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.

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in its June 16, 2000 report of the Secretary-General (S/2000/590), the United Nations ruled that Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanese territory...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 and Corrected 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 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]

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]). 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 to cover news items in an accurate and impartial manner. In his December, 2002 analysis report The BBC and the Middle East, 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, it is legally obliged to cover news items in an accurate and impartial manner. In December, 2002 analysis report The BBC and the Middle East, 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] 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, BBC hired an ombudsman for Middle East matters.}

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

The Guardian

This is the perfect forum for someone to write a piece on the Guardian's Coverage of Israel. The Guardian was once israel's biggest supporters, from the 20's to the 40's it referred to the Arabs as being at a lower stage of civilisation. They were the UK's chief Zionist promoters. After the Arab-Israeli war following the foundation of Isael the Guardian urged the UK and US governments to help the fledgling Jewish State, and again supported the Israelis in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

However since then they have taken an increasingly anti-Israeli stance, following on mainly from the Israeli invasion of lebanon to the present Day. Today the Guardian is the fore-most promoter of Palestinian rights amoung the UK National papers.

I think this is interesting, and deserves a decent few paragraphs, but I'm too lazy to go look for the "back-up" which will enevitably be asked of me before being Reverted.

This just goes to show that even from the beginning writers at the Guardian are inherently prejudiced. The West generally looked down on Arabs then, and now it just hates Israel's guts. The Guardian just feels this need to go with popular sentiment—to become yes-men—in order to sell. The bottom line is profit.

No it doesn't. Israelis are still in the top positions and Jews, still rule by proxy. Hate is not the right word for the rest, 'use' is. In some west countries Jews are given hugs for being 'the chosen people'. Much of the West loves Jews for their sheer brilliance, after all, that is what the threat is about.

Does anyone else think that the section on misrepresentation in the media is exessively leant in Israel's favour?? Every single example focuses on atrocities allegedly committed by Israel, which turned out to be incorrect. I am not an expert on the subject, but surely there must be some misrepresented facts in the Israeli media about Palestinians also, not just the other way around. It doesn't really seem possible that the Israeli media is completely unguilty of misreporting the facts and manipulating images or situations to further the cause of Israel. Somebody should rectify this. 202.6.141.1 03:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?

Sorry I was away for a while. Exactly what factual accuracy is being disputed here? I have reverted the header to read {npov}} -- Simonides 05:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edited the post above so this talk page won't show up in the NPOV disputes category. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not "Randomly bashing Israel" or "Israel owns the media" article

This is not the right place. Why don't you create those? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I cannot see how the statements and actions, in re media coverage, of the Israeli government, are irrelevant to an article on Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli government is the pre-eminent power in the region, and what it says or does about media coverage can have a significant effect on journalists' behavior—right? —No-One Jones 19:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fine, but all this should work both ways. Allegations should not be presented as facts. This article contains numerous lies by omission:

• Where is the section on Arab influence? It was purged.
• link to atrociously POV http://www.freemedia.at/intifada.htm
• not examining Arab media.
• Tuvia Grossman's image, as well as refs to Rachel Corrie and Jenin are still being used by anti-Israel propaganda. All of those three were promoted by the media, therefore are highly relevant to the conflict's coverage. All of them vanished from this article.

I also object to renaming this article. We don't have Media coverage of Ireland or Media coverage of Japan, etc. Why is the Jewish state being singled out for scrutiny? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Like to establish your claim about Tuvia Grossman? I don't believe it was ever more than a garden-variety error on a trivial subject. It does not belong in Wikipedia at all and the page about it should be deleted, --Zero 23:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"a garden-variety error" in a long chain of similar errors which were removed from here. Google shows 990 hits. Some WP articles with a lot less hits are never even put under question. In regards to other points, I guess the NPOV policy stops there. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humus, perhaps you missed the part of the article where it says the Israel-Palestine article is one of the most widely reported news items. It is natural that if a news item is constantly reported on, the issues in question will come under scrutiny. There is no singling out here - I wonder if you ever realise what a discredit you do to yourself when you use such defensive language. -- Simonides 05:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll repeat the point here for those who missed it: I also object to renaming this article. We don't have Media coverage of Ireland, etc. see above. "There is no singling out here": then please name me another article named Media coverage of state X. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. I think that it would be interesting to have an article like Media coverage of the Gulf War or Media coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There is probably already a fair bit of useful information in various articles that could be refactored out. I am going to look into this weekend. -- Viajero 12:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humus, see Media in the United States. I think it needs to highlight the fact Anglo-American media is owned by corporations and conglomerates who finance and endorse the views of right-wing political parties, and are pro-government on the side of error, receiving exemptions from anti-trust laws and tax cuts in return, but the fact the article exists is a start. There are already articles devoted to specific US and UK news channels (ex. Fox News,CNN), so I don't think you can say Israel is singled out; but I agree with Viajero that we could be more specific about, say, American media coverage of the invasion of Panama - the latter is a rather poor article by the way, it ignores background and casualties and needs work. -- Simonides 23:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suspect you (all of you who don't speak out against this latest renaming) are actually able to recognize the difference between Media in X and Media covering X. How about the diff between scrutinizing a nation and a policy? With the monstrous regimes in N.Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc., your singling out only the Jewish state tells a lot about you. For the self-appointed NPOV-police here, your bigotry is noted. Must be an effect of the "progressive" media. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:03, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to add and write articles on the "Media Coverage in Country X of Conflicts that Country X in involved in", Humus. -- Simonides 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why the article was renamed then? Judging a nation (not a policy) is wrong. Singling out Jews is wrong. Doing it simultaneously constitutes anti-Semitism, plain and simple. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This was posted on the page

