According to Fox News .....

Pazaz 21

Apparently according to Fox News Hezbollah in Iran welcomes world war 3.

That's good to know isn't it ?

Yesterday Fox News showed a protest in Tehran about the Israeli bombings in Lebanon and all the presenter said was "Nothing new here", just brushing aside their outrage as the usual anti-Israel, anti-American feeling.

Also according to Fox News, apparently Israel has fired at least 6 shells into Southern Lebanon,:rolleyes: what in the past 2 minutes?

WTF ?

Pazaz 21

This just in, apparently the Lebanese government is pretty much controlled by Hezbollah, that's news to me !!!!

Morlar

Foxnews came out with an absolute nugget of reporting bias the other day when it said

'In the current hostilities so far over 200 people have died in Israel and Lebannon.'

When in fact they meant that the Israeli army had killed 185 lebaneese civilians and hizbollah had killed 15 israelis (including 8 israeli IDF soldiers). Kind of curious that they would choose that particular way of announcing the facts (in my opinion).

Manic Moran

It could be argued that all life is equal, and the ratios of what community was which doesn't affect the fact that (at the time) 200 lives have been lost which could be argued as 200 lives too many.

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote:

It could be argued that all life is equal, and the ratios of what community was which doesn't affect the fact that (at the time) 200 lives have been lost which could be argued as 200 lives too many.

NTM

That really doesnt make any sort of sense to me.

It seems straightforward enough that fox is giving the impression that israel are suffering more - when in fact they are not - and the margin of difference is massive. They are inflicting the greatest punishment on a civilian population and infrastructure while fox is painting them as the victims (again).

Benedict XVI

So what if Fox news are saying this?
If you ask me it’s closer to the truth and a breath of fresh air from the leftist pro-Arab, Palestinian clap trap we have to put up with in this country.

Both the Lebanese and Palestinian publics have elected terrorist organizations to government and they have to pay when those terrorist organizations attack Israel.

The sooner the Lebanese and Palestinian cop on and stop electing terrorists then the sooner Israel will stop retaliating, until then they should watch their backs.

madrab

Fox News: Fair & Balanced....:rolleyes:

Morlar

Benedict XVI wrote:

So what if Fox news are saying this?
If you ask me it’s closer to the truth and a breath of fresh air from the leftist pro-Arab, Palestinian clap trap we have to put up with in this country.

Both the Lebanese and Palestinian publics have elected terrorist organizations to government and they have to pay when those terrorist organizations attack Israel.

The sooner the Lebanese and Palestinian cop on and stop electing terrorists then the sooner Israel will stop retaliating, until then they should watch their backs.

I thought this thread was about the partiality or otherwise of fox news ? Not your opinion on who the one - the only - bad guy is in the middle east.

Agent Smith

what people got to remember is That Isreal Is The United states Biggest Aircraft carrier.....

fly_agaric

Benedict XVI wrote:

So what if Fox news are saying this?
If you ask me it’s closer to the truth and a breath of fresh air from the leftist pro-Arab, Palestinian clap trap we have to put up with in this country.
Both the Lebanese and Palestinian publics have elected terrorist organizations to government and they have to pay when those terrorist organizations attack Israel.
The sooner the Lebanese and Palestinian cop on and stop electing terrorists then the sooner Israel will stop retaliating, until then they should watch their backs.

Shouldn't you be busy praying for Peace to break out or something...:o

agent smith wrote:

what people got to remember is That Isreal Is The United states Biggest Aircraft carrier.....

The UK sort of has that job - "Airstrip 1".
Only islands can be aircraft carriers.

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote:

It could be argued that all life is equal, and the ratios of what community was which doesn't affect the fact that (at the time) 200 lives have been lost which could be argued as 200 lives too many.

NTM

You'd be right in saying that Manic, except for the one overriding point to make here being that this is Fox News reporting this ..... not the Beeb or any other more ... "balanced" news organisation out there. Their choice of wording is quite deliberate.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

Shouldn't you be busy praying for Peace to break out or something...:o

While thats very very funny and I appreciate its posted to be funny and not as an attack on a poster,I'd like to make it clear to all other posters that they are not to be thinking of ways like this to fly under the radar with an actual attack on a poster couched in humour.

