Discreet Dolls

Analysis of Media Bias

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
Analysis of Media on Israel/Palestine
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/clues.html
Why don’t we know what is going on in Israel & Palestine?

Question
Recent studies of U.S. media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reveal that the media reported Israeli children’s deaths at rates 7 to 40 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths. Some typical examples:

In 2004, when 8 Israeli children were killed and 179 Palestinian children were killed, NBC reported on 100% of Israeli children’s deaths and on 10% of Palestinian children’s deaths, ABC on 100% and 11%.
The New York Times reported on 50% of Israeli children’s deaths and 7% of Palestinian children’s deaths.
In the first six months of the current uprising – during which time four Israeli children were killed and 93 Palestinian children were killed – the San Francisco Chronicle reported prominently on 150% of the Israeli children’s deaths (through repetitions) and on 5% of the Palestinian children’s deaths.
A 2004 study of Portland’s Oregonian newspaper revealed headline coverage on 88% of Israeli children’s deaths and on 2% of Palestinian ones.
At least 82 Palestinian children were killed before the first Israeli child. Why is there such an immense differential in reporting on deaths related to the ethnicity of the victim? Why are so few Palestinian children’s deaths being reported to the American public?

Clues
The Associated Press is the major source of international news for U.S. news media. Virtually all AP news reports about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict go through its bureau in Israel.


Clue #1
On Nov. 1, 2004, while we were in the Palestinian territories meeting with the AP bureau chief in the West Bank, he received a phone call from a correspondent. Israeli military forces occupying the area had just killed a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who had been throwing stones from approximately 300 meters away. A soldier had shot the boy in the throat with live ammunition. The bureau chief immediately phoned the bureau in Israel with all the details.

Later, back in the U.S., we looked up AP coverage of the killing of this child. We found no story. We did find an AP photo on the internet, but could not find a single American publication that had printed it – perhaps because there was no news story accompanying it.


Clue #2
On October 17, 2004, several armored Israeli vehicles invaded a Palestinian refugee camp. The vehicles stayed for twenty minutes, asserting their control. There was no Palestinian resistance. At one point an Israeli soldier poked his gun out of his vehicle, aimed at a boy nearby, and pulled the trigger. The 14-year old boy was shot in the lower abdomen. (He survived.) A Reuters photographer photographed this incident, and an Associated Press cameraman filmed it. The AP cameraman sent the video to the bureau in Israel, where it was erased.

In other words, AP had video footage of an Israeli soldier intentionally shooting a young Palestinian boy who was not attacking him, and they erased it. How could such footage not be considered newsworthy?


Clue #3
On Dec. 2, 2004, newspapers around the country received an Associated Press story about a candidate for the Palestinian presidency. The story reported that the candidate was in an Israeli prison, but, oddly, did not mention that he was being physically abused while in custody. It also failed to mention that over 8,000 Palestinians are incarcerated, that they are routinely abused, and that many are tortured, despite never having been charged with a crime.

This article carried a Palestinian byline and dateline. In reality, however, the Palestinian journalist given as the author of this report does not write articles. He phones information in to the AP bureau in Israel, where a journalist living in Israel writes the story. This ghost writer is almost always either an Israeli citizen or a person with strong ties to Israel.

It seems fraudulent to portray articles as having been written by one party in this conflict, when, in reality, they have been written by members of the other party.


Clue #4
On May 11, 2004, an AP news story reported: “The Geneva-based Defense for Children International and Save the Children, based in Sweden, said that as of May 2004, 373 Palestinians under 18 were being held in Israeli detention centers and prisons. At least three of the detainees are under 14...The groups charged that the treatment of Palestinian child prisoners by Israeli authorities amounts to a pattern of violence that has gone unchecked for years...”

This is important information for American taxpayers, since the US gives Israel over $10 million per day, and people throughout the world are aware that the US is Israel’s major supporter, thus blaming Americans for Israel’s actions. Oddly, however, AP sent this story out only on its Worldstream newswire, and not to American newspapers. Thus, people everywhere else in the world learned about these reports on Israeli human rights violations, but Americans did not.


