Corporate Media on the Israel/Palestine Issue

Sofa_King Good · 06-01-2009 12:20am #1

I seen this Video Peace Propoganda and the Promised Land http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=peace+propaganda+and+the+promised+land&emb=0&aq=0&oq=peace%2C+pr# a while back and it left an impact on me. Hopefully it will for you too, and maybe put in perspective the coverage of the current issue.

(WARNING: Contains graphic images)

As best as I can make out this is the cause of the breakdown of the cease fire:
Dec 4th: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/21/israel-palestine-gaza

And Dec 5th: http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=33024

This fails to get mentioned a lot too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

And this is just what an IDF individual thinks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36LIaxXYP0&eurl=http://whatreallyhappened.com/&feature=player_embedded

amacachi · 06-01-2009 12:30am

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I seen this Video Peace Propoganda and the Promised Land http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=peace+propaganda+and+the+promised+land&emb=0&aq=0&oq=peace%2C+pr# a while back and it left an impact on me. Hopefully it will for you too, and maybe put in perspective the coverage of the current issue.

(WARNING: Contains graphic images)

As best as I can make out this is the cause of the breakdown of the cease fire:
Dec 4th: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/21/israel-palestine-gaza

And Dec 5th: http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=33024

This fails to get mentioned a lot too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

And this is just what an IDF individual thinks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q36LIaxXYP0&eurl=http://whatreallyhappened.com/&feature=player_embedded

What's the conspiracy? I've always thought that the BBC in particular were fairly unbiased, and any bias there was was towards the Palestinians.

Try standing around like that soldier with ***** firing rockets at ya, see then what you'll say about them.
And we all know that the Palestinians have utmost respect for the Israelis:rolleyes:

Sofa_King Good · 06-01-2009 12:45am

amacachi wrote: »

What's the conspiracy? I've always thought that the BBC in particular were fairly unbiased, and any bias there was was towards the Palestinians.

Try standing around like that soldier with ***** firing rockets at ya, see then what you'll say about them.
And we all know that the Palestinians have utmost respect for the Israelis:rolleyes:

The conspiracy is in the video. Manipulation in the media to garner US popular support.

Grudgingly, I've got to accept you are right about the BBC. In fairness though, its pretty common to have a less than favourable view of the occupier by the occupied.

Sofa_King Good · 30-03-2009 7:46pm

These figures from 2004 study clearly demonstrate the disparity in the coverage.

http://ifamericansknew.org/media/ap-report.html

I beg anyone to tell me WHY THIS IS?

Sofa_King Good · 30-03-2009 7:51pm

Worth bearing in mind that that AP are Rothschild. And almost all media outlets worldwide use AP as a source.

Diogenes · 02-04-2009 2:40am

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind that that AP are Rothschild.

Utter tosh

Mahatma coat · 02-04-2009 5:10am

OK, that we'll have to research later, the more important discussion here is the docco. what did you make of that, is that "utter tosh" too?

I for one thought it presented the facts of the situation in a clear and informative manner.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 5:18am

Diogenes wrote: »

Utter tosh

Maybe not.

With the control of the money came the control of the news media. Kent Cooper, head of the Associated Press, writes in his autobiography, Barriers Down, "International bankers under the House of Rothschild acquired an interest in the three leading European agencies."51 Thus the Rothschilds bought control of Reuters International News Agency, based in London, Havas of France, and Wolf in Germany, which controlled the dissemination of all news in Europe. http://www.rense.com/general70/roth.htm

What you've given me is a list of frontmen with one noticeable omission a Mr Sam Zell, a Rothschild puppet.

Zell himself is a major donor to causes in the Middle East. His donations include a $3.1 million donation to the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center in Israel and separate donations to the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, a right-wing Israeli think tank. In the United States, he has given major gifts to such Jewish causes as the American Jewish Committee and a Chicago Jewish day school named after his father. All this is on top of his political donations, which have gone mostly to Republican candidates.
Siegel, the rabbi at Zell’s synagogue, said that Zell is a “committed Zionist” and a “generous supporter of Israel,” along with “a member in good standing” of the synagogue who “comes on the holidays often.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/10507/

Zell sold his Equity Office Properties to Rothschild Blackstone for 39Billion US in 2006.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 5:21am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, that we'll have to research later, the more important discussion here is the docco. what did you make of that, is that "utter tosh" too?