The mods will look at reported posts where possible or see posts like the above and make a call regarding what we think the posters intentions are.

I'm making a call here.

I laughed out loud.

Now back on topic

indiewindy

Anyone seen Outfoxed Rupert Murdochs war on journalism yet?

Pazaz 21

Yes, hasn't everyone ?

aidan24326

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Apparently according to Fox News Hezbollah in Iran welcomes world war 3.

That's good to know isn't it ?

Yesterday Fox News showed a protest in Tehran about the Israeli bombings in Lebanon and all the presenter said was "Nothing new here", just brushing aside their outrage as the usual anti-Israel, anti-American feeling.

Also according to Fox News, apparently Israel has fired at least 6 shells into Southern Lebanon,:rolleyes: what in the past 2 minutes?

WTF ?

Fox News are a complete joke, though not a harmless one by any means. Propoganda news reporting at it's finest. Problem is alot of Americans take what Fox News report as the literal truth. No wonder so many of them haven't a bloody clue what's going on.

sceptre

Benedict XVI wrote:

If you ask me it’s closer to the truth and a breath of fresh air from the leftist pro-Arab, Palestinian clap trap we have to put up with in this country.

I wouldn't put it quite like that myself (I'd leave out about 50% of the words and all of the opening clause as it isn't closer to the truth but it is opinion) but given my declared position of the Israelis and Palestinians both being dangerous whiny children with bombs arguing over the deep end of a sand pit while they both declare their exclusive right to urinate in the four corners of the territory, from a European perspective, where we've got slightly more balanced news (we get Fox and the Guardian and RTE, BBC, etc), Fox, with all their tightly controlled pseudo right wing domestic libertarian, international authoritarian views, do offer something we don't get much from the other services. Even when that's comedic (and it frequently is), it's at least something different. Not that I'd watch it much, mind you, I've more regard for my remaining functional braincells than that.

Trouble is that over in the US they don't have the neo-socialists in the Guardian et al providing a balance to Rupert's minions.

the_syco

Pazaz 21 wrote:

This just in, apparently the Lebanese government is pretty much controlled by Hezbollah, that's news to me !!!!

Not directly, but they have alot of influence. Were they more or less the reason why Isreal pulled out of Lebanon?

gbh

Its a sad reality that war sells newspapers and also makes people watch news channels. This in turn increases the advertising rates these companies can charge and increases their profits.

Fox News and their ilk want these wars to continue as long as possible and anythign they can do as they did in the lead up to the Iraq invasion to steer public opinion towards supporting war they will do. So they will highlight the bad points of their enemies and play down the faults of those they support.

The Israeli/Hezbollah war is another classic example. Hezbollah capture two Israeli soldiers and so Hezbollah are vilified. But little or no mention of thousands of Lebonese in Israeli jails without trial. It is the same situation as Guantamano. There used to be a reward in Kabul a few years ago offered by the Americans for information leading to the capture of Taliban fighters. Of course this lead to all sorts of people coming forward and reporting people they didnt get on with, business rivals, etc. Rewards were paid and innocent people were sent to quantamano without trial. Could be the same with Lebonese in Israeli jails without trial. But Israel can do no wrong.

indiewindy

From what I've watched and read of this conflict, only the BBC has given a fair representation of it. It was terrible to hear a spokesman from the IDF being quoted on RTE news at lunch time as if he was objective. So many innocents being killed daily but because its Israel not an eyelid is batted you get the apologists climbing out from under their rocks writing their bile in the letters pages of the daily papers

Pazaz 21

gbh wrote:

Fox News and their ilk want these wars to continue as long as possible and anythign they can do as they did in the lead up to the Iraq invasion to steer public opinion towards supporting war they will do. So they will highlight the bad points of their enemies and play down the faults of those they support.

The reason Fox News supports anything the government does and walks the Repulican party line is that Murdock has his head so far up the Republican Parties A** its hard to know where he stops and it starts.

As you would have seen in Outfoxed Murdock is practically in love with Ronald Reagan.

Thats why it steers people to support the war in Iraq and now in Lebanon because the government wants them to support it and is using Fox News to do that.

seamus

Benedict XVI wrote:

Both the Lebanese and Palestinian publics have elected terrorist organizations to government and they have to pay when those terrorist organizations attack Israel.