Clue #5
In 2004, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas Moorer passed away. Moorer, a World War II hero and one of the country’s highest ranking officers, had long been an outspoken critic of Israel – particularly of Israel’s brutal attack on a U.S. Navy ship, which had killed 34 American servicemen and injured 172. Just months before his death, Moorer appeared on Capitol Hill heading an independent inquiry, which found that Israel had “committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States” – words he repeated in an op-ed in the military’s Stars and Stripes newspaper on Jan. 16, 2004.

On Moorer’s death three weeks later, AP quickly sent out a 366-word report. The story included a sentence stating that Moorer had “...accused Israel of deliberately attacking the USS Liberty, an American spy ship.”

Within a few hours, AP sent out an expanded, 529-word obituary. The above sentence had been removed, and with it any hint of Moorer’s views on Israel: “The American people would be goddam mad if they knew what was going on
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
The Illusion of Balance

The Illusion of Balance
NPR's coverage of Mideast deaths doesn't match reality

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1086
By Seth Ackerman


National Public Radio's coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been the target of criticism from all sides, especially since the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000. One common complaint from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian critics is that NPR and other outlets downplay or ignore acts of violence by the "other side."

For example, a press release (8/12/01) from CAMERA, a conservative pro-Israel media watch group, accused NPR of skimming over the killing of a Jewish settler in a news report that focused on the funeral of a Palestinian Hamas activist killed by Israeli security forces. Similarly, Arab-American media critic Ali Abuminah (8/20/01) has criticized NPR for "cursory, inconsistent and wholly inadequate" coverage of Israeli attacks on Palestinians.

To examine these competing claims, FAIR studied NPR's coverage of Israeli-Palestinian violence, examining how often NPR reported fatal attacks on Israelis and Palestinians. The study looked at all NPR News coverage in the first six months of 2001 (1/1/01-6/30/01). For a description of FAIR's methodology as well as our complete data, see Study of NPR's Coverage of Deaths in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.

Of the 30 Palestinian civilians under the age of 18 that were killed, six were reported on NPR--only 20 percent. By contrast, the network reported on 17 of the 19 Israeli minors who were killed, or 89 percent. While 61 percent of the young people killed in the region during the period studied were Palestinian, only 26 percent of those reported by NPR were. Apparently being a minor makes your death more newsworthy to NPR if you are Israeli, but less newsworthy if you are Palestinian.

An Israeli civilian victim was more likely to have his or her death reported on NPR (84 percent were covered) than a member of the Israeli security forces (69 percent). But Palestinians were far more likely to have their deaths reported if they were security personnel (72 percent) than if they were civilians (22 percent). Of the 112 Palestinian civilians killed in the Occupied Territories during the period studied, just 26 were reported on NPR. Of the 28 Israeli civilians killed in the Territories--mostly settlers--21 were reported on NPR.

These numbers suggest that NPR may attempt to pair reports of Israeli and Palestinian casualties in an effort to appear balanced. The network's anchors often introduce Mideast stories with a quick summary of recent developments, almost always mentioning one or two recent attacks on Palestinians and one or two against Israelis.

After seeing FAIR’s findings, NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin commented that “numerical equivalence is not always a determination of journalistic fairness--in the Middle East or anywhere else.” He added that NPR's reporting on the Middle East “regularly takes care to mention the imbalance in death tolls” between Israelis and Palestinians.

But it is easy to see the potential appeal for NPR of reporting individual Israeli and Palestinian deaths in roughly equal numbers. The network is under attack from critics who accuse it of playing down violence by one side or exaggerating violence by the other. It would be useful for NPR to be able to respond to complaints by pointing to stories that report Israeli and Palestinian casualties in more or less equal proportions. That way NPR can claim it is simply “reporting both sides.”