I for one thought it presented the facts of the situation in a clear and informative manner.

And Diogenes, I'd be interested to know your opinion on the link in post 4 if you would.

Diogenes · 02-04-2009 5:32am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, that we'll have to research later,

The link makes it very clear that the Rothschilds don't run AP.

the more important discussion here is the docco. what did you make of that, is that "utter tosh" too?

So lets be clear, your priorities are so skewed that you'll dismiss one claim by me, but demand I look at a "docco".

The situation on reporting the Israeli/Palestine conflict is not cut and dried. I should clarify, a good friend of my wife is missing a sizable chunk of her thigh, she was shot by an Israeli sniper while protecting Palestinian school children. Another friend of mine worked as a human shield and human rights observer during a olive harvest in the past few years.

I'm not some rabid pro Zionists.

Firstly you need to understand this is a war zone and both sides have had a cavalier attitude to protecting and safeguarding journalists. The Israeli's often prevent journalists from entering certain areas during offensive. While at the same time Hamas/Fatah can't completely assure the safety of journalists in the Gaza strip. As well as that both sides are playing a propaganda war, and trying to present themselves as the wronged party, and are trying to manipulate to media agenda to defend their actions and ideology.

You've mentioned one documentary, have you considered the opinion of BBC Watch

And yes the Anti Jewish Defamation League are very active. But as are the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Theres not a simple answer here, both sides have legitimate grievances, and are playing for keeps.

I for one thought it presented the facts of the situation in a clear and informative manner.

And you've also described jews as the "most despicable race on the face of the planet". And then quickly deleted the thread when you realised the tidal wave of outrage your comment generated.

You're self incriminated by exposing your own bias. Suggesting you can make a detached informed rational decision about this conflict when you've already come out and admitted that you're racially biased in this debate, is a ****ing joke.

Mahatma coat · 02-04-2009 5:49am

well one side is the Invading and occupying force, activley ethnicly cleansing seized and stolen land with f16's and Abrams tanks

and the other side is the oppressed population fighting back with stones and their own lives whilst being labeled 'Evil terrorists'

or at least thats what the docco presents

Diogenes · 02-04-2009 12:25pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well one side is the Invading and occupying force, activley ethnicly cleansing seized and stolen land with f16's and Abrams tanks

and the other side is the oppressed population fighting back with stones and their own lives whilst being labeled 'Evil terrorists'

or at least thats what the docco presents

If thats exactly what the documentary (stop called it a docco FFS) says, it's a misrepresentation. Palestine terrorists have since the start of the 2nd infantada used rockets, suicide bombers, and car bombs to indiscriminately murder Israeli civilians.

It is true that Israeli has murdered many civilians when they engage in "targeted" assaults on terrorist figures. One argument is that it is impossible from Hamas to distance itself from the civilian population of Gaza, because of the population density.

Another argument is that Hamas terrorists intentialy stay with their family using them as human shields, as to give Israeli cause to pause less they cause international outrage. Thats an amazing claim but consider the case of Nizar Rayan, killed with his 4 wives and 11 children earlier this year. A Senior Hamas figure he released a statement the day before his death saying, "Our only language with the Jew is through the gun". If he really cared about his family he'd have gotten the hell out his family home. Keeping in mind he sent his 22 year old son off to be a suicide bomber six or seven years ago.

While I'm warming to that subject, at least there is some small military argument that can be made in the act of killing Rayan, as at least it was an attempt at a targeted strike against a military target. Can you justify walking into a bar or bus and setting off a suicide bomb in the hope of killing as many civilians as humanely possible? Or charging into a Barmitvah and opening fire with an AK 47? Or charging a car bomb into a supermarket? These were indiscriminate acts of terrorism carried out with the hope of killing as many people as possible.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is incredibly complicated. And your consistent attempts to reduce it to "Israeli baddies" "Palestine Goodies" is just ignorant.

I notice you've neither bothered to deny your racist outburst or apologise for it.

Diogenes · 02-04-2009 12:41pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Maybe not.