Populations who feel threatened will vote in the people who say that they have the most weapons and the will to fight. How do you think George W. Bush got in?

I would argue that the Isreali government is no less a pack of terrorists than the Palestinians or Lebanese (look up the meaning of the word "terrorist"), and by inheritance, so too are the Americans.

Ronan|Raven

CNN Europe I find is pretty good in their reporting from what I have seen of it lately.

spanner

indiewindy wrote:

From what I've watched and read of this conflict, only the BBC has given a fair representation of it.

This I would definately agree with, With Orla Guiren been the best correspondent for the region that I have seen. Unlike other reporters who seem to land in their when things get heavy she is always there. Her reports and very balanced showing human interest stories from both sides and her knowledge of the conflict is second to none. Generally I find the Beebs international coverage the best around

bonkey

Morlar wrote:

It seems straightforward enough that fox is giving the impression that israel are suffering more - when in fact they are not - and the margin of difference is massive.

I don't know how you make that out to be straightforward.

You could argue that they are suppressing the fact that Lebanon is suffering higher death-tolls, but nowhere quoted thusfar is there any suggestion taht Israel is suffering more.

Fox may be far from impartial, but I would suggest that their critics are often not offering an impartial criticism either, but rather one already curried by the message they want to believe Fox is spreading rather than the one they are.

The reason Fox News supports anything the government does

Fox doesn't support anything the government does. Fox have been critical of the government in the past. They aren't as critical as one would believe a properly balanced or fair reporting service should be, and arguably not by a long shot, but again....if you're going to criticise them for partisanship and partiality surely the only way to do so with credibility is impartially, objectively and honestly?

If not, then how is it anything but a pot-and-kettle name-calling contest?

Morlar

bonkey wrote:

I don't know how you make that out to be straightforward.

You could argue that they are suppressing the fact that Lebanon is suffering higher death-tolls, but nowhere quoted thusfar is there any suggestion taht Israel is suffering more.

Fox may be far from impartial, but I would suggest that their critics are often not offering an impartial criticism either, but rather one already curried by the message they want to believe Fox is spreading rather than the one they are.

They are trying to give the impression that israel are suffering more than they actually are in reality. By playing down the lebaneese deathtoll - or - sickeningly by including the number of people killed by israel along with the amount of israeli casualties they are claiming a shared victimhood for 2 sides completely ignoring the fact that one side here is the agressor (talking about lebannon and israel not hizbollah & idf).

bonkey

Morlar wrote:

They are trying to give the impression that israel are suffering more than they actually are in reality.

I disagree.

All they are choosing to do is not disclose information.

You are choosing what to read into this lack of information, not them.

they are claiming a shared victimhood for 2 sides

Are you suggesting there isn't a shared victimhood? That the Israeli civilians killed weren't actually victims?

I refer once again to my suggestion that you are accusing Fox of bias, whilst not maintaining an unbiased position with regards to your own arguments.

So basically you're faulting them for doing the same thing you're doing - allowing their presentation of information to be coloured by their opinions of who is right and wrong.

completely ignoring the fact that one side here is the agressor

The fact is that the current round of violence was initiated by aggression from Hezbollah which has resulted in (disproportionate) retaliation from Israel.

Israel did not decide to bomb Lebanno cause it was a quiet news week adn they needed to generate some interesting press. They did so in retaliation to an incursion into their land by armed forces who abducted members of the IDF.

You can argue all you like about the acceptability of the response Israel has engaged in, but insisting that Fox is ignoring who the aggressor is without acknowledging that Israel did not initiate this current round of violence is - once again - slanting the facts to suit your own political interpretation of who is right and wrong.

In short, you're still using Foxian methodology whilst criticising Fox for doing the same.

jc

HelterSkelter

Manic Moran wrote:

It could be argued that all life is equal, and the ratios of what community was which doesn't affect the fact that (at the time) 200 lives have been lost which could be argued as 200 lives too many.

NTM

Is that the point that you are trying to argue? If it is why don't you just say it is your opinion instead of beating around the bush?

Morlar

bonkey wrote:

I disagree.

All they are choosing to do is not disclose information.

You are choosing what to read into this lack of information, not them.

How exactly would they choose what to read into the information they arent disclosing anyway ? Did you even read that before posting it ?

