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.

 

The myth of the pro Israeli bias in foreign media- From my (an Israeli) point of view.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I first encountered the myth of the pro Israeli media bias while reading and commenting in this forum.

I'll be honest with you- I don't watch foreign news, I barely even watch Israeli news, but from the little I've seen, and the little I've heard, it always seemed like the media in general was always against Israel, and not for it.
This is, actually the more common opinion in Israel- The international media is biased against Israel.

It is hard to justify the amount of news coverage given to Israel based on that nation's importance in world affairs or American national interests. How is it that a country the size of New Jersey routinely merits top billing over seemingly more newsworthy nations like China, and its actions in Tibet? North Korea Vs. South Korea?
It seems like no one cares that North Korea blew up a South Korean boat just because it sneezed in their direction, or murders by the Chinese in Tibet, but this flotilla gets covered to death from the moment of its inception, to the moment of its interception.

It seems like America has more correspondents in Israel than in any other country in the world.

Do you honestly think that journalists in the Middle East do not have the same interest in sensationalism as their colleagues covering domestic issues do?
The most egregious examples come from television reporters whose emphasis on visuals over substance encourages facile treatment of the issues.

Which is more sensational and thus newsworthy-
A picture of a child crying in the hands of a soldier?


Or a picture of that same child throwing rocks at soldiers?


This trend started in 87' in the wake of the first intifada when reporters started caring more about gore, and sensationalism, then the truth, and honest reporting.

In some extreme cases journalists went as far as faking news, like the Mahmud Al Durah incident, which shows a boy and his father allegedly get shot by Israeli forces.
Seven years later it was concluded that the al-Dura news report was staged and the ballistics reports show that the fire could not have come from the Israeli position.

This habit of presenting half truths and misleading photos continues to this day- Reuters recently published photos of the beaten Israeli commandos and cropped the edges of the photos to avoid showing knives in the hands of activists.

And there's one more thing- The media in the Arab world is strictly controlled by totalitarian governments. By contrast, Israel is a democracy with one of the most freewheeling press corps in the world.
Further more in the case of coverage of the PA, the Western media relies heavily on Palestinian assistants to escort correspondents or hire Palestinian film crews to work in the territories. The two principle agencies in the video news market, APTN and Reuters TV, run a whole network of Palestinian stringers, freelancers and fixers all over the territories to provide instant footage of the events.
This is a the source of your news.
No wonder Reuters then crop pictures.

Does this seem to you as an unbiased, objective approach to journalism? Not only that but during the “al-Aksa intifada,” Israeli journalists were warned against going to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and some received telephone threats after publishing articles critical of the PA leadership.

Again, this shapes the image of the news you're watching.

What bothers me the most are these news channels- Each has its own agenda, its own funding, and its own audience, when watching one of those, how can you tell you're getting the real story?
In Israel we have no such thing.


The man taken to represent Israel barely speaks English.

Either that or he gets constantly interrupted


Is this professional journalism?




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well Said!
I couldn't agree with you more.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
You are right the video really does show bias.
as the media has about Amahjinadad's(sp?) speeches

Im thinking it is divide and conquer.

The media is always doing things in a manner that is most divisive.
who gets it every time?
The littleguy

How much have you heard of the 5.5 trillion dollar gold scam?
They cut the CCTV feed on the testimony before congress.

People accused the OP on that thread of wearing a tin fiol hat untill some links got posted
and some video of testimony

While we were arguing about Israel some one made off with the
cheese

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Eliad
 


shhhh, your not suppose to say good things about Israel... Least the goon squad will show up and get you...

But really, you make a valid point, some people drool when they think Israel is wrong and can not wait to expose it, but yet those same people can not be found when the truth comes out like that rueters photo.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Very true. Most presently this kind of bias was demonstrated in the supposed Aid flotilla incident. Unfortunately I think it is only going to get worse, before it can get better. But thankfully there are people like you that can see through the fog.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
As another example, in the flotilla incident almost none of those TV news channels showed the footage taken by the Israeli army, which shows them getting beaten up on a thermal camera, from three angles.

Again, this shapes the way the incident is viewed, and is unfair, and hardly objective.

