Israeli-Lebanese conflict

Dave!

Haifa was just hit with a few more Lebanese missiles (Jeremy Thompson is there, providing great coverage for Sky News) about 5 minutes ago.

Israeli ground troops have crossed into Southern Lebanon just a few minutes ago too.

There are reports on Lebanese TV stations that an Israeli F16 has been shot down, although this hasn't been confirmed.



Just thought I'd start a thread to keep up with the latest on this situation!

Pretty intense stuff

Dave!

Israel deny that they lost a plane, and said that in fact the falling debris which was reported as such, was actually a Hezbollah truck which was destroyed by an Israeli air-strike.

punky

Not an update but an opinion.
I think most of the reporting on this issue has been very one-sided. I'm thinking of some of the British news programmes in particular - Sky News, ITV and even BBC spring to mind. But also some of the papers.

What's annoying me is that there seems to be a presupposition that Israel has the right to bomb Lebannon. I keep hearing that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' line. Hold on a minute. Does Lebannon not have a right to defend itself? Do innocent people not have the right not to be killed because of the actions of a terrorist organisation that happens to operate within its country's borders.

The coverage is trying to come across as even-handed. They do this by interviewing people in Israel and in the Lebannon and talk about attacks on both sides. But I'm seeing very little discussion of whether or not Israel is legally and morally entitled to bomb another country. It hasn't been attacked, afterall, by the Lebanon. It's had a few soldiers (not civilians) kidnapped by a terrorist organisation.

And I'm also disgusted by the West's response to this. They put all the blame on Hezbullah, Iran and Syria and merely asked Israel to show 'restraint'. Ireland's response has been similar. It's shameful and I don't believe it represents the opinions of most people in this country.
It's basically an endorsement of Israel's bombing of another sovereign ,democratic country.

Rev Hellfire

Didn't Hezbullah (which is present in government) attack first and has repeatly fired rockets at israel. If the government in the Lebannon is either unwilling or unable to halt these attacks then israel is well within its rights to remove the threat.

flogen

There's a long thread on the rights, wrongs, in's and out's of the conflict over in politics; please try to keep this away from the debate on the issue and stick to the media coverage and news event

punky

Flogen, I was hoping to start a discussion about the media portrayl of the conflict, as opposed to the rights and wrongs of Israeli actions.

"Didn't Hezbullah (which is present in government) attack first and has repeatly fired rockets at israel."

Just a quick response as I know this isn't media related but:
Hezbullah has just a couple of ministers in govt. It doesn't represent most Lebannese people. They kidnapped 2 soldiers to open up a 2nd front against Israel in solidarity with what's been going on in Gaza. But I'm not defending them.

Anyway, innocent people in Lebannon cannot be held accountable for the actions of Hezbullah. Israel's reaction is totally disproportionate. It's already killed over 200 civilians this week, including children and women. Where's the outrage in the media?

mike65

punky if you want Hizzbolla FM then just tune to RTE radio, they had two features which the Syrian government could have scripted.

Mike.

Freddie59

mike65 wrote:

punky if you want Hizzbolla FM then just tune to RTE radio, they had two features which the Syrian government could have scripted.

Mike.

Well said Mike. Dermot Ahern carried it a stage further on Sky News Ireland tonight, castigating Israel, when the interviewer pointed out that, ahem, there was another side attacking Israel. The most disturbing one for me personally is the continuing use of the word 'militant' in place of 'terrorist' by Sky, BBC, RTE et al.

flogen

punky wrote:

Flogen, I was hoping to start a discussion about the media portrayl of the conflict, as opposed to the rights and wrongs of Israeli actions.

"Didn't Hezbullah (which is present in government) attack first and has repeatly fired rockets at israel."

Just a quick response as I know this isn't media related but:
Hezbullah has just a couple of ministers in govt. It doesn't represent most Lebannese people. They kidnapped 2 soldiers to open up a 2nd front against Israel in solidarity with what's been going on in Gaza. But I'm not defending them.

Anyway, innocent people in Lebannon cannot be held accountable for the actions of Hezbullah. Israel's reaction is totally disproportionate. It's already killed over 200 civilians this week, including children and women. Where's the outrage in the media?

And I hope you continue; however your off topic responce is better served in Politics, the same applies for your comments on the Political reaction and the responce that Rev Hellfire gave to that aspect.