First of all thats not whats happening here. Secondly I have no problem with reading into the choices they make as regards which kinds of information they consistently decide 'not to disclose'.

The other option would be to accept the selective omissions from what they report without questioning their motivation - is that what your saying I/everyone else needs to do here ? Dont question foxnews bias - why exactly are we not to question their bias or the reason for it ?

This is all assuming that what they are actually doing is simply leaving out information that they arent comfortable with - that is not whats going on here. When they say

200 people have died in israel and lebannon

To somone not familiar with the facts that does give the impression that there is a similair level of deaths in both countries. Which there clearly isnt.

If 15 lebaneese people and 200 israelis were killed do you think that they would say

200 people have died in lebannon and israel ?

bonkey wrote:

Are you suggesting there isn't a shared victimhood? That the Israeli civilians killed weren't actually victims?

That is not what I said and you know it.

bonkey wrote:

I refer once again to my suggestion that you are accusing Fox of bias, whilst not maintaining an unbiased position with regards to your own arguments.

Well, hmmm, the main response to that is that I am not a global news network am I ? Neither are you. Neither do you have the same responsibility to impartiality that a news network does - especially one which uses the slogan 'Fair and Balanced'. I (like you) am not held to the same level of accountability - (though in this case I dont think I have done too badly when compared with the fox level of bias ).

bonkey wrote:

So basically you're faulting them for doing the same thing you're doing - allowing their presentation of information to be coloured by their opinions of who is right and wrong.

No - thats not basically what I am faulting them for - and if it was you could just see above. See also that this is an internet forum - not a global televised news network/media empire.

bonkey wrote:

You can argue all you like about the acceptability of the response Israel has engaged in, but

I wouldnt call it arguing about the acceptability of the response from israel - I would call it reporting that israel has killed 300+ civilians this week (and counting) and not saying that '300 people have been killed in israel and lebannon'. (I have upped the number to the current lebaneese tally).

bonkey wrote:

insisting that Fox is ignoring who the aggressor is without acknowledging that Israel did not initiate this current round of violence is - once again - slanting the facts to suit your own political interpretation of who is right and wrong.

Hmm - so fox can ignore who the agressor is unless I acknowledge that israel is the more wronged against. I must have missed that memo.

And no - you dont have to include in reports of israel killing non jewish people a qualifier along the lines of 'he started it'. The facts of what israel are doing do not need to be qualified - the facts of what they are doing stand for themselves.

bonkey wrote:

In short, you're still using Foxian methodology whilst criticising Fox for doing the same.

jc

Again see above on who is and who isnt a news network.

bonkey

Morlar wrote:

How exactly would they choose what to read into the information they arent disclosing anyway ? Did you even read that before posting it ?

They did not disclose any information on the death-toll to either side, rather giving the total death-toll.

Anyone who interprets this to mean that one side is being portrayed as suffering more/less than they actually are is making a judgement on what the lack of information means.

If I tell you that 100 people died in the trouble, there is no suggestion that its 50/50, 99/1, 1/99 or anything else other than the total killed.

For you to decide that I'm trying to make out one side has suffered more than it actually has means you are reading some sort of breakdown into my statement, despite me never giving one.

IN short, Fox may be offering incomplete information, but its not misleading unless you try and interpret it to contain information it explicitly does not.

First of all thats not whats happening here.

How is it not whats happening here? Fox gave a quote qwhich did not contain breakdowns, and you accused them of trying to make out Israel is suffering more than it is. You read a quantitative implication where none was present.

They didn't make out anything about Israel's suffering and you allege they did.

Secondly I have no problem with reading into the choices they make as regards which kinds of information they consistently decide 'not to disclose'.

I think you seem to be mistaknig my claim that you are as guilty of using bias to suit your argument as Fox with a claim that Fox are not biased.

The other option would be to accept the selective omissions from what they report without questioning their motivation

No report from any news-source is devoid of selective omissions. Every report chooses its angle, what it wants to say, what it wants to focus on, what it doesn't want to deal with.

If making such a selective decision is inherently wrong, then every media source is inherently wrong, and singling Fox out is biased. If making such a decision is not inherently wrong, then one must determine on a case by case basis whether or not the omission is wrong and what motivation there may be for it.