And I can't say that I haven't seen this media bias with my own eyes, things can be taken out of context easily in this conflict- When presented with a picture of a tank in front of a child:

No one really cares that the tank has been standing there the whole day, that this is the position the cannon is put in when not in use, and the crew would never shoot that child.
No one cares that the child was given a rock by the reporter and promised candy to stand like this.

No one ever shows the acts of kindness that I've seen between Israeli and Palestinian people.
They don't show us giving water to a man that was thirsty, they don't show us waving hello and smiling at curious children, they don't show us in our every day interaction.
They will show only the extreme.
Because anything else might confuse the viewer.
If he sees acts of kindness, if he sees something other than hate, the viewer might start questioning the authenticity of footage of more extreme events, and will ask for a more complete picture of events.
The news would then have to be more moderate, and show both sides of the story. This will obviously be less interesting to people.
This is all speculation, I know, but in the end one thing is ultimately true, no matter how you look at it:

News channels are afraid that if they don't bring the most extreme, the most shocking news, they will lose the interest of the viewers.

So where does this myth come from?

I mean it's clear that the news don't show the full picture, I've been here for two weeks and I can see that.
People are fed information from websites like ifonlyamericansknew.com, which are extremely biased in their opinions and should not be taken as an objective news outlet.
So why is this myth perpetuated?

Well there are a few reasons I can think of-
For one it makes Israel seem even more evil (to those that already consider it evil), as it tries to mask its actions with media bias and spin.
Which leads to the concept that anyone who does not believe the (non existent) Israeli bias is:
1) A seeker of the truth
2) A radical, non conformist, out of the box thinker
3) One of the few people who do see the truth, and as such must spread it
etc.
The result is that if you don't buy into the (non existent) Israeli bias- You're really really cool.
Not only that but you're a good person, unlike all the other "drones" who take what they're given by the "system".
This appeals very much to young impressionable brains (15-25), who generally look for role models, frames of reference and are in the process of tuning their moral compass in this crazy complex world.

So in the end it has become "the cool thing to do".
If you're a fashionably conscious young humanitarian you just have to hate Israel.
They're not required to challenge the facts, as if they had, they would see a different truths.
They are not asked to remain informed, they're only asked to continue following ifonlyamericansknew.com, and other pro Arab news sources.
It is in fact impossible to be informed, as they're made to think every other source of information is slanted by the Israelis, so the little that is pro Israeli cannot be trusted.

Being against Israel is turned into a "must have" opinion for anyone who considers themselves to be intelligent, yet at the same time it is implied (more than implied) that any information that is pro Israeli is a blatant lie, so what's left for them to question?

Anyway, this is what I see, based on what I know.
Thank you for taking the time to read.

With respect,
Eliad.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Eliad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Too many of the big names related to the press are zionist owned and for the life of me i can not see how anyone can claim the press is bias against iserail else i would see the clip shown below on BBC/ITV/CNN as front page news.



MP from iserail was on board one of the aid ship and reports that iserail was shooting at people before they borded the ship and was the western press not to be under zionist control then this would had been shown.

maybe someone shoud start a thread saying the worlds banking system is anti semetic.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   


This habit of presenting half truths and misleading photos continues to this day- Reuters recently published photos of the beaten Israeli commandos and cropped the edges of the photos to avoid showing knives in the hands of activists.


It sure does! We will only ever hear half the story from one side, and guess what? It matters not one hair which side it is. Each side is always going to have half the story.

The half a story that they want you to know and believe, which coincidentally happens to be half the story that they have shaped so that story serves the teller of it well, do you claim to not be doing the exact same thing.

For instance how many Palestinians have really lost their lives where no exhaustive seven year long ballistic report could dispel that notion?

That is the half a story we obviously won’t be hearing from you today.

Instead we will hear about the one case that is told only to cast a shadow of doubt on all the other lives tragically wasted and cruelly and wantonly snuffed out.

They of course don’t matter.

There is an old saying those who live by the sword are destined to die by the sword.

Like the sword, the victim dictum requires that the person who wields it does so for maximum effect.

That longing for preeminence of being the supreme victim, a half truth couched in as many lies as half truths!