While that kind of coverage may appease critics, it fails to give the audience an accurate impression of what's going on in the Middle East. According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, a total of 576 Palestinians and 164 Israelis have been killed, a ratio of about 3.5 to 1. Given that disparity, the fact that NPR has reported the same numbers of Israeli as Palestinian deaths would seem to reflect fear of appearing anti-Israel more than it reflects reality.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
As an American tax payer I consider NPR to be No Practical Reason to exist. Yet I am sure many will argue with me on that. But since liberal taxes support them they tend to slant that way.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,490
11
38
papasmerf said:
As an American tax payer I consider NPR to be No Practical Reason to exist. Yet I am sure many will argue with me on that. But since liberal taxes support them they tend to slant that way.
First time I've heard of taxes having a political affiliation. Wasn't the last US Budget passed by a Republican Congress and signed by GeorgeII—a Republican last I heard. Damn those Republican liberals

Now then, why was it the Republican (Republican=liberal, remember) head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had to resign? I heard it was because he was blatantly packing the place with Republicans. I.e. liberals! Thank goodness, now he's gone, that'll be the end of that.

Meantime, I send my paltry bucks across the border to support 970AM 'cause the CBC's got no content anymore. So I'm grateful for your tax dollars papa
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,043
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
oldjones said:
First time I've heard of taxes having a political affiliation. Wasn't the last US Budget passed by a Republican Congress and signed by GeorgeII—a Republican last I heard. Damn those Republican liberals

Now then, why was it the Republican (Republican=liberal, remember) head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had to resign? I heard it was because he was blatantly packing the place with Republicans. Thank goodness, now he's gone, that'll be the end of that.

pops, well he gets confused easily.....very easily......;)

pops is a lot like Ronnie Reagan.
They were both libs in their youth....but alas as they both aged....and lost their minds....they turned into GOPers!
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Pops would eliminate all funding for arts if he could. Let art be for arts sake and not exist because the government funds it.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
If Americans Knew is a joke.

Study of New York Times Coverage Severely Flawed

An April 24 column by New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent referred to the organization "If Americans Knew," an advocacy group which accuses the Times of systematically disregarding Palestinian fatalities while over-emphasizing Israeli deaths.

Headed by Alison Weir, If Americans Knew is characterized by harsh anti-Israeli charges. Weir and her organization have parroted discredited claims that Israel attacks Palestinians with "mysterious poison gas," called Israel an "apartheid nation," described Palestinian terrorism as a "legitimate right and ... moral duty" and even referred to the founding of Israel as the start of a "holocaust."

This, along with the fact that Weir describes the partisan al-Jazeera and the virulently anti-Israel Washington Report on Middle East Affairs as some of "the best online sources" on the Middle East and Israel, raises serious doubts about the ability of her organization to credibly comment on American media coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The validity of these doubts are confirmed by the group's highly questionable study of New York Times Mideast coverage.

The 2005 study claims "the Times reported Israeli deaths at rates up to seven to ten times greater than Palestinian deaths," and that this discrepancy is "based on the ethnicity of the person killed." It further purports that "Times reporting regularly gave readers the impression that equal numbers of people on both sides were being killed – or that more Israelis were being killed," and that "the majority of Palestinian deaths ... are never reported by the Times at all."

The bulk of the study is based only on the headline and first paragraph – often just one sentence – of New York Times news reports, and completely ignores the remaining text of the articles. In other words, most of the news reports condemned by the study are not even read.

Frequent Mention of Casualty Breakdown

Only by ignoring most of the news coverage in this way can Weir reach her conclusions. Take, for example, the declaration that "Times reporting regularly gave readers the impression that equal numbers of people on both sides were being killed." This claim is quickly disproved with a glance at the newspaper's full coverage, since Times stories frequently cite casualty figures.