No-one has done this here yet. They've presented isolated quotes, taken from a far broader context, and attributed motive for those quotes that is based on little more than "well, what would you expect, they're Fox". In other words...because they're Fox, they're guilty and thats all we need to know.

200 people have died in israel and lebannon

To somone not familiar with the facts that does give the impression that there is a similair level of deaths in both countries.

Only to someone who is willing to make assumptions based on a lack of information. It requires you to say to yourself "they didn't give a breakdown, so it must be fairly even". This is a logical non-sequitor.

Its like deciding that because you didn't hear the weather forecast for tomorrow, you can make a pretty safe assumption that its going to snow. And yes, I recognise that snow is highly unlikely and anyone who knew anythnig abou tthe weather should know that. I also recognise that anyone who is remotely informed about the Middle East and Israel in particular knows that Israel has almost always inflicted casualties between 3 and 10 times greater than it received. So in both cases, either you know nothnig and are making a daft assumption, or yuou know something and shouldn't make the assumption you claim. Unless, of course, you want to make that assumption because it pleases you.

If 15 lebaneese people and 200 israelis were killed do you think that they would say

I don't know.

A reversal of fortune to the tune of two orders of magnitude in comparative casualties would be so shocknig and unique an event in Israel's history, I would expect it to be a major news event regardless of who the newscaster was.

Well, hmmm, the main response to that is that I am not a global news network am I ?

So you believe that its ok for individuals to have bias, but not for global news networks? That you can be as unfair in yoru reasoning as you like, and publish it in a public forum, but they have to be fair and balanced in a manner you agree with???

Sorry - I don't accept those standards. I believe the highest standard pf behaviour that anyone has a right to demand is the standard they themselves adhere to.

If you think its ok for you to be biased for whatever reason, then you have no right to criticise others for employing bias for their reasons.

Neither do you have the same responsibility to impartiality that a news network does

First and foremost, I have a responsibility to myself to be impartial. I can't speak for you, nor what you believe your responsibilities are, but I believe my responsibility to be impartial to myself is just as great as anyone else's.

If nothing else, it means I'm not being hypocritical demanding a similar standard from others. Bear in mind that Fox is ultimately just a collection of individuals. If its ok for each and every one of them to be biased as individuals, then its impossible to expect a lack of bias in the resultant company.

Once I'm impartial to myself, then I can either lie to others about what I believe, or give them the same as-impartial-as-I-can view. I don't like lying, so I stick with trying for the impartiality.

I (like you) am not held to the same level of accountability

The statement in question here is factually correct. There is no level of accountability that they have failed to meet.

They are not and cannot be acocuntable for you or anyone else deciding that "no information on the breakdown" equates to "must be roughtly 50-50".

(though in this case I dont think I have done too badly when compared with the fox level of bias ).

You've just decided they always take the governments position, even though thats not true. You've decided they implied something they didn't. You believe you should be judged (morally or legally) by a lower standard then them.

Given all of these clearly-non-objective decisions, naturally you'll conclude that you're better than they are.....although I'm still at a loss as to how that makes it better. You're basically saying "I might be biased, but at least they're worse".

Bit of a pyrrhic victory, I would say. You presumably disagree.

Hmm - so fox can ignore who the agressor is unless I acknowledge that israel is the more wronged against. I must have missed that memo.

Thats not what I said. You mentioned that Fox ignored who the aggressor is. The aggressor is most often the person who started the fight, not the one who has the upper hand. Israel did not start this current round of hostility.

Again, you seem to be showing bias that you're not interested in showing what the facts are, but rather in showing just how bad and nasty the Israelis are. You want Israel to be pointed out as the aggressor, but feel the fact that their actions are a retaliation to their being attacked on their home soil isn't worth mentioning.

In other words...you accuse Fox of trying to make the Israeli suffering out to be worse than it is, whilst simultaneously trying to massage the facts to make Israel out to be the only bad guy here.

Again, no doubt you'll justify this on the grounds that you're only posting on boards.ie, whereas they're a big giant, so its ok for you to be biased whilst criticising bias .

The facts of what israel are doing do not need to be qualified

What was that you were saying at the top of yoru post about accepting omissions without questioning motivation? What is your motivation for wanting information omitted? Its omission doesn't make anyone better informed...just more sympathetic to your viewpoint.

