In fact, the British and French took independent military and diplomatic action during the Suez Canal crisis in 1956.
Fortunately it’s never necessary to support Bush. In Krugmanland he’s always wrong and always acting from the basest of motives. 
Yes, let’s take the New York Times.
The Thursday (4/4) national edition of the Times has a front page photo of a man identified as an Israeli border checkpoint guard with his fist clenched, hovering over a man on the ground who has grabbed the guard by his collar. The photo caption reads “Israeli guards at a border checkpoint beat a peace activist yesterday during a demonstration in Jerusalem.” My local paper (a large Midwestern metro daily) ran a picture that appeared to be taken at the same demonstration, showing a guard swinging a nightstick at a man with a partially concealed wooden stake in his hand, with the caption reading “Israeli policeman hits an Arab Israeli protester during a demonstration in Jerusalem.”
The article accompanying the photo in the Times refers to posters in Bethlehem of Palestinian gunmen, describing them as “the proud faces of the martyrs”.
On the other hand, another Times article from the same day includes a reference to (Palestinian) bombers’ “gloating in Gaza”.
Please put that and any other concrete evidence you may possess together, and explain your implication that the Times is biased towards Israel.
Kimstu: “…there’s no question that American Jews have a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans, or American Muslims of any kind for that matter.”
Your cites for this statement and what you think its implications are would be most appreciated.
I find your reference to Thomas Friedman as a “hawkish” voice on the Mideast puzzling, as Friedman has been pushing hard for the Saudi-led peace proposal that envisions general Arab support for Israel’s right to exist in exchange for Israeli abandonment of settlements. What exactly defines this stance as “hawkish”?
OG was the inadvertant creation of a poster (who, like POWER-station was from Europe…hmm??) named SeaHawk. He was born in this thread and has become the resident deity of the board (in competition with the Invisible Pink Unicorn).
Zev Steinhardt
AS far as British News (BBC, ITV, serious newspapers) all of the above have been reported on.
but:
1/ It was reported that Israel had said that money was discovered.
2/ It was reported that Israel alleged that such an ambulance was discovered.
3/ The media points out that Arafat had not protected Israel, but also points out the reflecting positions where Israel has failed to abide by its agreements.
4/ It points out that Israel is bombed from Lebanon, but also fully reports the devastation caused by Israeli forces (currently operating under almost total military imposed news blackout.
5/ This was reported as fact.
6/ Many Israelis are shown and interviewed- many of them speak English and therefore make better TV news material than the less multi-lingual Palestinians.
I am in the position to watch UK and US news and my opinion of the differences are as follows:
BBC and ITV give equal prominence to Israeli and Palestinian spokespersons and both are given a hard time about backing up their claims. Both sides are treated with extreme scepticism over claims and counterclaims.
CNN as broadcast in the US tends to be slightly biassed towards the Israeli cause, however, CNN International seems to be far more even-handed.
Fox is a joke- Israeli spokes-persons treated with reverence and belief, Palestinian spokes-persons jibed at as Terrorists. However, Sky News (owned by News International- same as Fox and sharing much footage) is far more even handed. It is quite interesting to see the same news shots over-voiced by US and British commentators- completely different spin.
With the newspapers in the UK, most take a fairly even-handed approach in their coverage- criticising both sides, but individual commentators may be very pro-Israel or very pro-Palestine.
The British media appears biassed to the US because of this willingness to present both sides of the conflict.
My position on the subject is that there is a major problem of over half a century involving lies, injudicious acts, racial hatred, misuse of force and terror on both sides. I say this only to point out that I see both sides of the argument addressed daily in the British Press, but do not see the pro-Palestinian view ever in the US media, save for PBR etc…
Omfgod.
After reading this appalling, appalling thread, I was about to never again participate in any Israel/Palestine threads.
This thread:
Middle Eastern media criticise Israel. =they’re biased
European media criticise Israel. =they’re biased (and anti-semitic - let’s not forget the war msmith537)
American media don’t criticise Israel. =they’re the only unbiased ones
AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
But then - thank god and thank pjen - I just read pjen’s post and realised if I back out, it’s just another victory for that strain in the US media that has led to “logic” like the above.
So basically everything that pjen said and more.