Judging by the opening post this practice continues to thrive and is alive and well!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eliad
It is hard to justify the amount of news coverage given to Israel based on that nation's importance in world affairs or American national interests. How is it that a country the size of New Jersey routinely merits top billing over seemingly more newsworthy nations like China, and its actions in Tibet? North Korea Vs. South Korea?


I beg to differ. For starters, the NK vs SK never really moved to the back burner in the recent (or not so recent) past.

More importantly,
a) New Jersey does not possess a nuclear arsenal of its own
b) New Jersey is not located in the area of strategic importance, in terms of production and transport of oil
c) New Jersey is not a party in international territorial dispute and didn't commit land grabs in recent past

However, there is one thing in common between NJ and Israel -- if either gets in real mess, the US will fight and shed blood for them. You guys have a piano string wrapped around our ballocks, so please don't be surprised that we do pay attention.

Peace.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Hello Eliad I have to say I think as with any viewpoint it depends what media you choose as your news source. An example of quite clear and detrimental bias towards Israel was seen in the beginning of last year here in the UK, basically the story is that the BBC refrained from airing a humanitarian appeal for the people of Gaza with the pathetic excuse that the money may not reach those most in need. That is a sure fire example of the Israel lobbies influence over the BBC, who otherwise have an incredibly good track record for airing humanitarian appeals. I would like to stress also that many Israeli nationals living in the UK were as equally appalled by this ban as everyone else.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


Look, we're not going discuss the whole flotilla issue in depth now, but she said herself that she was below deck and didn't see anything, and she said she had only heard live fire. how does she know that it's live fire, and not something else? They were sitting down there making guesses... Also how does she know when it was that the commandos landed?

Yes, I would trust her testimony more than some activist but the fact is she wasn't there.. She's guessing.

But that's hardly the issue.
The issue is that she isn't being interviewed anymore.
Could the reason be that she's an acting member of parliament?
As one she should not be testifying against the country that she's heading.
I mean, how can she work for a country she doesn't believe in?

So I think the reason is political. How can we be sure? We can't, but I would think that news agency would pounce on an interview with her, as most of them have already taken an anti Israeli stance on this issue, correct me if I'm mistaken.
And this is only one example, it doesn't contradict what I've been saying.

With respect,
Eliad.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
There are anti-Israel protest whenever they do something which the media doesn't agree with..why?.. it's popular imo.

Thousands homeless dead and starving in Darfur never get a mention nor does the fact that Israel is the only country who takes refugees from this war stricken country in and offers them a good decent life.

Yes Israel has nuclear weapons but they likfe the UK, USA and other countries haven't used them have they.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I can't say that I don't agree.
And as I've stated in the subject this is from my point of view.

Everything is subjective in this world.
We mostly choose what we want to believe, and the people who present the truth know very well how to sell it to us.

But I don't know if you've noticed- This was not about who's wrong and right in this conflict.
This is about balance.
There is no balance.
And I've made some points demonstrating that.

Reporters need to strive for objectivity.. I can be subjective all I want. I choose to limit it at times.
So yeah, this is not about who's wrong or right.
It's about journalism and the ethics at its core.

With respect,
Eliad.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


I'm appalled too.. Does this make it a Zionist controlled station though?
What about the reports? Is there a bias there? Commercials and news reports are entirely different things..



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Eliad
 


No it does not, but it does make it a Israeli biased station as I understood to be the point of the thread. If they refrain from airing a humanitarian aid campaign then there news is likely to be more biased still. Sky also refrained from airing the appeal too.

To add it was not a commercial the BBC do not have commercials, funding is from TV licensing fees.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Big Raging Loner]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


Actually as far as I know the BBC is biased against Israel, but that's based on one or two things that I saw, and my knowledge on the BBC isn't very good.

So let me ask you this, and I'm really interested in knowing the truth, not bull#, or rumors, or guessing- Do you watch the BBC news? As in daily, is it your news source or whatever? Has Israel been shown in a good or bad light in recent events? Have they shown the IDF's footage? Were they in favor or against Israel?

I need those answers, because all I'm hearing from you is "it's an Israeli biased station because it rejected an aid campaign"... That's easy to say, but it's not much proof to me.