Again see above on who is and who isnt a news network.

You've repeated this so often I can only read it as "I agree that am biased, but you're wrong that this is a problem and I'm still morally entitled to complain about bias in others".

jc

Manic Moran

HelterSkelter wrote:

Is that the point that you are trying to argue? If it is why don't you just say it is your opinion instead of beating around the bush?

I enjoy playing devil's advocate, and looking at all sides.

NTM

Morlar

bonkey wrote:

They did not disclose any information on the death-toll to either side, rather giving the total death-toll.

Anyone who interprets this to mean that one side is being portrayed as suffering more/less than they actually are is making a judgement on what the lack of information means.

If I tell you that 100 people died in the trouble, there is no suggestion that its 50/50, 99/1, 1/99 or anything else other than the total killed.

For you to decide that I'm trying to make out one side has suffered more than it actually has means you are reading some sort of breakdown into my statement, despite me never giving one.

IN short, Fox may be offering incomplete information, but its not misleading unless you try and interpret it to contain information it explicitly does not.


How is it not whats happening here? Fox gave a quote qwhich did not contain breakdowns, and you accused them of trying to make out Israel is suffering more than it is. You read a quantitative implication where none was present.

They didn't make out anything about Israel's suffering and you allege they did.


I think you seem to be mistaknig my claim that you are as guilty of using bias to suit your argument as Fox with a claim that Fox are not biased.


No report from any news-source is devoid of selective omissions. Every report chooses its angle, what it wants to say, what it wants to focus on, what it doesn't want to deal with.

If making such a selective decision is inherently wrong, then every media source is inherently wrong, and singling Fox out is biased. If making such a decision is not inherently wrong, then one must determine on a case by case basis whether or not the omission is wrong and what motivation there may be for it.

No-one has done this here yet. They've presented isolated quotes, taken from a far broader context, and attributed motive for those quotes that is based on little more than "well, what would you expect, they're Fox". In other words...because they're Fox, they're guilty and thats all we need to know.



Only to someone who is willing to make assumptions based on a lack of information. It requires you to say to yourself "they didn't give a breakdown, so it must be fairly even". This is a logical non-sequitor.

Its like deciding that because you didn't hear the weather forecast for tomorrow, you can make a pretty safe assumption that its going to snow. And yes, I recognise that snow is highly unlikely and anyone who knew anythnig abou tthe weather should know that. I also recognise that anyone who is remotely informed about the Middle East and Israel in particular knows that Israel has almost always inflicted casualties between 3 and 10 times greater than it received. So in both cases, either you know nothnig and are making a daft assumption, or yuou know something and shouldn't make the assumption you claim. Unless, of course, you want to make that assumption because it pleases you.


I don't know.

A reversal of fortune to the tune of two orders of magnitude in comparative casualties would be so shocknig and unique an event in Israel's history, I would expect it to be a major news event regardless of who the newscaster was.



So you believe that its ok for individuals to have bias, but not for global news networks? That you can be as unfair in yoru reasoning as you like, and publish it in a public forum, but they have to be fair and balanced in a manner you agree with???

Sorry - I don't accept those standards. I believe the highest standard pf behaviour that anyone has a right to demand is the standard they themselves adhere to.

If you think its ok for you to be biased for whatever reason, then you have no right to criticise others for employing bias for their reasons.


First and foremost, I have a responsibility to myself to be impartial. I can't speak for you, nor what you believe your responsibilities are, but I believe my responsibility to be impartial to myself is just as great as anyone else's.

If nothing else, it means I'm not being hypocritical demanding a similar standard from others. Bear in mind that Fox is ultimately just a collection of individuals. If its ok for each and every one of them to be biased as individuals, then its impossible to expect a lack of bias in the resultant company.

Once I'm impartial to myself, then I can either lie to others about what I believe, or give them the same as-impartial-as-I-can view. I don't like lying, so I stick with trying for the impartiality.


The statement in question here is factually correct. There is no level of accountability that they have failed to meet.

They are not and cannot be acocuntable for you or anyone else deciding that "no information on the breakdown" equates to "must be roughtly 50-50".


You've just decided they always take the governments position, even though thats not true. You've decided they implied something they didn't. You believe you should be judged (morally or legally) by a lower standard then them.

