It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK upholds complaints on Press TV anti-Israel bias

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

UK upholds complaints on Press TV anti-Israel bias



Ofcom, the UK broadcasting authority and communications regulator, has upheld complaints of anti-Israel bias against the English-language Iranian broadcasting service Press TV.

Following complaints from the public, Ofcom investigated four programs hosted by MP George Galloway, which were all broadcast during the Gaza offensive in January.


Source (JPost)




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I'm glad about this. We get some weird news channels in the UK nowadays, and while it's good to get a different country's perspective on things I think it's wrong that what is essentially the Iranian government's mouthpiece should not be subject to the same impartiality rules as British broadcasters.

No doubt some ATS members will claim that this was a Zionist campaign to silence dissent, but I support this decision, and I was personally horrified by some of the blatant anti-Israel agenda driving a lot of the news during Operation Cast Lead.

I wonder what the result of this will be? I doubt Press TV will be taken off air, they'll probably be hit with a fine and carry on as usual.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Anti-Israeli bias is code talk for telling the truth about Israel for a change....Im sure the pro Israeli bias for years far outweighs the anti-israeli aswell.No doubt organizations ie lobbyists like Friends of Israel which is the UK equivalent of AIPAC had absolute nothing to do with Ofcoms decision.Utter twaddle



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Well, that was predictable. Zionist conspiracy!

If your idea of responsible journalism is covering one side of a debate, using the harshest and most volatile terms imaginable (genocide, war crimes, slaughter, etc) without even attempting to represent the other side of the argument (there are usually at least two sides to a story, you know), then I guess Press TV is the news channel for you.

What's also interesting is that you seem to think that no-one would support Israel or be offended by coverage such as Press TV's without being part of the all-powerful Jewish lobby. You have your opinion, it's the only one that's valid, and anyone that doesn't agree with it is up to no good or part of a conspiracy.

Carry on.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by mattpryor]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
This shouldn't suprise anyone. The )ews have survived since the times of babylon through manipulating and backstabbing their host nations. Suppression of the truth is minor compared to what they usually do.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by fapython
 


At least this poster makes his/her blatant hatred of Jews apparent for all to see. Usually it's more subtle.

I'm still surprised that this sort of hate speech goes unchecked. Posts like this put the whole of ATS in danger.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
What Israel did to the Palestinians earlier this year was deplorable and they deserved all the negative press they got/get. This has nothing to do with being anti Jew. Nothing at all!

What this actually boils down to is Israel using the race card and strategically placed lobbyists to suffocate and bury any valid criticism of their offensive. It's called deflection and anyone with half a brain see's it for what it is.

IRM



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 

How is it hate speech, if it comprises of nothing but truth ?
I am nothing more then )ew-Wise, after examining all the evidence it is my opinion that )ews, or an elite group of )ews control this world.
Why would so many nations expel them in the past then.
They have caused all the world revolutions in the past
they have been the sole reason our civilisation is in the sorry state that it is.
We only have to look at the protocols to realise there aim. and yes, before you go blabbing how it is a proven forgery and a fake written to spite the )ews. Know this, it was written before any world wars, it predicted those 2 wars and has predicted every single event that has happened within the last centuary. So it is either A) Truth or B) Written by a psychic. * there was a copy in the British Meuseum in 1906.*Edit

You would think that being on ATS people would be a little more open minded, and look outside the information they;ve been indoctrinated with over the years. Is it really so hard to believe that this group is nefarious and wants to destroy our civilisation ?


[edit on 4/8/09 by fapython]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
A summary of the Protocols of Zion, For all Those who dont know of it