During the first year of violence (one of Weir's "study periods"), Times readers were told:

At least 20 Palestinians and 10 Israelis have died in a cycle of violence that has barely abated since the cease-fire took effect on June 13. Since the Palestinian uprising began last September, at least 479 Palestinians, 124 Israelis and 13 Israeli Arabs have been killed. ("Israeli Tanks Shell Palestinian Police Posts in Response to Attacks", 7/12/01)

The death toll in this conflict is nearing 700. Though figures are somewhat imprecise, the count is put at about 525 Palestinians, 155 Israeli Jews and 14 Israeli Arabs, whose casualties came almost entirely in the intifada's earliest days. ("Israelis and Palestinians Prepare for a Long Struggle," 8/17/01)

At least 580 Palestinians and 167 Israelis have been killed since a Palestinian uprising began a year ago. ("More Violence, and Western Peace Efforts, in the Middle East," 9/18/01)

And so on.

Clearly, the Times does not mislead readers about the number of fatalities sustained by both sides. If anything, it would be more accurate to say that such casualty breakdowns downplay Israeli deaths – readers are informed that more Palestinians than Israelis have died, but are not told that most of the Israeli victims were non-combatants targeted by Palestinians, whereas Palestinian fatalities were overwhelmingly combatants or Palestinians killed by other Palestinians

Most Palestinian Deaths are Reported

Weir also falsely states that most Palestinian deaths "are never reported by the Times at all," again basing this contention only on the headline and first sentence or two of news stories.

In fact, Weir's own numbers belie this claim. In the one month sub-study where If Americans Knew did actually examine news stories from start to finish, the group found the Times reported 82 percent of Palestinians killed. That is, Weir's statistics show that most Palestinian deaths are in fact reported in the newspaper.

Study Miscounts by Counting Repetitions

Weir further manipulates the data by treating an attack mentioned more than once as more than one death. So when the Times mentioned the killing of a 3-year-old Israeli in front of his kindergarten both on a front page blurb and in a full story on page six, Weir counts this as the Times reporting on two deaths. And when the killing is mentioned twice in the following days' stories about Israel's reaction to the slaying, Weir then claims that the Times reported on "400 percent" of Israeli children's deaths in this period of time.

Since Palestinian violence is often the immediate cause of Israeli counter-actions, the Times often reports the slaying of Israelis, and then mentions the attack again in a story about Israel's reaction to the killing. For example, the opening paragraph of a Jan. 15, 2005 story stated:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Friday that all government officials cut ties with the Palestinian Authority and that the Gaza Strip be sealed until Palestinian leaders moved to curb terrorism. He issued the order a day after Palestinian militants killed six Israelis at a checkpoint on the Gaza border.

Since the previous day's report broke news of this attack on the checkpoint, the attack was cited twice by the Times. Weir's study, then, misleadingly counts these two news stories, each referring to the killing of six Israelis, as having reported on the death of twelve Israelis.

Conflating Variables

Another example of amateurism of Weir's study is its unsubstantiated presumption that any "discrepancy" is "based on the ethnicity of the person killed."

Even if Weir's numbers are correct – an unlikely proposition since the study uses unreliable figures from B'tselem – her presumption is untenable.

For example, using Weir's flawed methods, one could say the Times reported 515 percent of Israeli Arabs fatalities in the first weeks of violence. (13 Israeli Arabs were killed early after the outbreak of violence, but the deaths were often reiterated by the newspaper.) Yet it would be irresponsible to claim that this high percentage was based on the casualties' Arab ethnicity. A competent study would have to consider conflating variables.

The Israeli Arab fatalities might have been mentioned more frequently because the deaths were a rare example of Israeli citizens being killed by Israeli forces; or because they occurred in the first weeks of violence, when casualties were still a relatively new phenomenon. (Jay Thomas Aubin, one of the very first Americans to die during the Iraq war, shows up in 345 articles when searching an online database of news reports. By contrast, Adam G. Mooney, who lost his life in the middle of the war, is mentioned only 74 times.)

Likewise, even if, as Weir alleges, specific Israeli deaths were repeated more often than Palestinian deaths in news stories, this most likely would not be a function of the "ethnicity" of those killed, but rather because it is more noteworthy when civilians are targeted for death (as is the case with most Israeli fatalities). Israelis murdered in grisly suicide bombings will likely garner more notice than Palestinians killed while attacking a soldier.