"The perceived anti-Israeli bias does not appear to concur with statistical studies in the UK and USA. On June 22, the news channel Totally Jewish, along with other news sources, reported that "a research study published this week claims to have revealed a clear media bias (in the UK) in favour of Israel." Called " Bad News from Israel" (Greg Philo and Mike Berry, 2004, London: Pluto Press) the study, conducted over a two year period, suggests

television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views... There is a preponderance of official 'Israeli perspectives', particularly on BBC 1... TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict... Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as "starting" with Palestinian action. On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised ... There was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though Palestinians had around 2-3 times the number of deaths as Israelis)... The book shows the crucial importance of TV news in informing public opinion and the powerful influence it can have on how we see and understand our world. [4]

In America, studies on the San Francisco Chronicle and other selected periodicals revealed that there was a clear bias against Palestine during the first six months of the 2000-2001 conflict. Despite the fact that, according to Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, over 5 times as many Palestinians were killed as Israelis,

the San Francisco Chronicle reported on 111% of Israeli deaths and only 38% of Palestinian deaths in the headlines and/or the first paragraphs ... This discrepancy was even more exaggerated in the Chronicle’s coverage of the killing of children ... the Chronicle covered 150 % of Israeli children’s deaths and only 5 % of Palestinian children’s deaths, giving readers the impression that approximately equal numbers of youths had been killed on both sides ... Regarding Chronicle coverage of cumulative totals, information that would have at least somewhat ameliorated the above misimpressions, we found that only 12 stories (or 4.8%) of 251 news stories on this topic contained cumulative totals of deaths on both sides somewhere in the article. There was not a single report on the total number injured ..."

Should it be retained or is it too controversial? -- Simonides 05:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of using such material which attempts a quantitative analysis of bias rather than simply editorializes. -- Viajero

Quantitative studies are good, but we should of course prefer the original source to a second-hand review or summary. Since the second study is available online, we can use it, but we ought to hold off on Bad News from Israel until someone has read the book. —No-One Jones 12:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments, I shall add the passage back with modifications. Please note that as of this moment no contributor to this article has objected. A revert to the page without prior discussion, should one of the current contributors find the passage objectionable, will not be tolerated. -- Simonides 22:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Inline ext refs considered harmful

Simonides, I tweaked the section you just added. One thing: embedding external links in text is considered reader-unfriendly, as for many it is not always obvious what is a wiki link what is external. The concensus appears to be that grouping them at the end of an article or supplying them as citations is the way to go. Personally, I think it makes sense, because it forces us to make sure the text stands as a whole, and not depend links for vital information. -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comment on statistics

Can someone who understands statistics explain to me how the authors of the report on the Chronicle end up with percentages above 100, ie "111% of Israeli deaths" and "150% of Israeli children's deaths". I thought maybe it was an editing error but that is how it stands in the cited PDF document. -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I examined the study and determined how they arrived at these figures, and then rewrote the section accordingly. -- Viajero 11:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

removed from article

Given the crucial importance of media coverage in the conflict, an unfortunate but not surprising side-effect has been attacks on journalists from both sides. Since the flare-up of violence in September 2000, journalists have repeatedly been targeted, shot, beaten, arrested, threatened and intimidated by Israeli soldiers, police, politicians, settlers and civilians, as well as by Palestinian police, politicians and civilians. According to figures published by the International Press Institute (IPI), there were 310 incidents up to May 2003, including the deaths of ten journalists. Journalists and media workers were injured by live ammunition, shrapnel or rubber coated bullets, and were harassed and physically assaulted in other ways. 126 violations involved shootings, almost all of them perpetrated by Israeli troops. Journalists were jailed for several months by the Israelis without even being charged with an offence. Palestinian journalists were denied Israeli press cards and thus severely obstructed in carrying out their professions.

At least 240 press freedom violations were carried out by Israeli authorities. 17 violations were committed by Israeli settlers and civilians. One was perpetrated jointly by soldiers and settlers. Thus, at least 82.9 per cent of all reported violations were perpetrated by Israelis. Another 24 reported violations were carried out by Palestinian authorities, 8 by Palestinian paramilitaries, and 7 by Palestinian civilians. This makes Palestinians responsible for 12.5 per cent of the reported number of abuses of press freedom. The overwhelming majority of victimised journalists are of Palestinians. Eight of the journalists who were killed so far were Palestinian, one was Italian, and one was British. Eight were killed by Israelis, one by Palestinian paramilitaries and the tenth killing is disputed. (It is unclear whether this journalist was killed by Israelis, Palestinian or as a result of an accident.) Of the 4.5 per cent of the incidents whose perpetrators are unknown, the IPI believes it likely that the initiative lay with the Israeli army in most of the incidents. [5]

please compare text with link

It was not clear that the paragraph was a quote, which has been rectified; apart from that the text is not a copyright violation because the source is cited. -- Simonides 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)