Stay on topic please; if you have any more comments to make not related to the media (or breaking news etc.) please take it to another more relevant forum; if you wish to continue defending yourself you can do so via PM or on Feedback.

A Dub in Glasgo

I find the questioning of Lebanese civilians to quite pitiful by the media

Civilian A is trying to flee Southern Lebanon and shouts into the camera that it is so unfair, how disgraceful it was that civilians and their infrastructure are being bombarded by the Israelis. The BBC guy shouts back 'What about the Katyusha rockets being fired into Israel?' WTF!!!

Another is the reporter in Haifa surveying the damage from the Katyusa rockets which is miniscule when compared to the hell that Israel is unleashing onto the civilians of Lebanon. Not much embedding on the other side. They probably fear for what the Israelis bombardments will do to them.

Ray777

Did anyone see Richard Crowley interviewing that Israeli government spokeswoman on the 6-1 news? I know it's normal for politicians to avoid answering questions, but I don't think even Bertie Ahern has ever stooped to that level of evasiveness.

Tazzle

I thought this article I read on CNN was pretty good. It seems to be the first level headed article I've seen since coming over here, most reporting is sensationalised, with the emphasis on bad news and what's the WORST that could happen. Just thought I'd share it on here.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- We Americans like to think we're a pretty smart people, even when evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. And nowhere is that evidence more overwhelming than in the Middle East. History in the Middle East is everything, and we Americans seem to learn nothing from it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/dobbs.july19/index.html

joebhoy1916

punky wrote:

Not an update but an opinion.
I think most of the reporting on this issue has been very one-sided. I'm thinking of some of the British news programmes in particular - Sky News, ITV and even BBC spring to mind. But also some of the papers.

No **** I was watching FOX news im not from America just said I would watch it. I was kinda watching that and flipping back to Sky news were good gave it from both sides but my god FOX is just **** tbh.

They were saying Lebanese missiles are attacking Isreal and theres nearly 250 dead in the confilct so far they were making it out as if the Lebanese killed them all whereas Sky news was saying the dead totally is Isreal have killed ten times more people than Hezbollah stick it on now what sh!t that channel should be stopped I know there kinda George Bush pro or American interests pro but what **** honestly stick it on now for 15mins I bet you will turn it off..

Ohyeah

I think the most dramatic front page splash in an Irish paper I have seen on this issue was today's (Wednnesday) World War Three splash in Daily Ireland (www.dailyireland.com) http://www.irelandclick.com/dipdf/di001.pdf :eek:

Also I think its interesting how some of the media has tried to show an Irish diplomatic angle on this event.
Here Daily Ireland with some passion attacks the governments stance on the Middle East crisis

http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=9593&opp=1&_ticket=347TY1VXBHSJ53J94NNAD0UEJKLAFS6DJQRFL1PAATTLCLLBCMVLTRRITAXM9NTHNLL9CHUTVTQFIQ0DPMTECYZMBHSI73ZEIOPNNXSEAOW4UURGUU4KHONDLHG09LLDPGSG0VQFIUW9ANWPN0

however here the Irish Examiner probably more subtlely argues that Irish govt is working behind the scenes well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story....1.asp

I also think its interetsing how both the Herald and Indo give such amount of coverage to Robert Fisk during these times. He is getting full pages in both papers at mo. :eek:

although I do agree with much of what he writes

Dave!

Ohyeah wrote:

http://www.irelandclick.com/dipdf/di001.pdf [/url]

rofl, shoulda built that bomb shelter while I had the chance

Skitbra

Just had this link sent to me by an Palestinian friend.

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20139&Itemid=1

A first look it appears really bad and he just accepts it without thinking about it.
But maybe this isn't what it appears at all. Maybe these missiles are in some war museum half way around the world and have been signed by all visitors or something?
I mean I had an argument about this with my friend saying that because he's biased he just accepts it as is instead of wondering if it's out of context.

Am I wrong? Is it obvious that the girls are writing messages to the Lebanese people that the missiles are about to kill?

The Hill Billy

Skitbra wrote:

Just had this link sent to me by an Palestinian friend.