(Another example of foolishly ignoring conflating variables would be to assume that U.S. serviceman Pat Tillman, mentioned in 15 New York Times articles since his death, is cited so frequently because of his Scots-Irish heritage. A much more feasible explanation is that the repetitions are because he was a well known N.F.L. football player.)

History of Distortion

Weir's pseudoscientific study and absurd conclusions are not so surprising in light of her history of distortion.

For example, she claims that "Israel has a record of attacking its neighbors - mounting massive invasions of surrounding territory in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1982."

In 1982, 1967 and 1956, Israel invaded its neighbors only after repeated cross border killings, threats and acts of war aimed at the country from those neighbors. Weir, like most propagandists, neglects to mention this context. On her Web site, she even refers to the 1967 war as a "Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack on Egypt," ignoring the fact that Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, massed its troops on its border with Israel, threatened to destroy the country, and, in an act of war, illegally blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat. Blockading Eilat by blockading the Gulf of Aqaba, an international waterway, was, under international law, a casus belli. In other words, even before the first shot was fired in 1967, Egypt had started the war.

But even more preposterous is Weir's assertion that Israel "attacked" and "invaded" surrounding countries in 1948. During the 1948 War of Independence, it was Israel that was illegally attacked and invaded by its neighbors, which sought to destroy the nascent Jewish state. This attack by the Arab countries and the Palestinians was a violation of United Nations Resolution 181 (the Partition Resolution) and the UN Charter. Israel managed to fight off the attackers, but did not "invade" the attacking countries.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
Other falsehoods by Weir and If Americans Knew include: the claim that Israeli soldiers "regularly targeted children"; that Israelis mistaken identity attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was deliberate; that "in 1948, Israel declared its 'independence' on 78% of Palestine" (when in fact the country declared independence only over the land allotted to it by the United Nations – about 10 percent of historic Palestine or 55 percent of Palestine without TransJordan); that there are "Jewish-only roads" in the West Bank; and many other prevarications.

The Times' Middle East coverage is far from perfect, but even farther from the false reality painted by Weir.
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
Betrayal behind Israeli
attack on U.S. ship
By ADM. THOMAS MOORER
Moorer was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff from 1970 to 1974


After State Department officials and historians assembled in Washington, D.C., last week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history's most shocking cover-ups. On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship -- the USS Liberty --killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government. U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled, not once, but twice, through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I personally confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career. To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal hearings on Israel's attack on this American ship. No official investigation of Israel's attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members. A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel's attack was "a case of mistaken identity." TOP

Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They include:

Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship.

Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility.

The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.

Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.

Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.

Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded. TOP

As a result, our commission concluded that:

There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.

In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.

The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.

The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace. What was Israel's motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the military intelligence services. The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship. These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense. TOP

Did our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests? These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government. The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States.

Statement was originally published in the Houston Chronicle, 9 Jan 2004

On June 8th, 1967 the USS Liberty, an Intelligence ship in the Mediterranean was deliberately attacked to minimize information gathering of the illegal invasion by our closest ally of its neighbor.

Thirty-four American sailors died and 172 were wounded. Fighter pilots of the attacking forces were instructed to "shoot out the lifeboats" and leave no survivors or witnesses. Against all odds, the crew hobbled out of danger and returned to a government that has henceforth tried to cover-up this event.

This is the story of the brave sailors of the USS Liberty....and a memoriam of those whom died for their country that fateful day.

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Frontlines/Liberty1.htm
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.

The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
cyrus said:
In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.

The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.
Please explain this:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty2.html

These inquiries are public record, show where the conclusions have been misrepresented.

It appears to me that there is much more evidence refuting your conclusion; which begs the question as to why your "facts" should trump other "facts?" In light of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it appears that you are being a little presumptuous. Stating a very contentious finding as a statement of fact smacks of agenda.

If I find a post that claims you are a child molester, should that also be a statement of fact?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts