Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/archive 1

I propose to reduce this page to a stub until someone is willing and able to write an article that is not just junk like at present. --Zero 01:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again Zero wishes to remove from Wikipedia any material that might be intepreted as supporting Israel or failing to support the Palestinians.

Once again OneVoice wants to turn Wikipedia into his personal anti-Arab hate site.

On May 19, 2004, United States armed forces in Iraq fired upon a village celebrating a wedding. 41 Iraqis, including 15 children, are killed. - what does this have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? RickK 22:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Compare its coverage in the media vs. the coverage of the incident in Gaza on the same day. The article is not about the conflict but rather about its coverage in the media. --Humus sapiens|Talk 22:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

And again Zero's position on the matter is rejected by Wikipedia.

Contents

1 This article stinks 2 photo 3 Rachel Corrie 4 changed "overly sympathetic" to "biased" 5 Occupation in 2001 6 anecodotal evidence insufficient 7 POV 8 Palestinians as journalists 9 Criticism of BBC 10 Bibliography + DO NOT make edits without initiating discussion.

This article stinks

This must be one of the most ridiculous and biased articles in the whole of Wikipedia. --Zero 08:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

photo

Why is this photo included in this article? Its inclusion is only meaningful if it reflects systematic bias one way or another. Without concrete evidence of this on the part of the NYT, it should be deleted. The Times, like every other newsapaper, screws up on a regular basis, and this was probably just a stupid mistake. -- Viajero 15:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are looking for "the concrete evidence" of their bias and propose to delete it in the same sentence. If someone short changes you on a regular basis, would call it a "probably just a stupid mistake"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 16:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the NYT systematicaly "short-changes" Israel? -- Viajero 08:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One example

• Error (New York Times, AP reporter Hussein Dakroub, 5/31/03): While the United States lists Hezbollah as a terrorist group, Lebanon regards it as a political party fighting Israeli occupation of a tiny piece of land in south Lebanon.
• Fact: “A tiny piece of land in south Lebanon” under Israeli occupation is presumably a reference to a region called Chebaa Farms. However, in its June 16, 2000 report of the Secretary-General (S/2000/590), the United Nations ruled that Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanese territory...

-- none of which contradicts what the NYT wrote. --Zero

Here are the lists of Uncorrected (http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=11&x_outlet=35) and Corrected (http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=10&x_outlet=35) ones. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is just a typical CAMERA list of whinges that NYT doesn't follow the Israel-does-no-bad line that CAMERA espouses. It is easy to refute a great many of their claims. --Zero 12:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie

Rachel Corrie may be a controversial figure, but I fail to perceive -- and the article does nothing to clarify -- how this has anything to do with media coverage. Failing clear evidence of systematic media bias with regard to her this section should be deleted. -- Viajero 15:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Not sure if this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7361) counts as it's biased, but it's a start. Johnleemk | Talk 01:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

changed "overly sympathetic" to "biased"

IMHO, "overly sympathetic" is not the problem. Just the opposite, being sympathetic to the Palestinians means they deserve better. The media, education, NGOs that support anti-Israel hatred and violence is counter-productive, just as keeping them eternal refugees. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Occupation in 2001

Moved the following paragraph to talk:

The US media watchgroup Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) claimed in 2001 that the word occupation has become almost taboo for American reporters. FAIR said that even the designation occupied territories, once routine on network TV, had all but disappeared. On the three networks' evening news broadcasts -- ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News -- FAIR determined the West Bank or Gaza were mentioned in 99 news stories since the fighting began in September 2000, but of those 99 stories, only four used the word "occupied," "occupation" or any other variation. FAIR determined that there is a significant difference between UK and US media: Israel's occupation was mentioned in almost two-thirds of the news stories in the British newspaper The Independent in 2001, while it was omitted from more than two-thirds of stories in the The New York Times. [1] (http://www.fair.org/extra/0101/intifada.html)