What you've given me is a list of frontmen with one noticeable omission a Mr Sam Zell, a Rothschild puppet.

Give me a better source than a delusional fruitcake with a poodle on his head.

Call me nuts I tend to like my news to come from someone who isn't selling internet oxycotane and pyramid schemes on his website.

Zell sold his Equity Office Properties to Rothschild Blackstone for 39Billion US in 2006.

What you are saying is that someone (A JEW natch, ergo a committed Zionist NATCH, why BECAUSE HE'S A JEW) has a media interest in AP.

Unlike you, I have regularly used AP copy, and AP pictures. They are presented in flat under stated "just the facts ma'am" style imaginable. It's up to the individual paper/station to add their editorial slant.

Here is some samples of their recent VT.

You clearly don't get or understand the sheer volume of content that AP that the AP generate. To suggest some billionaire jew is personally responsible for the news content on AP is like personally blaming Bill Gates for a problem installing some computer game on Vista.

Flamed Diving · 02-04-2009 1:14pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

well one side is the Invading and occupying force, activley ethnicly cleansing seized and stolen land with f16's and Abrams tanks

and the other side is the oppressed population fighting back with stones and their own lives whilst being labeled 'Evil terrorists'

or at least thats what the docco presents

It's funny, these roles were reversed when the Jewish state was first founded. The tiny Israeli force, bravely fighting the Arab oppressors on all flanks, against all odds. I suppose you think it is a shame that the Arab's didn't finish the job, considering your, ahem, controversial views?

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 1:19pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Give me a better source than a delusional fruitcake with a poodle on his head.

Call me nuts I tend to like my news to come from someone who isn't selling internet oxycotane and pyramid schemes on his website.

AP Board of Directors

Sam Zell
Chairman and chief executive officer
Tribune Company
Chicago, IL
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html

Diogenes wrote: »

What you are saying is that someone (A JEW natch, ergo a committed Zionist NATCH, why BECAUSE HE'S A JEW) has a media interest in AP.

Come on. I never brought his religion into it.

Zionism itself is anti-Judaic >(IMO) as the politics are put over and above the religion.
This short video may help explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY&feature=PlayList&p=E66E6FAAC4A1E742&index=6

Diogenes wrote: »

Unlike you, I have regularly used AP copy, and AP pictures. They are presented in flat under stated "just the facts ma'am" style imaginable. It's up to the individual paper/station to add their editorial slant.

Here is some samples of their recent VT.

You clearly don't get or understand the sheer volume of content that AP that the AP generate. To suggest some billionaire jew is personally responsible for the news content on AP is like personally blaming Bill Gates for a problem installing some computer game on Vista.

I'm willing to bow to your superior experience but the facts speak for themselves. Stats like that (link in post 4) cannot come about by accident there must be other powers at play.

I agree its a war zone but surely all the more reason "neutral" reporting should be that, free of undue pressures and influences.

Diogenes · 02-04-2009 2:08pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

AP Board of Directors

Sam Zell
Chairman and chief executive officer
Tribune Company
Chicago, IL
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html

Thats nice. However the whole "Rothschild puppet" bit is the issue. Zell's the 68th richest man in the world with a personal fortune in the region of 8 billion. How exactly is the man a puppet of anyone?

Come on. I never brought his religion into it.

Your casual assumption that anyone who is wealthy and jewish is ergo a zionist has a well documented history on this forum.

Zionism itself is anti-Judaic >(IMO) as the politics are put over and above the religion.
This short video may help explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY&feature=PlayList&p=E66E6FAAC4A1E742&index=6

SKG sorry but sod off. If you're too lazy to articulate your viewpoint, or lack the ability to coherently make your own argument then why should I waste my time looking at a youtube video someone else made that you feel explains yourself.

I'm willing to bow to your superior experience but the facts speak for themselves. Stats like that (link in post 4) cannot come about by accident there must be other powers at play.

I agree its a war zone but surely all the more reason "neutral" reporting should be that, free of undue pressures and influences.

SKG, reality, reality SKG. ITS. A. WAR. ZONE. It's impossible to produce unbiased pictures, and distorted images, when your movement and ability to interact with locals is restricted.