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20139&Itemid=1

If you follow the above URL be warned that the link described "Gift received...Click Here.." is quite upsetting. (To me anyway.)

kirving

Well the fact is, that is what the Israeli artillery and fighter jets are doing, to children. Not that Hezbollah arent doing the same, I saw the two Isreali brothers who were killed by a Hezbollah rocket on sky news, that talked to the family etc. But why not go and ask the hundreds of Lebanese families who have lost loved ones too. But the death toll on the Isreali side is "15 Civilians and 19 Soldiers", whereas the Lebanese death toll is " 100s dead, 631 injured", CNN dont say "100s of Civilians killed, 631 Cilvilians Injured" as they do for the Isreali's. Nor have thay covered much of Isreali's quest to destroy the Lebanese Infrastructure. CNN is extremely biased, half the time its subtley biased, the rest of the time is completey one-sided. Disgraceful coverage by CNN

Dave!

I just saw on Sky News that the Syrian Foreign Minister called for a ceasefire to end the conflict.

Also, just saw this...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19885398-1702,00.html

from 2 hours ago

A SYRIAN minister warned Israel in an interview published today that a major ground incursion into Lebanon would draw his country into the Middle East conflict.

"If Israel makes a land entry into Lebanon, they can get to within 20km of Damascus," Information Minister Moshen Bilal told the Spanish newspaper ABC.

"What will we do? Stand by with our arms folded? Absolutely not. Without any doubt Syria will intervene in the conflict."

Mr Bilal said Syria wanted above all a ceasefire "as soon as possible" combined with a prisoner exchange and indicated he was working to that end with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, whom he met in recent days in Madrid.

But he added: "I repeat, if Israel makes a land invasion of Lebanon and gets near us, Syria will not stand by with arms folded. It will enter the conflict."

mike65

Was it the same minister?

Mike.

Dave!

Dunno, sorry, I just saw it in a "BREAKING NEWWWWWSSSS" headline on Sky News, but they weren't talking about it at the time.

Hobbes

Skitbra wrote:

Just had this link sent to me by an Palestinian friend.

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20139&Itemid=1

A first look it appears really bad and he just accepts it without thinking about it.
But maybe this isn't what it appears at all. Maybe these missiles are in some war museum half way around the world and have been signed by all visitors or something?
I mean I had an argument about this with my friend saying that because he's biased he just accepts it as is instead of wondering if it's out of context.

Am I wrong? Is it obvious that the girls are writing messages to the Lebanese people that the missiles are about to kill?

They are the actual shells that Israelis use, so its not a museum. Writing onto missiles is not a new thing either.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bomb.htm

However while I looked at the picture and doesn't appear to be photoshopped I was wondering why they are writing in English and not Hebrew.

kravmaga

Folks,

This Israeli aggression is wrong and an over the top reaction to what was 2 IDF soldiers captured by Hezbollah in the first place.

IDF have targeted 2 International Red Cross Ambulances today in Tyre and killed the innocent victims inside the same vehicles.

This is an outrage and I feel Israel have bitten offf more than they can chew on this one.

Hezbollah have downed an IDF helicopter and have more support than before according to the reports I have watched on SKY News today.

Syria also threatening to get involved if IDF make further ground invasion into Southern Lebanon.

I have no sympathy to Israel and they are showing the international commu nity that they are bullies who kill innocent civilians.

I do not agree that they have the right to take innocent lives even if Hezbollah are living amonst the community in Southern Lebanon

mike65

Hobbes wrote:

However while I looked at the picture and doesn't appear to be photoshopped I was wondering why they are writing in English and not Hebrew.

Media savvy, the "world" speaks English.

Mike.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Media savvy, the "world" speaks English.

Not really.. but the point is that most israelis know Hebrew/Arabic. So its odd that its in English, although not impossible as English is taught as a second language and checking around it could be that these kinds are children of immigrants.

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

punky if you want Hizzbolla FM then just tune to RTE radio, they had two features which the Syrian government could have scripted.

Mike.

Now statements like that are just pure unadulterated crap!!

Here's an interesting story. Just to give you a taste:

Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers
Times on Line
By Yonit Farago in Jerusalem
July 28, 2006

"The [Israeli] Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages."

...
Israel 's Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.

In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special "megaphone" software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate

Would explain a lot.

How many people here have been circumsized and can't eat cheeseburgers?

;-)

mike65

What are you on about? Do you listen to RTE at all? If you did then you'd know they are much more comfortable criticising Israel than than Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO etc.

