MSM Bias

[Alan]

UK journalist union votes to boycott Israeli goods

Britian's National Union of Journalists has voted at its annual meeting for a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a protest against the Second Lebanon War, the British daily Guardian reported on its Web site Friday evening.

The motion came during a series of motions on international affairs and read: "This ADM [annual delegate meeting] calls for a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and the TUC [Trades Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations."

The vote on the motion was taken after it was split from a larger motion that condemned the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel" last year.

This motion, known as Composite B in Order Paper 4, was carried by a large majority and also condemned the "slaughter of civilians by Israeli troops in Gaza and the IDF's continued attacks inside Lebanon" following what the motion defined Israel's "defeat" by Hizbullah.

The motion called for the "end of Israeli aggression in Gaza" and other territories inhabited by Palestinians. The Yorkshire branch of the NJU neglected to mention in its motion either the fact that Israel was keeping a ceasefire with the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that southern towns in Israel were, and still are, sporadically fired upon with Kassam rockets.

Also absent from the motion was any mention of the hundreds of civilians bombarded with projectile rockets for over a month in the summer of 2006.

What more can one say

 

[marine1]

Bunch of lazy assed Brits. Maybe they should do it to the Iranian goods. Bunch of loseres.

 

[marine1]

Pre planned attack? Do they even have a clue what really happened? Anyway the UK is full of Arabs so what can one expect?

 

[Xarog]

So exactly who qualifies for the title of 'MSM', Alan?

 

[Syndyre]

Former Guardian reporter and Yahoo Europe news director Lloyd Shepherd quipped that he now looked "forward to similar boycotts of Saudi oil (abuse of women and human rights), Turkish desserts (limits to freedom of speech) and, of course, the immediate replacement of all stationery in the NUJ's offices which has been made or assembled in China."

 

[mancombseepgood]

So exactly who qualifies for the title of 'MSM', Alan?

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/pit10524_fm.html

Men who have sex with men

 

[Xarog]

Alan uses it to mean mainstream media - though the fact that there's already another meaning for the acronym is rather amusing.

 

[Alan]

How the Media Partnered With Hezbollah: Harvard's Cautionary Report

While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war. It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media's manipulation.

Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness."

The lessons from the Harvard paper go well beyond historic analysis. Kalb's thoroughly and persuasively documented case points to the challenges to journalists in future "asymmetrical" conflicts in which a radical militia provides access only to journalists agreeing to the strictest of rules

.

Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy. With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood. Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran -- including the provision of deadly weapons -- faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population.

Despite the undisputed fact that Hezbollah triggered the war, Israel was painted as the aggressor, as images of the war overtook the context.

Israelis by the hundreds of thousands became the target of rocket fire aimed at civilian centers. Women and children, Jews and Arabs, young and old, spent more than a month living in underground shelters while nearly 4000 Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. The coverage from Israel, however, quickly moved away from the anxiety-filled civilian areas, which were not terribly telegenic, and onto the front lines where armed, uniformed soldiers could be seen by television cameramen and reporters.

By contrast, armed Hezbollah fighters were all but invisible to the media. Also invisible were Hezbollah's thousands of rockets and rocket launchers strategically positioned near schools, hospitals and apartment buildings.

Within Hezbollah territory, journalists were led through scenes of the destruction caused by Israel. Journalists rarely complained about Hezbollah's restrictions, but they frequently complained about Israel's efforts to limit coverage deemed useful to the enemy. Still, circumventing Israeli restrictions proved easy in a country like Israel, while in Hezbollah-controlled areas it proved all but impossible.

Cameras enjoyed full access to civilian victims of Israel's actions, but never to the perpetrators of violence against Israel. And in Israel journalists could interview soldiers complaining about the weaknesses in Israeli tactics. On more than one occasion, Hezbollah choreographed theater for visiting journalists, with ambulances ordered to parade on command for journalists, who rarely challenged the inconsistencies in what they saw. Bloggers, for example, noticed a perfectly unharmed Lebanese man standing in a picture, not long after he had been seen being "rescued" from the crushing rubble of a building.

Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah's version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging

The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other

 

[Alan]

BBC 'risked safety of troops'

The BBC was accused last night of risking the safety of British forces in Iraq after trawling for information on troop movements in the war-torn country.

Politicians reacted in disbelief to the revelation that for over two hours yesterday, the BBC News website carried a request for people in Iraq to report on troop movements.

The request was removed from the website after it sparked furious protests that the corporation was endangering the lives of British servicemen and women.

But according to accounts last night, a story on a major operation by US and Iraqi troops against al-Qa'eda somewhere north of Baghdad contained an extraordinary request for information about the movement of troops.

Last night the BBC confirmed the wording of the request was: "Are you in Iraq? Have you seen any troop movements? If you have any information you would like to share with the BBC, you can do so using the form below."

The BBC confirmed last night that this form of words had appeared on the website from "late morning" until early afternoon.

"It was down by 2pm," The Daily Telegraph was told.

A spokesman was unable to offer a detailed explanation of why anyone at the BBC should be seeking such information or whether any details on troop movements had been received.

He refused to identify who put the message up but said that "the journalist" responsible had been reminded that "this is not a form of words we would use".

However, in a statement, the BBC added: "BBC Online regularly asks visitors to its websites to supply information they may have relating to a specific story through a response form posted at the end of a news item.

"This particular page should not have been published. The BBC never broadcasts or publishes information which may put British troops at increased risk."

The Ministry of Defence was not aware of the affair yesterday until alerted by The Daily Telegraph.

However, a spokesman said: "We would take this incredibly seriously if it's true. We are checking this with our guys out in Iraq."

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, 151 UK troops have lost their lives, 115 of them in hostile action.

The Conservatives demanded an investigation be carried out into the information search and urged the BBC to make sure any information received had not fallen into the wrong hands.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, voiced his shock at what he claimed was a "bizarre" request for information about army movements.

"I am appalled because it shows either a wilful disregard for the safety of our Armed Forces or a shocking lack of understanding about their safety.

"It makes me wonder who makes these decisions. The BBC now needs to have urgent discussions with the Armed Forces as to how this message came about," Dr Fox said.

The blunder sparked a flood of protests from army insiders and servicemen's relatives, posted on the Army Rumour Service website (www.arrse.co.uk). One woman, who described herself as an "Army wife", said she was "shocked and dismayed" that the BBC was asking people "to report our troop movements on an open forum which could be read by insurgent forces and/or their allies".

The BBC insisted last night that the information would not have been published, saying "this was not a blog".

But the woman went on: "Surely if you want reporting done, you have staff who are able to do that for you. Otherwise why do we pay over £100 in licence fees?"

Another wrote: "Did you realize that the BBC are now helping insurgents in northern Iraq with their intelligence?"

Well no surprise there

They( MSM) have been actively undermining( hence actively supporting Al Qaeda, Shiah extremists and Baathists) the troops since..... well even before Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[Xarog]

While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war. It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media's manipulation.

This would be different from what the US army achieved with embedded journalists... how?

Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness."

BS. Israel censored alot of the reporting that occured within it's own borders.

Perfect example : Israel has built many of it's military bases/arms factories and so forth in densely populated towns and cities. Hezbollah had managed to send a spy drone over Israeli territory in 2005 and so they knew roughly where these buildings were.

In Israel it's treason to state the location of such installations in times of war (not that unreasonable really), but what this meant was that the IDF were free to claim that Hezbollah was shooting rockets at civilians, without any journalists being able to actually oppose the IDF, because if they did say "hang on a sec, there's an arnament factory there!", they'd be risking their own lives in doing so. Meanwhile the fact that those rockets killed about as many soldiers as civilians indicates that Hezbollah was doing their best to actually attack the Israeli war machine rather than indiscriminately firing them into suburbia.

The lessons from the Harvard paper go well beyond historic analysis. Kalb's thoroughly and persuasively documented case points to the challenges to journalists in future "asymmetrical" conflicts in which a radical militia provides access only to journalists agreeing to the strictest of rules

Too bad the source doesn't look at both sides of the issue.

Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy.

This is essentially true.

