends to support Israel and doesn't have much positive to say about Arabs and Islam because Israel's struggle has religious implications for those Christians who would see the prompt return of Jesus. Iran and other Islamic /Arabic states have both religious and territorial differences with Judaism and Israel that have continued for three thousand years and were most recently exacerbated with the advent of the Balfour Declaration, (The British catalyst for the Zionist homeland movement), propounded before the 1st World War, 1914-1918.

Thorgrim · 12-04-2006, 02:10 AM

Journalists give the quick story, its hard to explain the long, but as Donkey and Nonphix have pointed out, Israeli lobbys the US Congress heavily and there is far more pro-IDF money in our news coverage than any other foreign influence

To your "points":

The kill ratio is very lopsided against palestinians, even with all their terrrorism they don't come anywhere near the number of Israeli subjects the IDF kills

The situation that caused Oslo to break down was a corrupt Fattah, which was constantly pushed by the Israelis to make them as corrupt as possible because they believed it would make them easy to control

Occupation is the correct word, the entire area was overwhelmingly palestinian for centuries, and Israel still controls the west bank, and goes where it wants with its IDF shock troops at will and arrest whoever they want at will, they have no real freedom
Incursion is the correct word because they supposedly tried to pull back from Gaza, but they still keep a long network of spies and agents inside, and every Palestinian knows a missile strike could be coming after lunch if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time even though Gaza was "withdrawn" from...

I've heard PA used 1000x, I've never heard PNA used

Nonphixion · 12-04-2006, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Bob the Goat

"No one expects the Tehran Times (Iran), to have anything positive to say about Israel" just as Christian America with its evangelical end-time leanings tends to support Israel and doesn't have much positive to say about Arabs and Islam because Israel's struggle has religious implications for those Christians who would see the prompt return of Jesus. Iran and other Islamic /Arabic states have both religious and territorial differences with Judaism and Israel that have continued for three thousand years and were most recently exacerbated with the advent of the Balfour Declaration, (The British catalyst for the Zionist homeland movement), propounded before the 1st World War, 1914-1918.

"Isreal and it's struggle" you mean the slaughter of thousands of women and children, as well as unarmed men? The Cloud of Autumn Massacre conducted by IDF snipers, that is a struggle??? IDF tanks deliberately firing 120mm shells on civilian apartment buildings, this is "Israel's struggle"?

These acts of Israeli aggression, these Israeli war crimes. Yes, if you consider the murder of 29 non-aggressive non-combatant civilians, 19 of them women and children "a struggle" on the part of the murders, on the part of the IDF. Then I would have to agree with your disgusting and inhuman views, Bob.

Diamond Cross · 12-04-2006, 07:34 PM

There are no facts of Israeli agression, just racist lies perpetrated by muslim and European fanatics. Yet you don't givew a damn about the war crimes committed against Israel and the loss of her civillian men women and children.

Stop the cries committed against Israel and Isaelo won't have a reason to act to protect itself.

Thorgrim · 12-04-2006, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

There are no facts of Israeli agression, just racist lies perpetrated by muslim and European fanatics. Yet you don't givew a damn about the war crimes committed against Israel and the loss of her civillian men women and children.

Stop the cries committed against Israel and Isaelo won't have a reason to act to protect itself.

Sabra and Shatila massacresâ€”why do we ignore them? - Global Issues

Diamond Cross · 12-04-2006, 08:40 PM

The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre; Arabic: صبرا وشاتيلا) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias against Palestinian refugee camps. The Maronite forces stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who would later become a longtime Lebanese parliament member and in the 1990s also a cabinet minister. The number of victims of the massacre is estimated at 700-3500 (see below).

The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli Defence Forces throughout the incident, although the Israeli military personnel who were there stated that they had no idea of what was going on inside. The degree to which the Israeli military was involved in the incident is a matter of controversy (see below).

Sabra and Shatila massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thorgrim · 12-04-2006, 08:46 PM

From your own article:

At one point, a militiaman's radioed question to his commander Hobeika about what to do with the women and children in the refugee camp was overheard by an Israeli officer, who heard Hobeika reply that "This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; you know exactly what to do". Phalangist troops could be heard laughing in the background.[8] The Israeli officer reported this to his superior General Amos Yaron, who warned Hobeika against hurting civilians but took no further action. Lt. Avi Grabowsky was cited by the Kahan Commission as having seen (on that Friday) the murder of five women and children, and gave a hearsay report of a battalion commander saying of this, "We know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere." Israeli soldiers surrounding the camps turned back Palestinians fleeing the camps, as filmed by a Visnews cameraman.

^^^ Pretty vile and disgusting, sending women and children back to their deaths when the Israeli officers knew what was going on

Diamond Cross · 12-04-2006, 08:59 PM

Yet:

The Israeli officer reported this to his superior General Amos Yaron, who warned Hobeika against hurting civilians but took no further action.

Since Hobeika didn't do anything, it was his responsibility. Not the Israelis. Hobeika should've stepped in but did nothing. The fault is his, not the Israelis.

Thorgrim · 12-04-2006, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Yet:

The Israeli officer reported this to his superior General Amos Yaron, who warned Hobeika against hurting civilians but took no further action.

Since Hobeika didn't do anything, it was his responsibility. Not the Israelis. Hobeika should've stepped in but did nothing. The fault is his, not the Israelis.

So, if the Taliban warned bin Laden not to hurt Americans, they are blameless for 9/11? I guess we shouldn't have attacked them

You really think the Israelis did nothing wrong?

Diamond Cross · 12-04-2006, 09:34 PM

You're the one that's stating Israel's to be blamed for the whole incident, and wrongly. The world court cleared Israel of any wrong doing as well.

Thorgrim · 12-05-2006, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

1 You're the one that's stating Israel's to be blamed for the whole incident

2 The world court cleared Israel of any wrong doing as well.

1) No I didn't

2) Link?

Diamond Cross · 12-05-2006, 01:59 AM

On September 24, 2003, Belgium's highest court dismissed the war crimes complaints against Ariel Sharon, ruling there was no longer a legal basis for the lawsuit.

From the very same article.

Thorgrim · 12-05-2006, 02:10 AM

Saying there is no legal basis != they are innocent

There was no legal basis for the Nuremburg trials, but we still hung the Nazis...I doubt anyone would call them "innocent"