Political Crossfire Forums

[Nico]

liberty12345 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: liberty12345 wrote: oh wise up ch4 is far more anti isreal than bbc, top 3 that i watch now and again.

al jazeera (reporting nothing but anti western and anti isreal propaganda)
ch4
bbc

itv in my view are not too bad. ch5 i dont know cause i never watch them.

Well, wait till you see FOX news, CNN, and other American "news" channels and then you know what biased means in reality!

yea i know they can be quite anti isreal too 8:)

:lol: riiight. Every time I see their reporters in the field at an Israeli staging point, I'm just waiting for one of the soldiers to tell them to go get them a frappuccino.

[Nico]

MoscowMatt wrote: ukgirl wrote: I have always believed that the BBC is slanted on reporting news when it comes to Israel, much to the irritation and denial of my fellow Brits.

So what do the BBC have against Israel?

I have my opinions, but would like to hear some of yours?

Do you think the BBC are bias against reporting fairly in regards to Israel?

If so, why do you think that is?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525841951&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Wathcing the news at the moment it seems like in a 30 minute bulletin they will talk about how many have died in Lebanon and show pictures etc for about 28 minutes. Then almost casually, quickly tell you how many have died in Israel with little or no footage. So yes I think they are heavily biased against Israel!


You think that has to do with the 10:1 death rate in lebanon versus Israel? 1000 dead people, 1/3 of them kids, and the reporting reflects the events as they happen. the beeb does constant articles on the Israeli situation but you can't hide the imbalance of dead.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Nico wrote: liberty12345 wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: liberty12345 wrote: oh wise up ch4 is far more anti isreal than bbc, top 3 that i watch now and again.

al jazeera (reporting nothing but anti western and anti isreal propaganda)
ch4
bbc

itv in my view are not too bad. ch5 i dont know cause i never watch them.

Well, wait till you see FOX news, CNN, and other American "news" channels and then you know what biased means in reality!

yea i know they can be quite anti isreal too 8:)

:lol: riiight. Every time I see their reporters in the field at an Israeli staging point, I'm just waiting for one of the soldiers to tell them to go get them a frappuccino.

No, I find the coverage of the American news channels absurd to say the least because they cover the Israeli soldiers as if they were American!!! And I find that absurd despite the fact that I am a Zionist [though my vision of Zionism is very different than what the majority of the Israelis believe to be Zionism]. Unfortunately, we have a game of who can play the role of the victim better: the Israelis and the Arabs are both trying to portray themselves as the victims and I am increasingly being frustrated by this victim game.

And frankly, I am so sick and tired of both of these people.

[superskippy]

I dont personally have an issue with the BBC, I actually like it because of it's rapidity in bringing in breaking news from all over the world. And if a person uses their own head they can ignore the slant whether it is present or not and get a great deal of information very rapidly and that is normally very good.

[Di]

Yes, the BBC is just as biased, in my opinion, as is Fox News (which I consider to be almost one arm of the Republican party). I obviously don't get as many hours of televised BBC here as those in Britain do, but I do see some of it, and refer to their website daily. The BBC has no problem at all letting its viewers know where they stand, and at the moment they stand squarely against Israel. They refer to the start of hostilities as being the kidnap of 2 soldiers, rarely mentioning the murder of 8 others, and report Israeli death tolls divided between military and civilian while reporting all Lebanese death tolls as civilian without even offering the caveat that the civilian count includes combatants. (CNN has, in my opinion, a similar anti-Israeli bias, not as blatant as the BBC in my opinion, but just as annoying).

BBC human interest stories are almost always from the Lebanese or Palestinian perspective, where they show devastation, rubble, dead bodies and repeatedly interview screaming "victims" of "Israeli aggression." In fact, BBC actually uses the term "Israeli aggression", slips commentary about non-proportional response in its "news reporting", and never mentions a bombed road without commenting how the destruction of said infrastructure will hamper aid supplies to suffering civilians... have yet to see a mention about how said bombed road might prevent resupply of Hezbollah arms and munitions unless it's attributed to something an Israeli said, and couched in such patronizing terms that one can almost see the eyeroll of the person writing the words. The BBC has even used the term "martyr" to describe suicide bombers in the past... I mean, that's pretty damned outrageous, IMHO. If some obscure human rights group I've never heard of calls Israel a terrorist nation or accuses it of war crimes, you can bet that will be on the front page of BBC.com in a heartbeat. Everything I've ever read or heard on a BBC site about Israel was negative; I cannot recall ever seeing an Israeli portrayed as a victim. I saw a BBC reporter last week in Israeli mention the death of some civilians in a rocket attack, but immediately softened that by pointing out how many more Lebanese are dying due to Israeli bombs. I recall some years back when a bus had been blown up by a suicide bomber, a BBC reporter couldn't help but point out the suffering of the Palestinian people that drove the "martyr" to such a desperate act. The message, obviously, is that Israel deserves whatever it gets because it is always the evil aggressor.

