All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: More details on pro-Israel media bias

topic by observer 4/1/2002 (13:28)

reply top STEPPING BACK FROM the horrific headlines of the day, it is clear that the conflict over Israel/Palestine is all about competing narratives. Both sides inflict inhuman cruelties on one another. Both sides blame the other for forcing them to do so. The Israelis kill far more Palestinians than vice-versa, with far more deadly and effective weapons; but the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, deliberately target innocents for murder. The Israelis say the conflict will end when the Palestinians renounce their commitment to terrorism and accept Israel’s “right to existence.” The Palestinians claim it will end when Israel ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and compensates the millions of refugees it created, either by returning them to their homes or giving them the funds necessary to build new ones. A TALE OF TWO STORIES In most of the world, it is the Palestinian narrative of a dispossessed people that dominates. In the United States, however, the narrative that dominates is Israel’s: a democracy under constant siege. Europeans and other Palestinian partisans point to the fact that the Israel lobby in America is one of the strongest anywhere, and Jewish individuals and organizations give millions of dollars to political candidates in order to reward pro-Israel policies and punish those who support the Palestinians. Another reason, however, is the near-complete domination by pro-Israel partisans of the punditocracy discourse. Some Jewish groups in America like to harass news organizations like The Washington Post or National Public Radio for what they believe to be coverage insufficiently sympathetic to Israel’s plight. But even Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu would not be able to complain about the level of support their actions typically receive from the members of the punditocracy. For reasons of religion, politics, history and genuine conviction the punditocracy debate of the Middle East in America is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel. The value of this legion to the Jewish state is, for better or worse, literally incalculable, particularly when push — as it inevitably does in the Middle East — comes to shove. Here’s a list I made in trying to measure the immeasurable. COLUMNISTS AND COMMENTATORS WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION: George Will, The Washington Post, Newsweek and ABC News William Safire, The New York Times A.M. Rosenthal, The New York Daily News, formerly Executive Editor of and later columnist for, The New York Times, Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, PBS, Time, and The Weekly Standard, formerly of the New Republic. Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, National Journal, and MSNBC.com, formerly of The New Republic and The New Yorker. Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post and Newsweek Martin Peretz, The New Republic, Daniel Pipes, The New York Post Andrea Peyser, The New York Post Dick Morris, The New York Post Lawrence Kaplan, The New Republic William Bennett, CNN William Kristol, The Washington Post, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, formerly of ABC News Robert Kagan, The Washington Post and The Weekly Standard, Mortimer Zuckerman, US News and World Report (Zuckerman is also Chairman of Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations ). David Gelertner, The Weekly Standard John Podhoretz, The New York Post and The Weekly Standard Mona Charen, The Washington Times Morton Kondracke, Roll Call, Fox News formerly of The McLaughlin Group, The New Republic and PBS Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, Fox News, formerly of The New Republic, The McLaughlin Group, and The Baltimore Sun Sid Zion, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Yossi Klein Halevi The New Republic, Sidney Zion, The New York Post, formerly of The New York Daily News Norman Podhoretz, Commentary, Jonah Goldberg, National Review and CNN Laura Ingraham, CNN, formerly of MSNBC and CBS News Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe Rich Lowry, National Review Andrew Sullivan, The New Republic Seth Lipsky, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Sun, formerly of the Jewish Forward Irving Kristol, The Public Interest, The National Interest and The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Chris Matthews, MSNBC Allan Keyes, MSNBC, WorldNetDaily.com Brit Hume, Fox News John Leo, US News and World Report Robert Bartley, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page John Fund, The Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal, formerly of The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Ben Wattenberg, The Washington Times, PBS Tony Snow, Washington Times and Fox News Lawrence Kudlow, National Review and CNBC Alan Dershowitz, Boston Herald, Washington Times David Horowitz, Frontpage.com Jacob Heilbrun, The Los Angeles Times Thomas Sowell, Washington Times Frank Gaffney Jr, Washington Times Emmett Tyrell, American Spectator and New York Sun Cal Thomas, Washington Times Oliver North, Washington Times and Fox News, formerly of MSNBC Michael Ledeen, Jewish World Review William F. Buckley, National Review Bill O’Reilly, Fox News Paul Greenberg, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, L. Brent Bozell, Washington Times Todd Lindberg, Washington Times Michael Barone, US News and World Report and The McLaughlin Group Ann Coulter, Human Events, Linda Chavez, Creators Syndicate Cathy Young, Reason Magazine Uri Dan, New York Post Dr. Laura Schlessinger, morality maven Rush Limbaugh, radio host PUBLICATIONS THAT, FOR REASONS OF OWNER OR EDITORSHIP CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION: The New Republic (Martin Peretz, Michael Steinhardt, Roger Hertog, Owners) Commentary (American Jewish Committee, Owner) US News and World Report (Mortimer Zuckerman, Owner) The New York Daily News (Mortimer Zuckerman, Owner) The New York Post (Rupert Murdoch, Owner) The Weekly Standard (Rupert Murdoch, Owner) The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page (Peter Kann, Editor) The Atlantic Monthly (Michael Kelly, Editor) COLUMNISTS LIKELY TO CRITICIZE BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS, BUT VIEW THEMSELVES TO BE CRITICALLY SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL, AND ULTIMATELY, WOULD SUPPORT ISRAELI SECURITY OVER PALESTINIAN RIGHTS: Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, Richard Cohen, The Washington Post and New York Daily News Avishai Margolit, The New York Review of Books David Remnick, The New Yorker Eric Alterman, The Nation and MSNBC.com The New York Times Editorial Board The Washington Post Editorial Board COLUMNISTS LIKELY TO BE REFLEXIVELY ANTI-ISRAEL AND/OR PRO-PALESTINIAN REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE: Robert Novak, The Washington Post Pat Buchanan, WorldNetDaily.com, formerly of The Washington Times and CNN. Alexander Cockburn, The Nation and New York Press Christopher Hitchens, The Nation and Vanity Fair Edward Said, The Nation HOW FRIENDS CAN BEST HELP As can be seen from this list of lists, the entire anti-Israel contingent of the punditocracy does not add up to a single George Will or William Safire, much less a Wall Street Journal or US News. It remains to be seen whether unqualified support for all of Israel’s actions is really in that tortured nation’s best interest in the long run. Sometimes the bravest and most valuable advice a trusted friend can give is: “STOP.” Someone is going to have to stop first if this unending catastrophe is ever to end.