With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood.

Funny how that 'info' got out THROUGH the 'mainstream media'...

Besides, as I've recently pointed out, what Hezbollah did is enitrely unoriginal and is also in keeping with the general way war is fought. Hezbollah's only alternative was to actually spend effort and time driving those mobile rocket launchers out of the city. That alternative is as good as painting a bullseye on your forehead and pulling the trigger yourself.

Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran -- including the provision of deadly weapons -- faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population.

Again, that's essentially true.

Israel's attack plan had absolutely nothing to do with rescuing any soldiers. The pretext was just an excuse to enact a plan that had been brewing for well over a year.

Despite the undisputed fact that Hezbollah triggered the war, Israel was painted as the aggressor, as images of the war overtook the context.

Israel chose to go to war. There was another perfectly valid choice, which would be to release the Lebanese prisoners that Israel currently holds without justification. This is not the first time that Hezbollah has kidnapped soldiers, and it probably won't be the last while Israel still holds Lebanese civilians without even bothering to charge them with a crime.

Israelis by the hundreds of thousands became the target of rocket fire aimed at civilian centers. Women and children, Jews and Arabs, young and old, spent more than a month living in underground shelters while nearly 4000 Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. The coverage from Israel, however, quickly moved away from the anxiety-filled civilian areas, which were not terribly telegenic, and onto the front lines where armed, uniformed soldiers could be seen by television cameramen and reporters.

So these would be the reporters that weren't supposedly embedded with the Hezbollah fighters?

And again the civilian centres lie. Obviously the Israeli censorship was effective to no small degree.

By contrast, armed Hezbollah fighters were all but invisible to the media. Also invisible were Hezbollah's thousands of rockets and rocket launchers strategically positioned near schools, hospitals and apartment buildings.

Bzzzzt! WRONG!

Also, Israel had no problem 'strategically' blowing apart Lebanises mosques and schools. Not that Hezbollah were anywhere near them; the IDF simply didn't realise that Hezbollah had actually built bunkers out of the sight of IDF drones and spies.

Within Hezbollah territory, journalists were led through scenes of the destruction caused by Israel. Journalists rarely complained about Hezbollah's restrictions, but they frequently complained about Israel's efforts to limit coverage deemed useful to the enemy. Still, circumventing Israeli restrictions proved easy in a country like Israel, while in Hezbollah-controlled areas it proved all but impossible.

Oh really? Perhaps some concrete examples would suffice for such a bold claim? I've given at least one example where the OPPOSITE was true.

Cameras enjoyed full access to civilian victims of Israel's actions, but never to the perpetrators of violence against Israel. And in Israel journalists could interview soldiers complaining about the weaknesses in Israeli tactics. On more than one occasion, Hezbollah choreographed theater for visiting journalists, with ambulances ordered to parade on command for journalists, who rarely challenged the inconsistencies in what they saw. Bloggers, for example, noticed a perfectly unharmed Lebanese man standing in a picture, not long after he had been seen being "rescued" from the crushing rubble of a building.

People come out from collapses buildings unhurt. Not often, but often enough that pointing to one man and saying "Ha! He's not hurt!" isn't proof of anything.

But I'm curious. How is it that these journalists were never near the Hezbollah fighters, yet they were also guided by the 'radical militia' to see only what Hezbollah wanted them to?

Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah's version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging

One photograph. Reuters fired the twit, and he will never get work as a photographer again, unless it's to do stuff like weddings. Hardly indicative of a sadistic plot by the media as a whole to skew the picture.

The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other

Riiiiiight.

Methinks this guy has been eating lead paint as a kid.

 

[Syndyre]

BBC 'risked safety of troops'



Well no surprise there

They( MSM) have been actively undermining( hence actively supporting Al Qaeda, Shiah extremists and Baathists) the troops since..... well even before Iraq and Afghanistan

To be fair I've seen that on plenty of BBC articles about all different articles, its pretty boilerplate, stupid yes but not malicious I don't think.

 

[sabagamma]

Pre planned attack? Do they even have a clue what really happened? Anyway the UK is full of Arabs so what can one expect?