So yes, I think the BBC is anti-Israel. That is painfully, painfully obvious, in my opinion.

[Di]

Nico wrote:


You think that has to do with the 10:1 death rate in lebanon versus Israel? 1000 dead people, 1/3 of them kids, and the reporting reflects the events as they happen. the beeb does constant articles on the Israeli situation but you can't hide the imbalance of dead.

You know, I've heard the "1/3 of them kids" comment brought up repeatedly on forums like this, and I always ask where that figure comes from. The answer has repeatedly been that it's "common knowledge" or "Queen Noor said it on Larry King Live." My question is this: Where is the official release of the breakdown of Lebanese deaths, because CNN keeps saying that Lebanese officials refuses to give such a breakdown. If there is an official breakdown of Lebanese combatants versus non-combants, and adults versus children, I'd love to see it.

BTW, in a war the side that has the most casualties does not automatically have the moral high ground. If someone puts a rocket launcher on the roof of an apartment building, a lot of people are going to die when that rocket launcher is taken out.

Quoting ratios without discussing the full context of those ratios sounds a tad bit like a propagandized soundbite... which I'm sure you did not intend. :)

[AKAMad]

What a surprise, the only media organisation in the world to tell the truth about Saddam's WMD before the war, is hated by the liars.

[Pebble]

The BBC is obviously totally anti-Israel, which is why they carry testimony from an Israeli citizen which is supportive of Israel...ta-da.

Perhaps Di, you should refer to the argument raised by those supportting Israel in relation to casualty figures, which states that bearing in mind Hezbollah militants are difficult to tell apart from civilian casulaties figures may well not be accurate.

In reality, it is impossible for mankind to produce truly bias free news as at some point it must undergo human influence. However the BBC has a name synonymous worldwide with well produced and balanced news, to try and dismiss is as pro or anti anything as an institution is simply misguided.

[to_frankie]

Pebble wrote: The BBC is obviously totally anti-Israel, which is why they carry testimony from an Israeli citizen which is supportive of Israel...ta-da.

Perhaps Di, you should refer to the argument raised by those supportting Israel in relation to casualty figures, which states that bearing in mind Hezbollah militants are difficult to tell apart from civilian casulaties figures may well not be accurate.

In reality, it is impossible for mankind to produce truly bias free news as at some point it must undergo human influence. However the BBC has a name synonymous worldwide with well produced and balanced news, to try and dismiss is as pro or anti anything as an institution is simply misguided.

I find this a perfect example of why more and more people are turning anti-Israeli. Constructive crtiticsm doesnt not equate to unfair or biased reporting. Only insecure, paranoid people think this.

[Di]

to_frankie wrote:
I find this a perfect example of why more and more people are turning anti-Israeli. Constructive crtiticsm doesnt not equate to unfair or biased reporting. Only insecure, paranoid people think this.

That comment does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly in that quote you feel to be an example of turning people anti-Israeli? It's also rather rude to imply that I am insecure and paranoid because I do not share your view.

As for constructive criticism not equating to unfair reporting, that entire concept is a paradox. If I recall my journalism classes correctly, it is the job of a reporter to report, what-when-how-why-who. It is not the job of a reporter to issue constructive criticism, editorial comment, or commentary. Those items in newsprint are segregated onto the Editoral Page and clearly labeled as "opinion." In television, they are segregated into a "Commentary" and clearly labled as opinion.

When editorial comment, "constructive criticism", and commentary are included as news, then it is by definition biased reporting.

Pebble: You are free to disagree with me. I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people, then spends several minutes of air time decrying the horrible massacre caused by Israeli missle attacks with smoking ruins and sobbing civilians in the background! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.

AKAMad: Er, I'm very much against the war in Iraq; I do not hate the BBC, I believe they display a rather blatant anti-Israel bias, which is the question asked in this thread; and I am not a liar.

[MoscowMatt]

Di wrote: Pebble: You are free to disagree with me. I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people and decrying the horrible massacre of civilians caused by Israeli missle attacks! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.


:tu: The power of the media should never be underestimated. They can easily influence people and the plain bias in this conflict clearly shows in general UK opinion on it, even though Hezbollah started it all!!