Reason: an outdated and non-neutral para. As per Oslo, in 2000-2001, the "Area A" territories were already under Palestinian control, and "Area B" - partially so. They were reoccupied later, in 2002, as a result of Intifada2. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

anecodotal evidence insufficient

I have removed the photo. The Times makes errors everyday. What is special about that one? If someone presents quantitative evidence of systemastic bias on the part of the Times we can restore it. By quantitative, I mean that kind of statistical analyses FAIR does. Otherwise, it is simply anecdotal (and hence propaganda). -- Viajero 21:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the Photo section above for an answer to your question. By removing the text and the photo not in line with your POV, you only demonstrated your non-neutral opinion. I think the AP/NYT photo is very representative of the topic ([2] (http://www.google.com/search?q=Tuvia+Grossman+photo)). Regarding FAIR: who is the judge to say it is not unfair? I have included some numbers as requested. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV

For example, The New York Times is reguarly castigated by progressive groups in the United States for its uncritical support of Israel, especially on its editorial pages, while right-wing, pro-Israel groups claim its reporting has a pro-Palestinian bias.

Do you call this NPOV? Progressive is definitely not (implying that the opposite is regressive). And being pro-Israel and right-wing is not the same. See also the comments above and learn to accomodate opinions other than yours. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yep, and rightwingers all sit on the right side of the table... -- Viajero 17:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians as journalists

I have removed this paragraph:

Pro-Israeli media critics claim newswire services such as the Associated Press, Agence France Presse and Reuters have a pro-Palestine bias because they employ Palestinians as journalists, due to their knowledge of the Arabic language and culture and easy access to the Palestinian population. Because of this, such critics say, the media outlets that depend on them are biased towards the Palestinian perspective. Others point out that major media outlets, particularly in the West, tend to portray the Israelis as victims.

This basically an ad hominem attack on Palestians. If someone comes up with objective, quantitative evidence that the wire services do in fact hire many Palestinines in Palestine and that it results in bias, we can reinserit it. -- Viajero 17:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is common for Palestinian guides, interpretters, camera crew, etc, to be hired by Western news agencies when they want to report from the Palestinian areas. They hire Israelis in the same fashion within Israel. However, the talking head (if TV) or news copy writer (if print) is usually Western. There are probably exceptions, but the extent would have to be documented and the claim of bias justified before anything like the disputed paragraph is acceptable. --Zero 18:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of BBC

The following was added by Humus Sapiens and removed by me:

{The BBC is legally obliged (http://www.bbcwatch.com/current2.html#_ftnref9) to cover news items in an accurate and impartial manner. In his December, 2002 analysis report The BBC and the Middle East (http://www.bbcwatch.com/current2.html), the London attorney Trevor Asserson writes: "It is clear that no news source can avoid error entirely. However we detect a consistent pattern in the type of "error." Time and again we find stories critical of Palestinians either suppressed or in some other way neutralised. By contrast we find time and again stories critical of Israel given undue prominence. Stories which would reflect well on Israel are apparently down-played."}

Humus, this is neither professional nor representative of NPOV. In fact it comes close to slander. You have used the remarks of a single individual's remarks on the BBC to imply that the BBC has at one time or another been unfair in one way or another, without any professional and widely recognized studies to back up such a claim. The only other example in this article is of the NYT, but the article clearly mentions the criticism that the NYT has received from both sides. Linking to one attorney's opinions does not amount to fact or even widely accepted sentiment. Trevor Asserson has been called to the Israeli bar and his study was conducted with the help of an Israeli lawyer, hardly an example of a source of objective and neutral criticism. To say the BBC is legally obliged to be objective, and to follow it up with mention of Asserson's study doesn't necessarily mean that the BBC came under the obligation AFTER the study, which is the POV your comment suggests; every professional news agency is similarly obliged and they all come under the same criticism of bias.