reply by Someone else 4/1/2002 (14:12)

reply top The international media is very biased in favor of the Palestinians. They rarely present both sides of the conflict. The Arab and Muslim media is incredibly biased against Israel.

reply by Honest Reporting 4/1/2002 (14:23)

reply top Over the course of the recent war, HonestReporting has noticed that whenever Palestinian terrorists commit a horrific attack against Israeli civilians, Palestinian spokesmen quickly responded with a tale of an Israeli atrocity. Yesterday, after two Palestinian homicide bombers attacked in Haifa and Efrat, Palestinian spokesman Nabil Sha'ath went on CNN to report that 30 Palestinian women died in labor at Israeli checkpoints. The canard joins other Palestinian claims of Israel using radioactive ammunition, Nazi tactics, and nerve gas along with the charges that Jewish settlers tortured Palestinians -- who investigations revealed had actually died in traffic accidents. Last week, when two international observers were killed by Palestinian gunfire in Hebron, the Palestinians issued a statement simply saying that 'Israel did it.' No proof, just an accusation thrown out to the media to counter the previously established facts. Some reporters buy the Palestinian tales hook, line, and sinker. Remember the Reuters reporter who described Palestinian residents of Beit Jalla as victims of Israeli gunfire, presenting as evidence the collection of bullet casings collected by Beit Jalla residents. Yet bullet casings, ejected from the gun, are of course found at the origin of the shooting, not the target. * * * As Palestinian bombers blasted innocent civilians all over Israel this week, Palestinian spokesmen produced another 'Israeli atrocity' -- claiming that Israel had 'executed' five Palestinians in a Ramallah office building. Here is how three reporters covered the story: (1) Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of The Observer (UK), filed 'Without mercy: Israelis execute Arafat's elite guards' (March 31). [Later, The Observer's website changed the headline to 'I saw the bodies, killed by a shot to the head.'] The bulk of the story, including the headlines, accepts as gospel the Palestinian side of the story. Shalabi saw the bodies hours after the firefight; it is likely that the Palestinian never saw them. Beaumont graces the readers with 23 words of the Israeli side of the story.

reply by More Honest Reporting 4/1/2002 (14:24)