[AKAMad]

Di wrote: to_frankie wrote:
I find this a perfect example of why more and more people are turning anti-Israeli. Constructive crtiticsm doesnt not equate to unfair or biased reporting. Only insecure, paranoid people think this.

That comment does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly in that quote you feel to be an example of turning people anti-Israeli?

As for constructive criticism not equating to unfair reporting, that entire concept is a paradox. If I recall my journalism classes correctly, it is the job of a reporter to report, what-when-how-why-who. It is not the job of a reporter to issue constructive criticism, editorial comment, or commentary. Those items in newsprint are segregated onto the Editoral Page and clearly labeled as "opinion." In television, they are segregated into a "Commentary" and clearly labled as opinion.

When editorial comment, "constructive criticism", and commentary are included as news, then it is by definition biased reporting.

Pebble: You are free to disagree with me. I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people and decrying the horrible massacre of civilians caused by Israeli missle attacks! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.

AKAMad: Er, I'm very much against the war in Iraq; I do not hate the BBC, I believe they display a rather blatant anti-Israel bias, which is the question asked in this thread; and I am not a liar.

I was referring to the neo-cons in general.

The position of the BBC is that ethnic-cleansing and colonialism is illegal under international law.

You can spare me the evil British Empire line, the History forum is elsewhere.

[Di]

AKAMad wrote:
I was referring to the neo-cons in general.

The position of the BBC is that ethnic-cleansing and colonialism is illegal under international law.

You can spare me the evil British Empire line, the History forum is elsewhere.

What the hell are you smoking? I've said absolutely nothing about history or the British Empire, evil or otherwise. You ned anger management classes, buddy. You are a fight looking for a place to happen.
:-|

[AKAMad]

Di wrote: AKAMad wrote:
I was referring to the neo-cons in general.

The position of the BBC is that ethnic-cleansing and colonialism is illegal under international law.

You can spare me the evil British Empire line, the History forum is elsewhere.

What the hell are you smoking? I've said absolutely nothing about history or the British Empire, evil or otherwise. You ned anger management classes, buddy. You are a fight looking for a place to happen.
:-|

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm not trying being funny, it's just that I get fed up with the same old biased History lectures, you tend to get round here.

[ukgirl]

Di wrote: to_frankie wrote:
I find this a perfect example of why more and more people are turning anti-Israeli. Constructive crtiticsm doesnt not equate to unfair or biased reporting. Only insecure, paranoid people think this.

That comment does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly in that quote you feel to be an example of turning people anti-Israeli? It's also rather rude to imply that I am insecure and paranoid because I do not share your view.

As for constructive criticism not equating to unfair reporting, that entire concept is a paradox. If I recall my journalism classes correctly, it is the job of a reporter to report, what-when-how-why-who. It is not the job of a reporter to issue constructive criticism, editorial comment, or commentary. Those items in newsprint are segregated onto the Editoral Page and clearly labeled as "opinion." In television, they are segregated into a "Commentary" and clearly labled as opinion.

When editorial comment, "constructive criticism", and commentary are included as news, then it is by definition biased reporting.

Pebble: You are free to disagree with me. I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people, then spends several minutes of air time decrying the horrible massacre caused by Israeli missle attacks with smoking ruins and sobbing civilians in the background! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.

AKAMad: Er, I'm very much against the war in Iraq; I do not hate the BBC, I believe they display a rather blatant anti-Israel bias, which is the question asked in this thread; and I am not a liar.

Brilliant post Di..

:wink:

Although I lack journalism experience it is not difficult to see the unbelievable bias unless of course one has an agenda..

[Nico]

ukgirl wrote: Di wrote: to_frankie wrote:
I find this a perfect example of why more and more people are turning anti-Israeli. Constructive crtiticsm doesnt not equate to unfair or biased reporting. Only insecure, paranoid people think this.

That comment does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly in that quote you feel to be an example of turning people anti-Israeli? It's also rather rude to imply that I am insecure and paranoid because I do not share your view.

As for constructive criticism not equating to unfair reporting, that entire concept is a paradox. If I recall my journalism classes correctly, it is the job of a reporter to report, what-when-how-why-who. It is not the job of a reporter to issue constructive criticism, editorial comment, or commentary. Those items in newsprint are segregated onto the Editoral Page and clearly labeled as "opinion." In television, they are segregated into a "Commentary" and clearly labled as opinion.

When editorial comment, "constructive criticism", and commentary are included as news, then it is by definition biased reporting.

Pebble: You are free to disagree with me. I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people, then spends several minutes of air time decrying the horrible massacre caused by Israeli missle attacks with smoking ruins and sobbing civilians in the background! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.