Any journalists I met who came back from Iraq at the height of the war, told tails of violent corkscrew airdrops into the Airport, intense helicopter lifts into forward fire bases, brutal heat and a lack of sleep, and an absolute inability to report anything aside from inside the coalition forces bases because it was insanely dangerous.

Similarly during the recent Israeli incursions, neither Hamas or the IDF would or could guarantee journalist security.

Your idea of journalists reports from warzones should "neutral" reporting should be that, "free of undue pressures and influences." is just pathetically naive and detached from reality.

Do you have any education in the matter? Do you not understand that Allied and Axis forces may have issued their journalists with pom pom and cheerleader outfits during the 2nd world war, because in essence that was their job? That vietnam taught the Americans and every military force in the world the danger of allowing journalists free reign in a battlefield?

I mainly worked in news between the years 2005-2008. I've literally lost count of the number of times I cut stories of an Afghan or Iraqi suicide bombings, that demonstrated how little control the US had over these regions, and our only source was AP pictures. AP employ locals for several good reasons (yes they're cheaper, but they blend in, and know the area, and people)

In short an awful lot about what you know about how badly the war on terror went, is because not only AP stringers reported it, but AP broadcasted it around the world, to suggest they are some establishment tool controlling the media agenda is just fecking demented.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 2:15pm

Diogenes wrote: »

If thats exactly what the documentary (stop called it a docco FFS) says, it's a misrepresentation. Palestine terrorists have since the start of the 2nd infantada used rockets, suicide bombers, and car bombs to indiscriminately murder Israeli civilians.

It is true that Israeli has murdered many civilians when they engage in "targeted" assaults on terrorist figures. One argument is that it is impossible from Hamas to distance itself from the civilian population of Gaza, because of the population density.

Another argument is that Hamas terrorists intentialy stay with their family using them as human shields, as to give Israeli cause to pause less they cause international outrage. Thats an amazing claim but consider the case of Nizar Rayan, killed with his 4 wives and 11 children earlier this year. A Senior Hamas figure he released a statement the day before his death saying, "Our only language with the Jew is through the gun". If he really cared about his family he'd have gotten the hell out his family home. Keeping in mind he sent his 22 year old son off to be a suicide bomber six or seven years ago.

While I'm warming to that subject, at least there is some small military argument that can be made in the act of killing Rayan, as at least it was an attempt at a targeted strike against a military target. Can you justify walking into a bar or bus and setting off a suicide bomb in the hope of killing as many civilians as humanely possible? Or charging into a Barmitvah and opening fire with an AK 47? Or charging a car bomb into a supermarket? These were indiscriminate acts of terrorism carried out with the hope of killing as many people as possible.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is incredibly complicated. And your consistent attempts to reduce it to "Israeli baddies" "Palestine Goodies" is just ignorant.

I notice you've neither bothered to deny your racist outburst or apologise for it.

I agree it is extremely complex but you only seem to be justifying actions of one side. Complexity does not exclude wrongdoing. Its just my opinion but what you describe is the effects of a siege mentality. That is not to justify it however. Alternatively, its quite simple to potshot off links to show the other side:

"Israel "deliberately and recklessly" fired white phosphorus shells in densely populated areas of Gaza in an "indiscriminate" way that killed and wounded civilians and is "evidence of war crimes"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-accused-of-reckless-use-of-white-phosphorus-1654286.html

Video message from the parents of Rachel Corrie
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/video-message-from-the-parents-of-rachel-corrie/

IDF soliders using a young Palestinian boy as a human shield (photo, discretion advised).
http://www.cmaq.net/files/16398.jpg

Back on topic and keeping with Palestinian children

9 Israeli children’s deaths were reported in the headlines or first paragraphs of AP articles on the Israel/Palestine conflict in 2004, when 8 had actually occurred. During the same period only 27 out of 179 Palestinian children’s deaths were reported. (Children are defined by international law as those who are 17 and younger.)
Additionally, Palestinian children made up a disproportionately large number of Palestinian deaths in general. Children’s deaths accounted for 21.8% of the Palestinians killed, while children’s deaths accounted for only 7.4% of Israelis killed during this period.