reply top Similar charges were filed by The Washington Post's Daniel Williams in 'Killings Raise Questions About Israeli Tactics' (March 31). Williams reveals that five Palestinian police officers 'had been shot in the head or neck, yet most of the blood on the wall near them was splattered no more than two or three feet high, according to a reporter who saw the scene.' Only six paragraphs later does Williams reveal that the reporter 'who saw the scene' was an Abu Dhabi reporter Shalabi. And there are discrepancies between what Shalabi told Williams and Beaumont. Williams, quoting Shalabi, wrote, 'There were no signs that the Palestinians had fired from their last position.' Beaumont quotes Shalabi: 'I heard heavy shooting; maybe it was an exchange of fire.' Williams claims that the five Palestinians were policemen in charge of traffic and border duty. Beaumont at least saw the bodies, and he reported that the men were dressed in the uniforms of Arafat's 'elite guard unit, Force 17.' The unit is a front-line terrorist organization, not a bunch of traffic cops. Some 200 words into his story, Williams gives lip service to the Israeli side of the story: 'Israeli officials said the men were killed in a 'close firefight.'' On another point: Williams included this unequivocal legal pronouncement: 'Soldiers searched the ArabCare Hospital in downtown Ramallah for weapons, and for wounded fighters. Such searches are in breach of international rules of war.' As detailed at the bottom of this communique, Palestinians are using ambulances to transport 'suicide bomber explosive belts.' Perhaps that explains why Israeli troops had a responsibility to inspect the hospital. One thing is certain: Williams had the responsibility to report on the Palestinian abuse of ambulances and the Palestinian Red Crescent. A computer search of The Washington Post's reporting last week failed to find mention of the Palestinian's breach of international rules of war. On March 27, a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance driver was caught transporting an explosive belt containing 10 kilograms of explosives of the type detonated by suicide bombers, Israel Radio reported. The ambulance was stopped and searched between Nablus and Ramallah, and soldiers found the explosive belt under a stretcher upon which a Palestinian boy was lying. The boy's family was with him in the ambulance. The ambulance driver told interrogators he received the belt from a senior Tanzim activist working for Palestinian Authority West Bank security chief Marwan Barghouti. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said it was 'shocked and dismayed' and 'condemns such abuse of an ambulance and of the Red Crescent emblem.'

reply by Even More Honest Reporting 4/1/2002 (14:25)

reply top A much different story was presented by CNN reporter Michael Holmes (March 30). Unlike Williams and Beaumont, Holmes did not depend on third-hand reports. He visited the room. He saw the bodies of five dead Palestinian 'gunmen.' He saw the uniforms. And he saw evidence of a gun battle. 'There are dozens and dozens of shell casings [at the scene],' Holmes reported, citing evidence of Palestinian gunfire. 'The vast majority, in fact, almost all of those shell casings are from M-16s, which is the usual weapon of the Israeli army. [HR notes: M-16s are also used by Palestinians and are visible in all Palestinian demonstrations.] We found maybe half a dozen shells from AK-47s, which is what you normally see Palestinian gunmen using... Obviously, these were, however, people who were fighting because they were wearing army uniforms...' Unlike his colleagues, Holmes doesn't jump to biased conclusions. 'It would require a forensics team to work out what exactly happened,' he reported.

reply by truthhurts 4/1/2002 (15:23)

reply top Palestinians police men is supposed to quietly strip down to his underpants and open wide for Israel troops responding to suicide bombings that was started by people 200 miles away for reasons that was clearly initiated by the famous Sharon +1000 soldiers walk among the holly dome of the rock. Further more if they do not strip down and take it like the bugs that all Zionists (neo-Nazi) believe the Palestinians to be . if those Palestinian policemen choose to fight instead .. THEY SHOWLD NOT SURRENDER afterwards.. Because it is naturally for the 20000-30 000 reserved called now .. hyped beyond recognition on all the bombing media clips all over Israel to not think at all of shooting them once they have surrendered. what honest reporting ? how stupid are we supposed to be ? when was the last time an army hit a village of civilians without a massacre ? and did Sharon with his long history and experience failed to think that Muslim boys praying in al aqsa mosque would not through stones at him if he invades there holly space? Or did that genius Israeli commander who allowed 96 Palestinian children to be killed ( for throwing stones at soldiers) in the following days before A single suicide bomber hit Israel? But all this is nothing compared to the canonizes of pres. Bush.. 18 month later condemning Arafat for the second intifada and ask him control his bugs. Honest reporting sure .. but only for honest people. Which you are not.

reply by Honest Reporting 4/1/2002 (16:32)

reply top Your propoganda is not very clear - TruthHurts. Best to have it proof read by a native Enlgish speaker. I am having trouble following your exact line of thought here. Lets start with a few easy questions: 1) Do you believe in a 2-state solution? i.e., an Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side. 2) Do you agree that the boundaries of this Palestinian state should be negotiated peacefully by Israeli and Palestinians? 3) Do you believe suicide bombings of men, women, and children is a just and moral act?