It took until Mondays discussion on Today with Tom McGurk to note that Hezbollah are happy enough with dead Lebonese and they use civilians as cover in Southern Lebanon.

Just because one is not a fan-boy of Islamic terrorism that does not mean one is a Jew/Zionist and I'd sooner you did'nt presume that holding a view that goes against the mainstream means one must be kept quiet.

Mike.

Hobbes

The megaphone software is being discussed on other threads. To summerise..

1. Its just a glorified RSS feed. You can read the feed without installing the software. http://ws.giyus.org/points/list

2. The EULA says they can install software on your machine and monitor what you are writing although I didn't see any kind of tracking packets when playing with it (on a clean machine).

3. Nothing in the EULA about giving negative feedback so its possible for everyone to use it.

4. I never really took internet polls or astro-turfing serious otherwise we wouldn't have things like the Chuck Norris bridge.

5. Generally Astro-Turfing is counterproductive if caught on the internet. For every zealot pro/anti Israeli you are more likely to find 1,000 bored kids on the internet that will use the system to piss people off.

6. The website of the application the forums are like reading StormFront (imho).

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

What are you on about? Do you listen to RTE at all? If you did then you'd know they are much more comfortable criticising Israel than than Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO etc.

Of course I listen to RTE. And I make up my own mind about it. It's not perfect but calling it 'Hezbollah FM' as you did is simply nonsensical.

mike65 wrote:

It took until Mondays discussion on Today with Tom McGurk to note that Hezbollah are happy enough with dead Lebonese and they use civilians as cover in Southern Lebanon.

Well actually I have a life and so I do not listen to EVERY RTE news broadcast so I couldn't possibly confirm or deny that assertion. But I have heard Israeli spokespeople (on various news outlets including RTE) make those claims many times. Your point doesn't hold water.

Are you saying that the first news angle from RTE when this conflict started should have been: 'Hezbollah guerillas are encouraging Israel to bomb Lebanese civilians so it's all their fault if some get killed?" That's a pretty biased view point.

It would be like saying that the deaths caused by the terrible bombing of Coventry in World War II were all the fault of the British Government because they did not do everything they could to defend the city. They knew the attack was coming, but to increase Coventry's defences might have alerted the Germans to the fact that their Ultra codes had been compromised. So Coventry was sacrificed to protect the bigger secret.

Don't blame the Luftwaffe. They only dropped the bombs. Blame Churchill.

Back to RTE and Lebanon, I have seen Richard Crowley of RTE interview inhabitants (including some Irish born inhabitants) of a kibbutz in Northern Israel for their views. Pretty strident they were too.

They have also faithfully recorded the fact that Israeli civilians are being killed by Hezbollah rockets. And for this, they get called 'Hezbollah FM'?

Your argument is a nonsensical neocon sound bite.

You'll be telling us next there's a 'left-wing bias' in the Irish media.

:rolleyes:

mike65

Well within RTE there is, and thats not a right-wing paranoid fantasy, those who have worked in the RTE news and current affairs could tell you as much. Its just been a question traditionally of which type of left wing and is it compatible with republicanism and which brand - Offical or Provo (this was the Provo v stickies debate within RTE in the 70s and early 80s).

Also (and I think this is relevant) traditionally a high percentage of RTE employees have been Northern Nationalists and they tend to side with those they see as "oppressed" and "disposessed". Which in the context of the Middle-east means PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah.

Those who were not tended to be UCD arts faculty graduates. Ask any veteran UCD in the 70/80s what the overriding political ethos was on campus and they'll tell you it was a hot-bed of leftist/anarchist/marxist activity.

So yes there is bias no different to the same as in the BBC whose editors frequently share a similair view of the world.

Its a fact that broadcast media in Europe has this bias as a publicly funded-broadcaster is the natural home for such poeple just as the public service/civil service is an equally comforting environment for the left of thinking. Private enterprise tends to have little room for the musings of "chin-strokers" as there a profit that needs to be turned to stay in business.

Mike.

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

Well within RTE there is, and thats not a right-wing paranoid fantasy, those who have worked in the RTE news and current affairs could tell you as much. Its just been a question traditionally of which type of left wing and is it compatible with republicanism and which brand - Offical or Provo (this was the Provo v stickies debate within RTE in the 70s and early 80s).

