Re: The Palestinians Are Finished

On Mar 26, 12:33 pm, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:27 pm, "Q" <quond...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 26, 8:59 am, mos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Joel Shurkin <jshur...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
mos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
Joel Shurkin <jshur...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Q" <quond...@xxxxxxxxx> said:
mos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

But you totaly _dismissed_ Camera as a source of _any_ information
just because it's "advocacy" and "propaganda" Why dismiss it out of
hand?

Its value is limited because its approach is to give information
that supports a particular point of view.

That doesn't mean the information is incorrect. It means that other
information -- which might give a clearer picture that would help the
reader form a more informed opinion -- is not being included.

snip

I bet Everybody at SCJM reads it faithfully.

No, actually not everyone does. I have found it to be remarkably
inaccurate itself and ignore it.

Joel, could you tell us about it. Were their translations of the TV
shows or semons in the mosques, inacurate? Did you tell them about
their inaccuracies. You made a very sweeping accusation here. On what
is it based? Inquiring minds want to know.

I can't give you a current example because, as I said, I haven't looked
at it in years. CAMERA is the Fox News of Middle East Reporting. It has
a decidedly right-wing twist to what it does. If you come from that
part of the political spectrum, you love it; if you don't you hate it
or ignore it. Most mainstream journalists I know ignore it. It is not
their translations that are the problem but their interpretation of
what is important and what is not, and what it means that is the issue.
They have a definite bias and attack any in the media who do not
accomodate their bias. For those who like a left-wing bias, I recommend
FAIR [http://www.fair.org/index.php], although much of it is by way of
journalism schools as opposed to interest groups. Both need be taken
with a grain of salt.

Joel, you gave Quondam aid and succor by claiming Camera is
"remarkably inaccurate".

What do you mean "aid and succor?" Am I your enemy or something?
What kind of talk is that? Is there some kind of secret rule here
that nobody is allowed to agree with me?

Clearly that's not the case, since Joel already *did* agree with you,
as did I on that point.

I know it's not actually the case. But Moshe's indignant statement
suggested that perhaps he thought it ought to be.


But for me, *your* rhetoric makes that
awfully difficult to do.

Sorry. Some of my rhetoric is the result of answering posts while
angry.


Yet all you can say is they have a "bias"

They*do* have a bias. And they recruit members to function as shills
-- or watchdogs, if you prefer -- to make sure that the news is
reported in the biased way they prefer.

I don't think that they would argue that they *don't* have a bias.

Probably not. But for newsgroup discussion purposes, it would be
better -- IMO -- to present the bare facts to support a point of view,
without the tweaking and the accompanying rubric, on the theory that
the reader is smart enoughy to draw his or her own conclusions.

But you betray your own bias in the way that you phrase this. They
urge members to complain about what *they* perceive as biased or
uneven reporting, in the same manner that any number of organizations
do.

I phrased it the way I did, because there is the pretense that there
is no organized effort to manage the news or to get a certain kind of
coverage.

And another word for such an organized effort -- even at a grassroots
level -- would be a lobby.

Of course, when a paper is deluged with letters that contain the
exactly same text, they tend to regard them as a meddling nuisance
rather than the vox populi.

Good morni

ng. Do you know _any_ news media that does _not_ have a

bias? .

Real newspapers don't have a clearly stated agenda, certainly

My real reason for response. Come now, Q. You live in NY, IIRC. Can
you honestly say that you don't know the political leanings of the
major (or minor) newspapers here? Each slants the news through its
own filter.

I think that the better papers try to avoid doing that. Certainly,
reporters who fail to cover both sides of an issue get spanked. What
happens at the editorial level is more complicated.

But hairpulls over the use of "militance" instead of "terrorism"
suggest to me that CAMERA -- or its analogs -- are trying to
micromanage the news, which is not appropriate.



While you referred exclusively to newspapers, TV news is even easier.
Don't you see a real difference between CNN and FOX?

Sure. I've worked for the Murdoch organization -- among others -- and
I know exactly how the manipulation takes place, and at what level.
Some -- maybe most -- of Murdoch's papers and TV outlets teeter at
the brink of being tracts rather than real news products.


But I prefer print news, because the medium gives the news consumer
more time to read the material critically.

Is having a bias the same as being "remarkably inaccurate?"

A newspaper can be inaccurate without having a bias. Carelessness is
more frequently the cause of inaccuracy than bias.

Of course it can. But it can also be inaccurate with a bias.

Or
accurate with one.

I'm more interested in the second alternative. It's easier to catch
-- and correct -- things that are downright inaccurate. Emotive
wording is more subtle.

BTW -- I think that my computer may be snipping bits of posts that I
don't intend to snip. I am using a laptop that I am unaccustomed to
typing on because my regular computer is having modem issues. I'm
telling you this so if something is missing, you won't think I've
removed it on purpose.


Or it can choose its words to convey a certain
message while being scrupulously honest in other details. Compare the
terms *militant* *freedom fighter* and *terrorist* Doesn't each
convey a different meaning to you?

Sure. And I agree that the choice of words is what indicates bias or
not. And this is also true when texts are translated.


Do the same with *Occupied Arab
Jerusalem* *an Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem* and *Jerusalem* Now
try this one. *An American student was beaten today in Jerusalem*
and *an American Jewish student was pulled from his cab in an Arab
neighborhood and beaten by Arabs* Both are absolutely true, but they
convey different stories. These are all games newspapers play.
They're not telling lies, but they're slanting things.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the sole area that this happens is
with respect to Israel or Jews. Its ubiquitous.

There are many ways of getting from A to B in telling a story. As in
the example you give, the first version presents such bare facts that
it almost doesn't qualify as a story, unless the details are furnished
further along. So I would expect that the paper -- any paper that
covered such a story -- would eventually get around to revealing the
crucial fact that the student was Jewish and his assailants were
Arabs. -- Q

Karen Elizabeth


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
    ... >>kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message ... > reporting is bias, you also have to admit that their reporting of their ... > bias must be biased. ... >>news, Rush Limbaugh and FOX NEWS would have never evolved into the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: The Palestinians Are Finished
    ... I don't think that they would argue that they *don't* have a bias. ... It would be great if the news organisations, ... uneven reporting, in the same manner that any number of organizations ... neighborhood and beaten by Arabs* Both are absolutely true, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Lib Dem Defections
    ... reporting when that bias happens to favour your point of view. ... What I don't see is a consistent, overwhelming right-wing bias: I see some right-wing biased reporting and I see some left-wing biased reporting. ... Therefore truly neutral news would not apply this term to either side. ... I don't think one can say there's been a general pro-Huhne movement within the Liberal Democrats which the press has ignored. ...
    (uk.politics.electoral)
  • Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
    ... > reporting is bias, you also have to admit that their reporting of their ... > bias must be biased. ... >>news, Rush Limbaugh and FOX NEWS would have never evolved into the ... >> and there is a reason why the left can't create a huge ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Non Sequitur vs. LICD
    ... simply have too many reporters (and too many news organizations). ... If this type of reporting is typical of today's news reporters, then what you propose is a far better alternative than what we get now - because I didn't say anything like what you claim I said. ... OTOH, when was the last time your paper wrote an article about the TSA, and how much of it was original reporting versus repeating something that came down the wire? ... Compare it with the amount of original reporting one can get from the TSA blog every week. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)