PS I am looking through his article now - among the other criticisms of BBC he makes is that the BBC does not classify Palestinian suicide bombing as terrorism. That is hardly what one might consider objective criticism... Simonides 08:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You should have read the analysis first, it is exhaustive research and contains facts. enough for BBC to hire a special ombudsman. The legal obligation is in the [www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/charter.shtml BBC's charter]. This whole article is turning into the "Jews control the media" disgrace. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humus, the analysis focuses on perceived bias - another report could just as well document the perceived bias against Palestinians and attack the BBC. Now if you report both, that would be NPOV. That the BBC hired someone to deal with the anti-Isreal charges tells us nothing, defendants need to protect themselves even when they are innocent. This article is not turning into a disgrace, it was perfectly fine as it was (already disputed - what more do you want?) until you started tried to wedge your little piece in there. Now, I am going to remove your passage one more time. The charges are not serious, they are from a single POV, and again, focus on the BBC instead of the countless other news agencies which could be cited for extreme bias, such as the Fox News channel. And your link is from Ananova, a tabloid - please. If you insist on turning this into a farce we will have to appeal to a third party. Simonides 09:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)...

PS here is your revised text: {Unusually for a news service, according to its BBC's Charter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/charter.shtml), it is legally obliged (http://www.bbcwatch.com/current2.html#_ftnref9) to cover news items in an accurate and impartial manner. In December, 2002 analysis report The BBC and the Middle East (http://www.bbcwatch.com/current2.html), the London attorney Trevor Asserson writes: "It is clear that no news source can avoid error entirely. However we detect a consistent pattern in the type of "error." Time and again we find stories critical of Palestinians either suppressed or in some other way neutralised. By contrast we find time and again stories critical of Israel given undue prominence. Stories which would reflect well on Israel are apparently down-played." To answer it, as well as Israel's [3] (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_798653.html?menu=) decision not to cooperate with the BBC in protest against "its anti-Israel coverage, which is characterised by violation of journalistic ethics and the broadcasting of baseless claims", and winning the 2001 Dishonest Reporting Award (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-_for_2001.asp#bbc), BBC hired an ombudsman for Middle East matters (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/433260.html).}

Humus, this is the third time you are inserting your piece into the article, and you have declined to discuss the point for your last edit. I have reported this page for Comment on NPOV; until that time please refrain from further edits, thank you. Simonides 09:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I addressed your points and revised the piece. None of revisions of the paragraph was acceptable enough to leave a sinle word out of it. Sorry, we cannot just ignore the official ban in an encyclopedia article. Annanova says it comes from AP, some others - from AFP, tt was all over the news. If one side decides to ban one news service and another is happy with their bised reporting, how does this makes pointing out their bias wrong? It could just so happen that they are truly _are_ biased and the other side has not much to complain about. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1)Because you do not mention or cannot find conflicting views, it does not mean they do not exist. 2)You did not address my points before making your third edit. 3)There are official bans of all kinds on numerous agencies, coming from various parties. A representative example has already been made, ie the NYT. The article does not need more, and the only thing your piece suggests is that the BBC is biased, without proof from any non-biased sources. Thank you, in any case, for stopping the edit war. Let us just agree to leave the article as it is - it already holds "disputed" status. Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Add any other major official reactions such as bans to the Reactions section. The strategy of removing refs & quotes and then saying that there is no evidence won't work. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography + DO NOT make edits without initiating discussion.

Humus, as a conciliatory act I will not revert my bibliography to its original version. In future, however, do NOT revert any of my edits until you comment on it first, instead of simply adding a note to your edit. Since you asked about why I put The Holocaust Industry in there, it is because the book is about Media Coverage. It doesn't need to have the words "media" and "coverage" in the title to be so. I don't see what your objection to Finklestein, a Jewish person, is - just above you were claiming I was trying to turn this article into an anti-Jewish "disgrace". Simonides 09:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jews have full range of opinions. Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew, who does not represent majority. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, since Jews (all other people as well) have a full range of opinions it is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia to represent the full range without maliciously characterizing or reducing any of these opinions. Calling someone a self-hating Jew does not reflect objective thought - this is not about majorities, it's about objectivity. Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"A self-hating Jew": that is about the stupidest cliche there is. Simonides, don't bother try to reason with Humus, he is just a zealot. -- Viajero 09:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS: Simonides, you haven't been around so long, right? Take a look at the version of this article Humus regarded as acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict&oldid=4010