What 'Provos v Stickies' debate in the 70's and 80's? For most of that time, Provos weren't allowed on the airwaves at all. Courtesy of arch neocon Conor Cruise O'Brien who banned them during his time as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

It was pretty well exposed at the time that the Stickies had a disproportionate number of people in positions of influence in RTE in the 1980s. But for FFS that was 20 years ago when to be left wing meant that one was an obnoxious, presumptuous, supercilious, devious, manipulative 'I'll tell you what's right for you" domineering prick.

Now if you were to say that that demeanour is still at large in much of the Irish media, then I'd agree with you. The only thing is that it is now deployed to trumpet the cause of the right, not the left. And frequently by the same people who were lefties in the 80s. .

Examples include Eoghan Harris-then a Stickie in RTE, now an admirer of Bush and Chalabi for the Independent; Kevin Myers then a trendy leftie; now an old rightie fogie with a hankering for the glorious days of Empire; and Conor Cruise O'Brien, in the 70s a Labour minister, in the 60s a darling of the international left and a passionate advocate for the efficacy of the United Nations, now a convert to the cause of US unilateralism.

All of the hectoring bias in the Irish media nowadays comes from the right. Not the left.

mike65 wrote:

Also (and I think this is relevant) traditionally a high percentage of RTE employees have been Northern Nationalists and they tend to side with those they see as "oppressed" and "disposessed". Which in the context of the Middle-east means PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah.

Well that's just terrible! A natural sympathy for those getting the **** end of the stick. Let's fill RTE full of Irish American noveau-riche windbags who can exhort the inhabitants of refugee camps to 'Not be a victim' and 'Welcome their liberation' and the opportunity it brings to 'fight the war on terror in your homeland so that we don't have to fight it in ours'.

There's no shortage of same. Hannity, O'Reilly,even Steyn is part Irish.

mike65 wrote:

Those who were not tended to be UCD arts faculty graduates. Ask any veteran UCD in the 70/80s what the overriding political ethos was on campus and they'll tell you it was a hot-bed of leftist/anarchist/marxist activity.

Well what university in the 70s/80s in the Western World wasn't FFS? By international standards, Ireland was pretty damned conservative. And by the way, we're in the 21st century now and most of those lefties are now righties with knobs on (see above)

mike65 wrote:

Its a fact that broadcast media in Europe has this bias as a publicly funded-broadcaster is the natural home for such poeple .....Private enterprise tends to have little room for the musings of "chin-strokers"

It's a fact that public service broadcasters tend to have rules that enforce some balance and objectivity on them. Which the privately funded ones don't. You don't seriously think that Fox News slogan of 'Fair and Balanced' goes any further than their advertising campaigns, do you?

mike65

No! I've never seen FOX News but clearly the stuff by Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly I've caught via other media suggests its best used as late night beery humour.

As for your point about right wingers Cruiser, Harris etc - I did specify broadcast media, not the press which thankfully is allowed to do its own thing. However RTE does have a duty to be balanced as you note but its not (on geo-political matters) as a rule.

Mike.

FlutterinBantam

What's with this Guy

---

Jaysus... There I am dozing off a Heino hangover listening to RTE1 Monday Morning..Lebanon business being discussed...over to Bob Fisk says the RTE guy....Jaysus!!!! says I... here comes another anti American diatribe.... an sure enough ..about sixty secs into the clip away he goes.... everything is Americas fault...no balance... murder ..war crimes ...the lot...all Americas fault.

When will discerning people cop on to this guy?.... Why can he use the airwaves to goof off without giving any solutions???

sensible people know that it takes very little talent to pontificate, give judgments ,bawl yer ass off on the radio about the rights and wrongs of society...

its much more difficult to implement....

Ask Gay byrne and Tom Parlon!!!!!
__________________
Its my opinnon...and I'm not from Kerry

monument

FlutterinBantam wrote:

listening to RTE1 Monday Morning..Lebanon business being discussed...over to Bob Fisk says the RTE guy....Jaysus!!!!

At what time or which show was he on?

chekov

mike65 wrote:

Well within RTE there is, and thats not a right-wing paranoid fantasy

It really is you know.

those who have worked in the RTE news and current affairs could tell you as much. Its just been a question traditionally of which type of left wing and is it compatible with republicanism and which brand - Offical or Provo (this was the Provo v stickies debate within RTE in the 70s and early 80s).