22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children.
AP reported on 113% of Israeli children’s deaths in headlines or first paragraphs, while reporting on only 15% of Palestinian children’s deaths.
That is, Israeli children’s deaths were reported at a rate 7.5 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths

Comparing running totals for actual deaths and reported deaths once again reveals that while AP’s reporting on Israeli children’s deaths closely tracks the reality, the reporting on Palestinian children’s deaths lags far behind the actual number, following a path similar to Israeli children’s deaths. This is in stark contradiction to the reality, in which Palestinian children were being killed at a rate over 22 times greater than Israeli children.
In order to discover the impact of repetitions on the study, we examined AP’s coverage of children’s deaths without counting repetitions. We found that AP repeated two Israeli children’s deaths once, and one Palestinian child’s death three times. Hence, not counting repetitions, AP covered 88% of Israeli children’s deaths – a rate of coverage 6.5 times greater than their coverage of Palestinian children’s deaths (of which AP covered 13%.)

If there is no bias how do you explain this?

meglome · 02-04-2009 2:16pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

AP Board of Directors

Sam Zell
Chairman and chief executive officer
Tribune Company
Chicago, IL
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html

Fair play to him for doing all those thousands of jobs himself so he'll can do exactly what he wants without anyone finding out. :rolleyes:

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Come on. I never brought his religion into it.

Zionism itself is anti-Judaic >(IMO) as the politics are put over and above the religion.
This short video may help explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY&feature=PlayList&p=E66E6FAAC4A1E742&index=6

Come one...How many times have threads in this forum picked any Jewish person involved even peripherally in a proposed conspiracy and labelled them a Zionist. If I wasn't fact checking myself I would see Jew=Zionist and Zionist=Jew, which, just so we're clear, I think is rubbish.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I'm willing to bow to your superior experience but the facts speak for themselves. Stats like that (link in post 4) cannot come about by accident there must be other powers at play.

I agree its a war zone but surely all the more reason "neutral" reporting should be that, free of undue pressures and influences.

As Diogenes said there are very much two sides happy to do horrible things to each others. That said most of the Western media I see tends to be somewhat pro Palestinian. Which is understandable given that Israel hold most of the cards.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 2:41pm

Look I don't want to get caught up in a slanging match. I wish Atlantis could be raised as a paradise and could be used for a Palestinian or Jewish homeland. I mentioned 1 person, Zell who undeniably is a Zionist and is a undeniably a very influential media man.

Following on from the documentary I posted a link of research done on the issue with very clear patterns emerging i.e. biased reporting of the issue in favour of Israel from an apparently independent source AP. The results speak for themselves.

This is what I would be interested in discussing. I get too emotionally involved in anything else.

And by the way I respect both your opinions on the subject.

Diogenes · 02-04-2009 3:12pm

I don't give a crap if you respect me, I'd rather see some evidence that the Rothchilds run AP.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 5:00pm

Diogenes wrote: »

I don't give a crap if you respect me,

:D:D Easy tiger! Just trying to keep a lid on things.
Did you slam your clenched fist onto your desk as you typed rattling the coffee mug?

Diogenes wrote: »

I'd rather see some evidence that the Rothchilds run AP.

Me too...these criminals are good at covering their tracks.

Now we are onto the 2nd page and you have been awfully quiet about the findings of the report from post 4.

I am sure you are not purposely dodging the question...

King Mob · 02-04-2009 5:01pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Me too...these criminals are good at covering their tracks.

If there's no evidence how do you know AP is run by the Rothschilds?

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 5:06pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's funny, these roles were reversed when the Jewish state was first founded. The tiny Israeli force, bravely fighting the Arab oppressors on all flanks, against all odds. I suppose you think it is a shame that the Arab's didn't finish the job, considering your, ahem, controversial views?

And you were a history graduate at Yeshiva university what year?

6th · 02-04-2009 5:09pm

Wow I could be banning half the forum if this keeps up! Lads have a read of he charter and think to yourselves "man, they could nail my ass with that line right there!".

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 5:26pm

6th wrote: »

Wow I could be banning half the forum if this keeps up! Lads have a read of he charter and think to yourselves "man, they could nail my ass with that line right there!".

Agreed. I fully intend to stay on topic and civil.

King Mob wrote: »

If there's no evidence how do you know AP is run by the Rothschilds?

OK...Assuming that it is nonsense its a side issue anyway.