  • 1 Alcoholism, Annihilation of the privileges of the non-Jewish aristocracy, among other topics.
  • 2, 9, 12 The propagation of ideas, such as Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Utopianism, with the task of undermining established forms of order.
  • 4 Materialism
  • 5 World government
  • 7 World wars
  • 10 Staging catastrophes against one's own people, then claiming a moral high ground for leverage (False flag)
  • 11 Universal suffrage
  • 11, 12, 17 Curtailment of civil liberties with the excuse of defeating the enemies of peace
  • 13 Creating the impression of the existence of freedom of press, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, all of which are subsequently undermined and become mere illusions or deceptive smokescreens behind which actual oppression lies
  • 14 Distractions
  • 14, 17 Pornographic literature
  • 16 The destruction of Christianity, Islam and other religions and cultures, followed by a transitional stage of atheism, followed finally by the hegemony of Judaism
  • 20 Brainwashing
  • 21 Economic depressions
  • 22 Undermining financial systems by foreign loans, creating national bankruptcy, destroying money markets and replacing them with government credit institutions
  • 23 Justification of previous acts of evil and expectation of a great new society
  • 24 Reduction of the manufacture of articles of luxury, destruction of large manufacturers, prohibition of alcohol and hashish, unleashing forces of violence under the mask of principles of freedom, only to have the 'King of the Jews' demolish those very forces to make him appear a saviour
  • 25 Training of the king, direct heirs, irreproachability of exterior morality of the King of the Jews

    Looks quite alot like this and last century, and from a document made in the 1860s with definte finish of 1906 that is supposedly a fraudulent document, it seems alittle odd that they mirror real events.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by fapython
13 Creating the impression of the existence of freedom of press, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, all of which are subsequently undermined and become mere illusions or deceptive smokescreens behind which actual oppression lies


People either see it or they don't.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by fapython
 


The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been widely debunked and exposed as a forgery and a plagiarism of "Dialogues in Hell" by Maurice Jolly. Its sole purpose is to spread anti-Semitism.

"Dialogues in Hell" was written in 1864 as an attack on Napoleon. It was copied, nearly word for word, as an attack on Jews.

The only people that believe that it is factual are either:

a) Stupid
b) Jew haters
c) Neo-Nazis
d) All of the above

I'll have a read through your other posts to decide which of these categories you fall into!



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by fapython
 


The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been widely debunked and exposed as a forgery and a plagiarism of "Dialogues in Hell" by Maurice Jolly. Its sole purpose is to spread anti-Semitism.

"Dialogues in Hell" was written in 1864 as an attack on Napoleon. It was copied, nearly word for word, as an attack on Jews.

The only people that believe that it is factual are either:

a) Stupid
b) Jew haters
c) Neo-Nazis
d) All of the above

I'll have a read through your other posts to decide which of these categories you fall into!



Precisely the answer one would expect from a person who is too shallow or close minded to see the truth. You have done nothing but re-iterate the concealing claims made by the Jews to cover their tracks. Then when you have no further evidence you resort to try and assassinate my character, a common soviet technique to quieten people who don't have their opinion.
so you are either one of these

A) a Zionist who believes Jews are superiour to all other races and rule the world
B) a nincompoop rascal who has the intelligence of a retarded imbicile.
C) Someone who is too heavily indoctrinated to see anything but what they have been led to believe
D) All of the above


It beggars belief that one can be as closed minded as you as to deny the evidence that has been with us since the time of bablyon. You my friend, are nothing but an indoctrinated fanatic.

and for the record, just because someone is of the opinion which differs from the masses, does not make them a member of the 3 groups you have put up. Just reflect on that



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by Solomons
 


Well, that was predictable. Zionist conspiracy!

If your idea of responsible journalism is covering one side of a debate, using the harshest and most volatile terms imaginable (genocide, war crimes, slaughter, etc) without even attempting to represent the other side of the argument (there are usually at least two sides to a story, you know), then I guess Press TV is the news channel for you.

What's also interesting is that you seem to think that no-one would support Israel or be offended by coverage such as Press TV's without being part of the all-powerful Jewish lobby. You have your opinion, it's the only one that's valid, and anyone that doesn't agree with it is up to no good or part of a conspiracy.

Carry on.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by mattpryor]


From wikipedia - (I know)

The Gaza War, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by Israel, and known as the Gaza massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab world,[17] began on December 27, 2008, when Israel launched a military attack on the Gaza Strip. The stated aim of the operation was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel and arms smuggling into Gaza.[18]

Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.[19] More than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, 4000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless, and 80 government buildings were hit.[20]

The Israeli operation began with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip, targeting Hamas bases, police training camps, police headquarters, and offices. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities, and schools, were attacked and destroyed, according to Israel because many of them were being used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets.


Sounds like genocide, war crimes and mass slaughter etc to me

Even some Israeli's admit it see the following articles on

israelity.com...

top of one article
One of the most heartbreaking tragedies of the recently completed Operation Cast Lead is the story of Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish, a Palestinian gynecologist from Gaza City who works at Israel’s Sheba Hospital near Tel Aviv.