There was a certain amount of sticky entryism in RTE in the late 70's, but entryism, by its nature means that you keep your politics to yourself. In this case the main accomplishment of the stickies was to ruthlessly exclude anybody who was even a member of the provos from being allowed to appear on the broadcast media between 1971 and 1993 - by law (section 31 of the broadcasting act). Indeed, this was interpreted within RTE even more extremely than the legislation. Whereas the legislation forbade any official spokespeople from speaking on air, it was enforced so that nobody who was even associated with the provos was allowed to comment on anything at all. There was a famous case where a producer was fired when a woman who commented on a radio show about unemployment in Meath (IIRC) turned out to have been a provo.

The sticky entryists, as is usual in such endeavours, outdid themselves in appearing to be as reactionary as possible and lo and behold, by the time that the requirement for them to keep their heads down had passed, they had all - to a man and woman - become the reactionaries that they were imitating. A very similar process occured with Lionel Jospin who had been an entryist from a small Maoist sect right up until he became Prime Minister of France. Once again, by the time he had attained his position of influence, he had become the right wing social democrat whom he had been imitating.

Also (and I think this is relevant) traditionally a high percentage of RTE employees have been Northern Nationalists and they tend to side with those they see as "oppressed" and "disposessed". Which in the context of the Middle-east means PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah.

Evidence for this high percentage? Of the people that I know within RTE (a fair few I'm afraid) a shockingly high proportion come from the wealthy suburbs of south Dublin or similar well to do backgrounds, including almost all of those in high office (two of my uncles amongst them as it happens).

Those who were not tended to be UCD arts faculty graduates. Ask any veteran UCD in the 70/80s what the overriding political ethos was on campus and they'll tell you it was a hot-bed of leftist/anarchist/marxist activity.

Err, no. Not at all. There are far more anarchists around today than there have ever been before on University campuses and they are, sadly, still a tiny and insignificant minority. Trotskyists reached their zenith in the mid to late 90's and were even less significant in the 70's and 80's than they are today. In the late 60's and early 70's, the most that can be said is that there were a handful of radical christian types on the very fringes of campus activity (they made a bit of a stir as they were so out-there-on-the-lunatic-fringes relatively speaking). Of the tiny number of these who went into the media they are either no longer with us (eg my father) or have moved to the far extremes of the right (eg Myers).

So yes there is bias no different to the same as in the BBC whose editors frequently share a similair view of the world.

That's just total fantasy, which you couldn't sustain for a minute if you actually met any of them.

Consider this. Public service broadcasting, like all other organisations consists of people who, by and large, want to rise up the organisation. Those who don't want to climb the ladder either leave or languish in marginal and uninfluential positions.

The senior positions are appointed by the government, which has been centre-right without much deviation whatsoever since the foundation of the state. To put it mildly, if you regularly p1ss off the politicians, your chances of rising the ladder are slim. As well as controlling senior appointments, the government controls the level of television license fees, an instrument which they regularly - and quite publicly - use in order to leverage compliance from the broadcaster. Some of the most successful and popular programmes get ditched against all commercial sense if they ruffle feathers - scrap saturday being the classic example.

The other big force at play comes from advertisers who are the other major source of funding. Any producer or presenter who regularly p1sses off the corporate sector will very very quickly indeed find their promotion ladder to have come to a rapid conclusion.

Its a fact that broadcast media in Europe has this bias as a publicly funded-broadcaster is the natural home for such poeple just as the public service/civil service is an equally comforting environment for the left of thinking. Private enterprise tends to have little room for the musings of "chin-strokers" as there a profit that needs to be turned to stay in business.

You've obviously never met a senior civil servant. Try it out, meet a few, compare your theory to reality. If you can find a single department secretary or assistant-secretary who does not fit the words "conservative" and "cautious" perfectly, I'll eat my hat.

mike65

Conservative and cautious are not exclusivly right wing, in fact many on the right are go-getters who deplore the lazy and complacent, the left on the other hand often encourages laziness (welfare handouts/no school sprots days cos its competitive etc The Looney Left in Britain was fond of such nonsense).

As you are privy to the internal workings of RTE, where in the system do you fit? Staff or contract? Talent or tech? Or admin?