Ever read peddling prosperity? He wasn’t exactly complimentary towards Clinton’s trade policy either. Yeah, he’s hypercritical of Alaskan drilling, the “energy crisis”, and the tax cut. Then again, he might have a point. Certainly isn’t the only one I’ve seen who’s questioned those ideas, although he’s most adept at economics. It’s certainly less partisan than the straight-outta-RNC-talking-points attacks I saw on that site, and the damned near libelous accusations that Sullivan has been oozing lately.
Besides, I doubt too many on the right would want to start pilloring people on the left for single-minded attacks of a sitting president and his administration. Chromatic comparisons of kitchen cookware might come up. 
Fox is a joke - there is no argument there.
I have BBC World, Sky News, CNN and of course to national channels.
I prefer BBC among the foreign ones. CNN isn’t all that bad though.
I have not watched Sky News so much. I seams to have more British news than BBC World
Fox News is the worst and most biased channel I’ve ever seen. Especially that program after the O’Reilly Factor (don’t remember the name of the program). :eek:
Apart from the question of what “PBR etc.” is, the claim that the pro-Palestinian view is never seen in the U.S. media is ridiculous on its face, even for someone habituated to The Guardian’s standards of journalism.
C’mon Pjen, here’s a challenge for you. Show me any major article or broadcast transcription that concerns a significant news event in the Mideast (try the Israeli military action after the Passover suicide bombing for starters) from the N.Y. Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, Washington Post or network news outlet that does not address the “pro-Palestinian” view.
Nobody’s claiming that. Please try not to misrepresent the issue.
What IS being claimed is that the US media reporting is not entirely biased towards Israel, while at the same time the European media is not entirely unbiased in its reporting. It’s that simple.
And remember… Americans - and their various media outlets - are not of a single like mind.
::sigh:: Let’s go through a few basic guidelines.
-
Criticism of one position does not equate to support of the opposing position.
-
Opinions asserted as facts are always going to be slammed in GD, and rightfully so.
-
Bad information set forth in support of your POV does more harm than good. It makes any correct information later put forth suspect.
Sua
Yes, totally. However I am sorrry but I don’t quite understand what you mean here in relevance to my post.
Yes, that was me “slamming” the opinion of msmith157 - at least as politely as one can in GD as this is not the Pit.
I don’t quite understand what bad information you’re referring to here. I didn’t tender any facts/info, just opinion. And not opinion/POV on the actual OP issue, but rather on the progress of this thread. Anyone is free to slam me back.
For the record: I believe that most media are biased one way or the other, and individual publications within the media of a single country/continent/area can be biased to opposite polarity.
And I believe that there is probably somewhat more pro-Israeli bias in the US media (speaking generally) than in the European media.
However there is a hell of a lot more pro-Palestinian bias in the Middle Eastern media.
And none of this bias is particularly helpful to the cause of either side nor the solution to the problem - rather it is misleading and inflammatory - which is why I generally turn for information to the most “neutral” sites I can find, such as the BBC.
istara, you criticized the thread as a whole.
The OP started from a flawed premise. The OP provided one fact - that, at least in Norway (and likely elsewhere in Europe) public opinion is more pro-Palestinian than it is in the U.S. In the context of potential media bias, the issue raised by the OP, there are four possible interpretations:
-
Europeans are right and Americans are being led astray by a biased media;
-
Americans are right and Europeans are being led astray by a biased media;
-
Neither media is biased, and Americans and Europeans simply view the situation through differening prisms of values and perspectives; or
-
Either or both media is biased, but media bias does not signficantly impact public opinion in both or either areas.
Without further evidence, the OP jumped to the conclusion that interpretation #1 was the correct one. Such an OP should rightfully be slammed, even by people (like me) who probably tend to be closer to the OP’s obvious sympathies than are opposed to them.
Sua
Not that I’m aware of. The BBC probably gets news from a wide variety of sources, but it would then get its field-based reporters and correspondents to verify and do their own coverage of.
A lot of things piss me off about the Beeb (license system being one), but in terms of news integrity - having been taught by ex-BBC senior journalists and producers, having done work placement there, having read their journalism guidelines, and having consumed their news output for several years - I would say that they must be among the most reliable news organisations in the world.