I'm open minded, and I'd really like to know, but I'm worried that most people are too subjective on this, and I really want to try to filter the bull# from the truth.
So try and be as objective as you can.

As I said, I don't watch much news, not to mention foreign news, and I've tried to present this issue from my point of you. It pains me to see when people have this opinion on Israel without knowing the facts, without seeing what really goes on. People take what they're given, they don't question it (partly because they can't), and misconceptions are born.

I will be honest with you. I am subjective. I do want to defend Israel, I do this that this is just a myth created to make hating Israel look "radical" and "cool".
But if I'm proven wrong, and not just circumstantial things, I'm talking about solid things, then I'll stand corrected.

With respect,
Eliad.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by Eliad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


On the one hand I agree that because Israel is close to America it gets more coverage, on the other hand look at what it's causing. Reporters come here not just purely for the sake of journalism, but rather because it's a popular place to report out of, and the most popular subject is the fight of the oppressed against their oppressors, so they simply indulge.
At the same time SK and NK are getting much less coverage, but they pose a much greater issue, as Israel would never use its atomic weapons (its enemies are too close for the use of any WMD, and besides, our government is not an extreme regime in any way.. It just won't happen), NK is a different story.
There's the genocide in Darfur- My god, people are being butchered there for nothing! Raped and killed like they're flies! When they cross the Egyptian borders the Egyptians just shoot them.. No warning shot no nothing..
There's the Tibet china thing- Again, murders, people killed for nothing and for no reason, and even the UN wanted to condemn them, but then china used its influence and they changed it to congratulating them for ending the war.. How sad is that? Yet you don't see anyone talking about Chinese control over the world, do you?

And then theres the occasional slaughter in Thailand, Africa, etc.

But it seems as though everyone accepts these things, and the media coverage of those areas is not even close to that of Israel.
Popularity shouldn't be a factor. Since it obviously is, you can imagine how it affects the news stories themselves.

With respect,
Eliad.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eliad
There's the genocide in Darfur- My god, people are being butchered there for nothing! Raped and killed like they're flies! When they cross the Egyptian borders the Egyptians just shoot them.. No warning shot no nothing..
There's the Tibet china thing- Again, murders, people killed for nothing and for no reason, and even the UN wanted to condemn them, but then china used its influence and they changed it to congratulating them for ending the war.. How sad is that? Yet you don't see anyone talking about Chinese control over the world, do you?

And then theres the occasional slaughter in Thailand, Africa, etc.

But it seems as though everyone accepts these things, and the media coverage of those areas is not even close to that of Israel.


Hello Eliad.

I totally agree, but then again it's because the US agenda is totally skewed towards this country. Given Jewish presence in US lobby, politics and media, it's hardly surprising that the topic of Israel is highly engaging for these circles. There are pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli components in all this, and they just battle it out in the media. I agree that it's sad that Darfur and other topics rarely do surface, but that's the reality of sick society we live in.
If it were up to me, I would hold Israel to the same standard as Armenia - demand full compliance with UN resolutions, return of land in the West bank etc, do IAEA inspections, and would not spend much time reading about it. That would be easy.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yup, I think so too.

And it's part of the problem.

I was talking to my uncle about this and according to him this myth is based on truth, he says that 30-40 years ago, the time of the 6 days war, there was a pro Israeli bias, for various reasons.

Now a days it just doesn't exist.
And the dumb thing is whenever I present anyone with evidence they can't account for, they just call it Israeli propaganda, or they say it's lies, or it was faked, or fabricated, or that the guy was paid off, or threatened, or is a fake, etc.

This Jewish lobby... If anything is pro Israel, then it must be because of the Jewish lobby! Can't be that it's true!
This media conditioning to make everyone think that Israel is always the bad guy in every story..
It's absurd.
I mean it sometimes is, I know, I'm here, I have a pretty good idea.. But not this bad..

Oh and I agree- Give back the west bank, get an inspection or whatever, make peace, and get on with our lives.

With respect,
Eliad.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by Eliad]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Eliad
 


Eliad,
how much are they paying you for being a propaganda machine on internet?
You know, i am thinking to quit my job, if it is a good money, maybe i can do it also. A job at home would be nice, no?

[edit on 16-6-2010 by deccal]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join