Oh and another thing (for anyone who fancies answering this) when was the last time anyone got a regular gig on the RTE airways who has a bias NOT towards the liberal-left?

Mike.

Jackie laughlin

RTE does not have a duty to balance. It has a legal obligation. So, Mike, I take it you will be submitting or have submitted complaints to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which was introduced by the Cruiser specifically to deal with this.

Now that the Cruiser has been mentioned, it is worth pointing out that he did NOT introduce section 31. That appears in the 1960 Act. What he did was to limit its scope.

Jackie laughlin

By the way, and now I'm really off the point, Scrap Saturday wasn't axed because it was critical. Indeed it was continued for far too long after it had become boring. Its well earned reputation saved it for ages, RTE being afraid to act for fear of being seen to drop political satire.

flogen

Jackie laughlin wrote:

RTE does not have a duty to balance. It has a legal obligation. So, Mike, I take it you will be submitting or have submitted complaints to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which was introduced by the Cruiser specifically to deal with this.

Now that the Cruiser has been mentioned, it is worth pointing out that he did NOT introduce section 31. That appears in the 1960 Act. What he did was to limit its scope.

Wouldn't the RTÉ Authority be the place to go to? I was sure the likes of the BCI and BCC are for commercial broadcasters only.

Sgt. Sensible

mike65 wrote:

Conservative and cautious are not exclusivly right wing, in fact many on the right are go-getters who deplore the lazy and complacent, the left on the other hand often encourages laziness (welfare handouts/no school sprots days cos its competitive etc The Looney Left in Britain was fond of such nonsense).

Until Labour got into power in Britain in 1945 and founded the welfare state, unemployment averaged 10%, then it dropped to between 2% and 3% for over 30 years then shot up to between 10% and 15% after Margaret Thatcher came to power. Now under a Labour government it's back to under 3%. So it appears that it's the conservatives, in britain at least, who actually encourage 'laziness' and unemployment.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned ill-informed Daily Mail type rant.

chekov

flogen wrote:

Wouldn't the RTÉ Authority be the place to go to? I was sure the likes of the BCI and BCC are for commercial broadcasters only.

Nope, the authority is essentially akin to the board of the company, they appoint the director general and aren't supposed to involve themselves in executive / operational issues. The BCC is the place to complain for all broadcasters (remember pat kenny and the <s>psychos</s> psychics.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

By the way, and now I'm really off the point, Scrap Saturday wasn't axed because it was critical. Indeed it was continued for far too long after it had become boring. Its well earned reputation saved it for ages, RTE being afraid to act for fear of being seen to drop political satire.

Yeah right. "a shameless act of broadcasting cowardice and political subservience" - Dermot Morgan. And we all know that RTE has replaced it with far less boring political satire shows.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Now that the Cruiser has been mentioned, it is worth pointing out that he did NOT introduce section 31. That appears in the 1960 Act. What he did was to limit its scope.

From Wikipedia:

"This rule was brought in by Fianna Fáil Minister for Posts & Telegraphs Gerry Collins in 1971 and strengthened by Labour's Conor Cruise O'Brien in 1977"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Jackie laughlin

Flogen,
The BCC pre-dates commercial broadcasting.

Chekov,
If "Scrap Saturday" was axed for that reason, RTE left it very late to act on it. Look, I was a fan of the programme but it had become awful before it was taken off.

Section 31 appears in the 1960 Act. The first Directive under it was by Gerry Collins in 1971. It certainly was NOT strengthened by the Cruiser. under the original Act ANYTHING could be banned by the minister. Cruiser not only limited the scope of bans to matters of criminality and state security but made all Directives under the section subject to the approval of the Oireachtas and obliged annual renewal also subject to the approval of the Oireachtas. His idea was that bans would be debated annually; the lack of debate was because no one in the Dail disagreed!

Incidentally, he also changed the law whereby the RTE Authority could be fired by the Minister, as was done by FF. Post Cruiser appointments to the Authority and removals from the Authority required the assent of the Oireachtas.

mike65

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Until Labour got into power in Britain in 1945 and founded the welfare state, unemployment averaged 10%, then it dropped to between 2% and 3% for over 30 years then shot up to between 10% and 15% after Margaret Thatcher came to power. Now under a Labour government it's back to under 3%. So it appears that it's the conservatives, in britain at least, who actually encourage 'laziness' and unemployment.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned ill-informed Daily Mail type rant.