Edit:

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests (House of Rothschild), the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

have a look at the report in post 4 and let me know what you think.

You hounded me for proof that the media was controlled and now it is presented in simple terms and easy to conclude albeit it dated. (IMO)

King Mob · 02-04-2009 5:41pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

OK...Assuming that it is nonsense its a side issue anyway.

Could you please have a quick read of the short report in post 4 and let me know what you think.

You hounded me for proof that the media was controlled and now it is presented in simple terms and easy to conclude albeit it dated. (IMO)

There could be other factors at work. Diogenes mentioned that reports couldn't get into certain areas due to danger or other factors such as the Israelis limiting travel. Why do you jump to the conclusion that it's due to deliberate control?

Secondly the report seems to counting the headlines and beginning paragraphs not the entire articles.

Now even if this is evidence of some kind of control, how do you know that AP is controlled by the Rothchilds when you yourself say there's no evidence?

bonkey · 02-04-2009 6:27pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

have a look at the report in post 4 and let me know what you think.

You posted hte report in post 4 with a question asking if someone could explain the apparent bias.

You now seem to have shifted from asking for an explanation to supplying one yourself.

Why is that? What additional information have you received which leads you from wanting an explanation for bias to insisting that the bias has a specific explanation. Why are you asking people to look at the evidence of bias, when it is the motive for such bias that is the issue here?

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 7:37pm

bonkey wrote: »

You posted hte report in post 4 with a question asking if someone could explain the apparent bias.

You now seem to have shifted from asking for an explanation to supplying one yourself.

Why is that? What additional information have you received which leads you from wanting an explanation for bias to insisting that the bias has a specific explanation. Why are you asking people to look at the evidence of bias, when it is the motive for such bias that is the issue here?

It evolved into a question of accepting the bias (which was apparent to me) from the question of motive for the bias.

If it was not accepted that there was bias then there was little to no point discussing the motivations.

meglome · 02-04-2009 8:07pm

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

It evolved into a question of accepting the bias (which was apparent to me) from the question of motive for the bias.

If it was not accepted that there was bias then there was little to no point discussing the motivations.

Most media outlets have some bias, any CT site is a good evidence of that :cool: There will always be some slant on a story whether intentional or not.

However what you're asking us to believe is that because the head of Associated Press is Jewish (and therefore a Zionist) that all 4,200 employees are somehow involved in an anti-Palestinian conspiracy. What others are saying to you is that there might be several other reasons why the stats show a difference in reports. You started with the assumption that there could only be one reason for this 'bias' and even though you now know there could be other reasons you continue to assume. Not very sceptical of you really.

[Edit] It should be also pointed out that Sam Zell isn't actually the head of Associated Press at all, he's just one of the board of directors. So this assumption of yours is even less likely.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 8:34pm

meglome wrote: »

Most media outlets have some bias, any CT site is a good evidence of that :cool: There will always be some slant on a story whether intentional or not.

However what you're asking us to believe is that because the head of Associated Press is Jewish (and therefore a Zionist) that all 4,200 employees are somehow involved in an anti-Palestinian conspiracy. What others are saying to you is that there might be several other reasons why the stats show a difference in reports. You started with the assumption that there could only be one reason for this 'bias' and even though you now know there could be other reasons you continue to assume. Not very sceptical of you really.

Fair enough. But what we are looking at is a sustained pattern over a 6 month period from multiple stories. This for me cannot be unintentional.

I have seen nothing to convince me of any other reasons to show such a contrast in the reporting.

And it has nothing to do with Zell being Jewish. His Rabbi calls him a Zionist and I doubt he has a problem with that, which is fine too.

In any case it was a side issue that I just tried to apply some background to.

What I am asking people to admit bias if they see it and then to explore it.

Sofa_King Good · 02-04-2009 8:38pm

meglome wrote: »

[Edit] It should be also pointed out that Sam Zell isn't actually the head of Associated Press at all, he's just one of the board of directors. So this assumption of yours is even less likely.

To be fair I never said so. He just happened to be the first I looked into. Wouldn't be surprised if most of them are CFR or whatever and connected to the International banking cartels.

Corporate Media on the Israel/Palestine Issue

Comments