Belly dancing and shishas perhaps?

I think everybody knows what happened, Israel thought it could stroll in, destroy a country and walk out - instead it got its ass kicked by a militia.

Maybe you don't remember what Israel did during its occupation of Lebanon. May I point out that Israel's own Khan commission found that Ariel Sharon was guilty of the Shabra and Shatila massacres.

Perhaps it is time that you expand your news material to something beyond The New York Post?

 

[Alan]

To be fair I've seen that on plenty of BBC articles about all different articles, its pretty boilerplate, stupid yes but not malicious I don't think.

Just ask the troops what they think of the BBC

 

[Skeptik]

Meanwhile the fact that those rockets killed about as many soldiers as civilians indicates that Hezbollah was doing their best to actually attack the Israeli war machine rather than indiscriminately firing them into suburbia.

And which suburb of Beirut are the Lebanese themselves now hurling every shell they can get their hands on, prey tell?

What makes this alright, the fact they they are Fatah palestinians?

 

[Xarog]

And which suburb of Beirut are the Lebanese themselves now hurling every shell they can get their hands on, prey tell?

What makes this alright, the fact they they are Fatah palestinians?

Nice attempt to divert the topic.

There's currently a journalist making some interesting claims, but they're largely unverified. I'll post more details if I believe the info to be sound....

But they're not Fatah Palestinians, that's for sure.

Edit : it's also not a suburb of Beruit, but a refugee camp. Get your facts straight if you're going to start giving grief, k?

 

[Skeptik]

I'm trying to highlight the double standards. Israel is the meany bully when they attack innocent Hezbollocks fighters hiding in civilian areas whilst lobbing rockets and capturing their troopies, BUT when the Lebanese does it to a refugee camp (as you put it), then it's OK because they are just cleaning up right Xarog old chap??

 

[Xarog]

I'm trying to highlight the double standards.

Well you're doing a rather horrible job.

Israel is the meany bully when they attack innocent Hezbollocks fighters hiding in civilian areas whilst lobbing rockets and capturing their troopies

No.

BUT when the Lebanese does it to a refugee camp (as you put it), then it's OK because they are just cleaning up right Xarog old chap??

Not at all. Like I said, I'll post more when a few sources have been confirmed.

So far it looks like the yanks tried to prop up a sunni financially as a means to oppose the shiite hezbollah and offered fighters lots of money to establish themselves. This in turn brought lots of sunnis from OUTSIDE Lebanon, including certain factions with very close ties to Al Qaeda and company, which then took root in various parts of the country, including the palestinian refugee areas.

When it became apparent that these groups were more interested in fighting Israel than Hezbollah, the funding was cut. This peeved the various Sunni groups off which then robbed the bank where they had previously received their handouts. This prompted the US govt to support the Lebanese Army as their 2nd choice (which can be proven by the american promises to give the Lebanese army some funding to fight these Sunni extremists), which are now shelling the crap out of the palesitinian areas where these foreign Sunnis took root.

All I can say is : what a horrible mess. I hope the US learns their bloody lesson soon and stops interfering where their noses don't belong.

(It's rather ironic, that, throughout this whole mess, Hezbollah has vowed to protect the UN and certain western embassies from the extremist Sunnis, and actually seems to be carrying out these vows by offering armed escourts among other things).

 

[rwenzori]

Alan uses it to mean mainstream media - though the fact that there's already another meaning for the acronym is rather amusing.

And there I had thought it had to do with M & M Enterprises taking over the media, or a new "M"-type Spaghetti Monster.

Alan's idea of "mainstream media" probably gets no more left than Radio VolkEnVaderland - far right on the radio dial.

 

[Alan]

And there I had thought it had to do with M & M Enterprises taking over the media, or a new "M"-type Spaghetti Monster.

Alan's idea of "mainstream media" probably gets no more left than Radio VolkEnVaderland - far right on the radio dial.

Yeah and your idea of balanced is "Commondreams" and Michael Moore

 

[rwenzori]

Yeah and your idea of balanced is "Commondreams" and Michael Moore

Trolling again are we? Evidence for your accusation?