reply by TheAZCowBoy 4/1/2002 (16:38)

reply top Hey 'Someone else' you're 'something else!' The foreign media is baised against the Jews, huh? I guess you don't watch the FOX CABLE NEWS 'fair & Balanced' bunch of Israel apologists, huh? Typical day: Krathhammer, Fred Barnes, Mort Kandrake, O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al. justifying the Zionist parasites right to protect 'all that they have stolen from the Palestinian's' and lamenting that ole Arafat is going to push the poor 'eternal' victims, the terminally arrogant and incorrigible Jews into he sea! I WISH!!!!!!! TheAZCowBoy,

reply by TheAZCowBoy 4/1/2002 (16:45)

reply top Re: Innocent Jews??? Is this an oxymoron fellow? TheAZCowBoy, Pssst, you need to get over to Keyword: 'Jewish Boards' on AOL where you will feel more at home with the Jewish low lives there lamenting that the US won't give the LIKUDNIK thug Sharon the green light to snuff out Arafat's life or that Palestinian boys make good targets for the IDF hoodlums. TheAZCowBoy,

reply by WEBMASTER 4/1/2002 (19:19)

reply top Yeah, Someone Else. This board is only for anti-Israel people. We don't want to be challenged and forced to think about our positions. Cognitive Dissonance gives us heartburn and makes us insecure. Please take your alternative perspective and be gone with you. If not, you will surely hear the AZCowboy crying:' I'm Melting! I'm Melting' and all that will be left of him will be his big 'ol cowboy hat. That and his membership cards to the John Birch Society and Hamas.

reply by OzzieHooper 4/1/2002 (23:46)

reply top We have only one newspaper here in the state of Georgia (The Atlanta Journal Constitution). I am sickened by all the pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian articles and reader's opinions that are printed each day. I e-mailed the editors on numerous occasions questioning why they do not ever seem to print anything positive from the Palestinian side but never received a reply. Most of the columnists and the editors have Jewish names, it only makes me wonder? I keep reminding myself that I shouldn't ever generalize or presume but its getting harder each day to stay 'Objective'

reply by Ozzie Hooper 4/1/2002 (24:19)

reply top SOMEONE ELSE Definitely 'someone else' must be biased as well. Internationally, the Jewish lobby does not have as much control on the media as it does in America. I am very observant (except someone else already goes by that name on this board). Just read the names of publishers, news casters, talk-show hosts (TV & Radio), movie credits from Hollywood, on and on. Then decide how much influence the Jewish lobby has on our biased media in America. Internationally, the media is not as easy to control. There still remains many honest journalists and news reporters who do their job well by reporting the news not sensationalism. They report the facts as is and they don't selectively report or interpret world events to the viewers. The news of America is a joke. It is an insult to every American's intelligence the way the news is reported. OJ Simpson, Monica Lewinsky, and Condit are what they call newsworthy events (for weeks at a time) while world events roll by. Most Americans didn't know where or what about Afghanistan until after 9/11. So yes yes yes, the American media has been stolen and is presently occupied by self-serving people who are Israeli-sympathizers. Thank god for the international news, because 'someone else' may never report the facts about the Palestinian struggle.

reply by OzzieHooper 4/1/2002 (24:44)

reply top Whoever this Honest Reporting is? This message board is not the place for people who enjoy belittling other people or their messages. You are placing emphasis on proof read postings and calling someone a non-native, etc. I completely understood truth-hurt's message. You don't need to try to prove yourself more superior (in writing ability) in order to convince others of your point. This is exactly the type of arrogance that is preventing peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli's try to make their case by tearing down the Palestinians. I fully agree that Truth-Hurts. I suggest that you do some research using various sources rather than just regurgitating what Israel is reporting to the world. It takes courage to search for the truth and to stand by it rather than joining the bandwagon on the basis of its Nationality or Religion.

reply by trut-hurtz-again 4/1/2002 (24:56)

reply top middleeast.org .. home of the english language !!! how american of you . p.s. I have to apologize for all christian and jews who are not condoning this policy of the us .. thanks to this forum I would have guessed they were all non existent.

reply by JC 4/2/2002 (9:37)

reply top I agree with Ozzie that gratuitous remarks about people's linguistic skills are quite rude and unnecessary. They take away from the relevant issues. Please refrain from making such remarks and stick to the issues. That being said, I've noticed that aside from Barb, no one raises an issue with the genocidal fantasies of the AZCowboy and his ilk (i.e. fantasizing about the murder of Jews in Israel and around the world as retribution for injustices done to the Palestinian people). Let us be consistent people. Truth-Hurts, I would be interested in reading your responses to the questions posed to you earlier. Salam.

reply by truthhurtz 4/2/2002 (15:22)

reply top you need an answer weather or not I subscribe to the fiction plan of legitimatizing the Israeli occupation of 10 % more of the 22 % of Palestine that the UN security council rewarded Arabs when it decided to grant Jews in Palestine 52 % of the land they paid for 6 % of as a reward for having stood still while they were being massacred by non Arabs meanwhile also condemning the middle east region to an ethnic and religious war that would guaranty the flow of oil to the west ? so then you can at least count 58 % of Palestine the black while you start working getting the rest of nailed before you start working on the real Israel which is from forat to the Nile ? let me use my Japanese made calculator .. DUH.