Hmmm half-baked methinks. A potted post war history for you.

1945 Labour elected. After the Second World War the whole British infrastucture was shattered and so had to be rebuilt, this not suprisingly had the effect (after a slow start) of boosting employment and productivty levels. Then it all started to go wrong, many industries started to fail due to bad managment and outdated practices so were nationalised and had billions
(in todays terms) of tax payers money pumped into them. In 1967 the Wilson government devalued the pound to stave off recession it worked for a while, then in 1973 the first oil shock hits, everyone goes on strike and the lights go out.

In 1976 the IMF are called in the tell the treasury how to run the nations finances. 1978 the winter of discontent.

1979 Conservatives are elected and under the guidance of Sir Kieth Joseph Mrs T sets about a huge programme of slash and burn economic reform. Millions out of work as the change is hugly painful, the turnaround in the late 80s sees unemplyment start to level and fall with a period sustained ecomonic success.

1987 Ooops! Black Monday But that caught everyone off guard. ERM fiasco upsets apple cart for a while but sky high interest rates fall back and growth picks up in 1992/3 and continues as the public finances are sorted out under Ken Clark who leaves office in 1997 with all the parameters in good shape.

Labour elected and they simply continue the Major/Clark macro economic policies.

So the supposedly bad years under Thatcher were the result of having to reinvent the stagnant UK economy.

Mike.

mike65

Back on topic, Ryan Tubridy had a Lebonese and an Irish-Isreali on his programme this morning and both agreed there was a bias in RTE and the Irish media generally.

Mike.

Jackie laughlin

Mike,
Accusations of bias in Irish broadcasting can be tested through the BCC. It is very seldom done.

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

Back on topic, Ryan Tubridy had a Lebonese and an Irish-Isreali on his programme this morning and both agreed there was a bias in RTE and the Irish media generally.

Mike.

No they didn't actually.

You so wrong (again) my sweet neocon!!!

The 'member of the Irish Jewish community' as he was described--there was nothing to say that he was Israeli--complained about bias and whinged that nobody is talking about Dafur or Zimbabwe, all they're doing is picking on the Israeli airforce, which is of course rubbish. Anyone here NOT heard of Dafur or what Mugabe is up to?

The Lebanese guy actually said that the media was UNDER reporting the devastation of Lebanon and that it is really much worse than we are being told. He did say that there was a general feeling of sympathy in Ireland for the Palestinian people but that is not the same as a media bias.

Why is that? Maybe it's because Irish people have a natural affinity , because of their history, with oppressed nations. Up until the Six Day War, there was a general sympathy in Ireland towards the Israelis and in particular a lot of sympathy from Irish nationalist leaders for Jewish emancipation. This may be because of the support the Irish Jewish population gave to the national struggle.

Daniel O'Connell, Michael Davitt and Eamon De Valera were all very sympathetic to the cause of Jewish emancipation and later Zionism. De Valera in fact was oneof the first foreign leaders to visit Israel in 1950.

It;s just that with the oppression of hte Palestinian people in the meantime, they tend to get the sympathy a people in their plight deserve.

Dave!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0904/lebanon.html?rss

"Annan works to free abducted Israeli soldiers" -- Kofi Annan is gonna mediate between Israel and Hizbollah.

Hizbollah says they'll only free the soldiers in a swap for Arab ones, and Israel says they'll only go for an unconditional surrender.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2342741,00.html

Should be interesting to see how this pans out... A swap would appear to be the fairest resolution, but if Israel don't agree to that then what happens? Back to war?

bomb_thrower

I don't think the Israelis have the stomach for more. They like blitzing villages from 10,000 feet in the air but on the ground, Hizbollah's hardened troops
proved they were more than a match for the IDF. They had good weapons and inflicted a lot of pain on the Israelis. The Isr. public was shocked by the ferocity of the resistance. The problem is why should Hiz. release the 2 when Israel continues to blockade Lebanon as well as the issue of the cluster bombs (which for me is pure evil - targetting kids who wouldnt have a clue).
There should be some kind of exchange. Most Lebanese would see it as a defeat if they gave in to Israel's terror policies by handing the 2 back. The Lebanese though also want to rebuild and live in peace which may just compel Hiz to hand the 2 back.