AKAMad: Er, I'm very much against the war in Iraq; I do not hate the BBC, I believe they display a rather blatant anti-Israel bias, which is the question asked in this thread; and I am not a liar.

Brilliant post Di..

:wink:

Although I lack journalism experience it is not difficult to see the unbelievable bias unless of course one has an agenda..



The BBC don't editorialise thier reporting though. They save that for specific editorial programmes, or bring in experts to voice their opinion, usually with a counter expert from another camp. Calling the beeb biased as an entity is clutching at straws. at best you can find individuals who have well known opinions outside the company, and who still don't express it during reports. I dare anyone to find a bbc report that clearly [a la fox] picks a side. Post it here and I will re-think my opinion.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Nico wrote: The BBC don't editorialise thier reporting though. They save that for specific editorial programmes, or bring in experts to voice their opinion, usually with a counter expert from another camp. Calling the beeb biased as an entity is clutching at straws. at best you can find individuals who have well known opinions outside the company, and who still don't express it during reports. I dare anyone to find a bbc report that clearly [a la fox] picks a side. Post it here and I will re-think my opinion.

Indeed Nico. I find it quite amusing that people can accuse the BBC of "moral relativism" and being biased at the same time.

[Di]

Nico wrote:
The BBC don't editorialise thier reporting though. They save that for specific editorial programmes, or bring in experts to voice their opinion, usually with a counter expert from another camp. Calling the beeb biased as an entity is clutching at straws. at best you can find individuals who have well known opinions outside the company, and who still don't express it during reports. I dare anyone to find a bbc report that clearly [a la fox] picks a side. Post it here and I will re-think my opinion.

I doubt you would re-think your opinion no matter what I linked to. No insult intended...most people do not see bias when it mirrors their own belief. Hard-core right-wingers, for example, resent hearing others refer to Fox News as biased, because they view the world through the same prism of belief as does Fox News... so to them, everything Fox does seems perfectly reasonable. A flaming liberal, however, cannot watch Fox without wanting to put a foot through the tv screen!

I've already given several examples of what I consider to be extreme anti-Israel bias in BBC's reporting. You've totally dismissed those examples, which means you clearly don't see anything wrong with it... and you probably do not see anything wrong with it because it mirrors your own views.

At any rate, the originator of this thread asked the question. I, and others, merely responded to it with our own opinions. I happened to support my own opinion with examples, which you are free to either acknowledge or ignore. :)

[Gaea]

Di wrote:


.... I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people, then spends several minutes of air time decrying the horrible massacre caused by Israeli missle attacks with smoking ruins and sobbing civilians in the background! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.

It is a known fact that the Israelis control and censure their media and try to do the same around the world. Could this know fact have something to do with what some here are calling biased because of the amount of coverage the BBC gives Israel compared to Lebanon, especially in the first weeks of the Israeli invasion?



AP Reveals Israeli Censorship, Says It Will Abide By Rules

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002876486



Perhaps the perceived bias is more Israel's fault than it is the BBCs.

[Plato & Socrates]

Moot wrote: Di wrote:


.... I will point out that simply referencing an Israeli perspective on occasion does not eliminate bias, particularly if 4-5 times as much print/air time is devoted to the other side's perspective. For example, an announcer in studio calmly announces 200 rockets hit northern Israel, killing 8 people, including children. Then they switch to a hysterical reporter in Beirut, standing amidst rubble and screaming people, then spends several minutes of air time decrying the horrible massacre caused by Israeli missle attacks with smoking ruins and sobbing civilians in the background! This is not bias? That actually happened on the BBC last week. And when a "news report" refers to suicide bombers as martyrs, spends one sentence reporting the destruction of a bus and an entire paragraph giving "context" by explaining why the "oppressed martyrs" have no other choice to express their grievances, then damn... I call bias, plain and simple.

It is a known fact that the Israelis control and censure their media and try to do the same around the world. Could this know fact have something to do with what some here are calling biased because of the amount of coverage the BBC gives Israel compared to Lebanon, especially in the first weeks of the Israeli invasion?



AP Reveals Israeli Censorship, Says It Will Abide By Rules

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002876486



Perhaps the perceived bias is more Israel's fault than it is the BBCs.

Israel has been censoring news for a long time. A single rule by it self does'nt do much harm to a democracy, but the plethora of rules and edicts when now reporting in Israel, especially when they do one of there West bank or Gaza incursions. They are not fit to be called a democracy. It is the culture of sickening spin, so the world can see them in a positive light. Whats even more sickening, is that these censoring is designed not for the Arab street, but primarily for the western media viewership. If the media companies dont play along with the game, access to certain areas and just getting an easy time from the authorities is not going to happen.