Abuelaish, a fluent Hebrew speaker and known among his colleagues as an advocate for peace and coexistence, had been a regular interviewee on Israeli news broadcasts during the 22 days of war. On Friday night, three of his daughters were killed by an Israeli shell at the Abuelaish home. The IDF said gunfire had emerged from the home, a claim Abuelaish denies.

What set this tragedy apart from the other innocent Palestinians and Israelis who were killed during the war is that it played out on television According to a report by Ben Lynfield in The Independent, Abuelaish’s raw anguish -captured live on Channel 10 – forced Israelis to take their first real glimpse of the suffering and death caused to Palestinian civilians



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Hmm,well sure press TV is biased against Israel,so I can see where the compliants came from...BUT,if pressTV is going to get busted,then the BBC news channel should also be busted for its constant Pro Israeli stance.
After all they are supposed to be impartial-its in thier mission statement.
If the BBC were to be believed then all Palestinians are terrorists,and Israel is just great.
This actually pushes people towards more fringe websites,where anti Israel sentiment is common.
So come on BBC,lets have some balance please.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


The BBC is institutionally biased against Israel though.

Jeremy Bowen was recently removed from his post as Middle East correspondent following an internal ruling by the BBC trust that his reports on the 1967 war were biased in favour of the Palestinian narrative. And that was only after several years of lengthy complaints procedures and the BBC trying to bury the issue.

BBC online consistently publishes articles that put Israel in a bad light, often leaving the Israeli POV to the last paragraph, whilst ignoring stories to do with Palestinians that do not involve Israel.

1.8 million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan had their Jordanian citizenship revoked a week or so ago. No mention of that on the BBC. Seems like big news to me, but not so for the BBC because it isn't Israel's fault.

Fair an accurate? No way. Biased in favour of Israel? Quite the opposite.

It just happens that your own bias is even more extreme than the BBC's, which makes the BBC's coverage seem biased in the other direction!



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnb
Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.[19] More than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, 4000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless, and 80 government buildings were hit.[20]


1,166 and 1,417 people is a tragedy and it is very sad. War is brutal, inhumane and messy. One day the civilized world may be able to live peacefully without war. At the moment that isn't the case.

However, War != Genocide.

This is genocide.

So is this

And so is this.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 


If the BBC were anti israel they would have mentioned one critical fact that the israeli mouth pieces they let on kept lying about and repeating...that the cease fire was broken and the conflict started via an israeli airstrike...nope didn't hear that from the BBC.Quite an important fact to not mention when interviewing the israeli spokes people,especially when they blatantly lied again and again by saying hamas started it.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
From Jpost article




In a bulletin released on its Web site yesterday, Ofcom ruled that the channel had breached the Communications Act of 2003 by allowing presenter Mr. Galloway, head of the Respect political party, to hold a chat show that addressed Israel's actions in Operation Cast Lead earlier this year without portraying the Israeli side of the conflict.


Damn, you see that type of crap everyday on FOX News which has earned them the honorable title of FAUX news! This is once again another liberty lost for the people of the UK but then again, if any news channel here in the US were to pull such a feat as Galloway did, the AIPAC would be all over this like a bad odor on feces. If it were to happen in Canada, then it would be the B'nai Brith that would be all over it.


It seems that giving a voice to the Palestinians is just impossible in the main stream media.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mattpryor
 





It just happens that your own bias is even more extreme than the BBC's, which makes the BBC's coverage seem biased in the other direction!


On what do you base that assumption?
I am not saying you are right or wrong,but to reach that conclusion from what I posted seems a touch abrupt.

Bowen was dismissed for being pro-palestinian,has any BBC journo ever been dismissed for being pro Isreali,I wonder?

I still say from what coverage I see,the BBC seem to be pro Israeli.
How that makes me anti-Israeli or anti Palestinian I fail to notice.
Cheers,SS



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 


Or, to put it another way, my own bias towards Israel could make the BBC seem bias in the other direction. It's a fair point, and I apologise for the abruptness of my response.

I was trying to point out that media bias is a subjective thing, and is entirely dependent on the observer's own viewpoint.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join