Given all of these clearly-non-objective decisions, naturally you'll conclude that you're better than they are.....although I'm still at a loss as to how that makes it better. You're basically saying "I might be biased, but at least they're worse".

Bit of a pyrrhic victory, I would say. You presumably disagree.


Thats not what I said. You mentioned that Fox ignored who the aggressor is. The aggressor is most often the person who started the fight, not the one who has the upper hand. Israel did not start this current round of hostility.

Again, you seem to be showing bias that you're not interested in showing what the facts are, but rather in showing just how bad and nasty the Israelis are. You want Israel to be pointed out as the aggressor, but feel the fact that their actions are a retaliation to their being attacked on their home soil isn't worth mentioning.

In other words...you accuse Fox of trying to make the Israeli suffering out to be worse than it is, whilst simultaneously trying to massage the facts to make Israel out to be the only bad guy here.

Again, no doubt you'll justify this on the grounds that you're only posting on boards.ie, whereas they're a big giant, so its ok for you to be biased whilst criticising bias .


What was that you were saying at the top of yoru post about accepting omissions without questioning motivation? What is your motivation for wanting information omitted? Its omission doesn't make anyone better informed...just more sympathetic to your viewpoint.



You've repeated this so often I can only read it as "I agree that am biased, but you're wrong that this is a problem and I'm still morally entitled to complain about bias in others".

jc

There are just so so many ways to take that spiel apart piece by piece - but life is just too short.

samb

I saw the O'reilly Factor the other night (friday night) although O'reilly himself was not presenting it, a stand in woman was. They talked to three correspondents, all in Isreal talking about the rocket attacks that day and whether there will be a ground invasion. There were no casualties that day-but they didn't report about what was happening in southern lebanon at all. They then spoke to two experts both of whom agreed a full scale occupation of southern lebanon was needed, one saying that they are fighting 'our war' and that isreal should never have pulled out before. There was no real debate, all three were in agreement. And to cap it all of the presenter referred to the isreals military as 'we'.

Fair and Balanced?

spanner

samb wrote:

I saw the O'reilly Factor the other night (friday night) although O'reilly himself was not presenting it, a stand in woman was.

Fair and Balanced?

just listening to her yesterday, classic she came out with some nuggets. According to her Israel have warned the people of south lenbanon so its there own fault if they get bombed. You really would want to listen to it for the absolute bull coming out of them. I would laugh if it was not so serious.
The poor Israelis are under attack from the evil people in the north.
and get this, Mr Bush isnt doing enough in the middle east, he is a bit to softy liberal for fox, as far as the one that is standing in for O'Reilly the should be attacking more countries

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

They did not disclose any information on the death-toll to either side, rather giving the total death-toll.

While I don't know about Fox News, Sky News is giving totals of Israelis killed as updates but listing "total dead" when it refers to lebanon (Groups them with the Israelis).

IN short, Fox may be offering incomplete information, but its not misleading unless you try and interpret it to contain information it explicitly does not.

Such an instance where they would be giving a total where the total was way far skewed it would be misleading, especially when most of the reporting appears to be Israel slant anyway.

The_Scary_Man

The fact is that the current round of violence was initiated by aggression from Hezbollah which has resulted in (disproportionate) retaliation from Israel.

Well this is not a fact it is an opinion. It is a vast oversimplification of this situation to decide to take the starting point of this conflict as the kidnap of the soldiers. As has been mentioned on this thread already there are thousands of palestinian and lebanese people being held without trial in Israel. This is an ongoing course of action. Your statement would lead us to believe that previous to June 25 when Hamas/Al Aqsa crossed the border into Isreal and kidnapped an IDF soldier that all was well in the region and Palestinians were living in harmony with Israelis.

What I find most disturbing in all this from a political perspective is the outright refusal of the US to countenance an immediate ceasefire on the grounds that a lasting peace is the more desireable outcome. Of course lasting peace is the most desireable outcome but how can an immediate ceasefire preclude that?

Zebra3

Slightly off-topic, but worth a read...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1827023,00.html

spanner

now fox have got the all important buzz word "Islamofacist". It is something else.

I am generally Sympathetic to Israel and I do belive they have a right to exist and defend themselves, but what is going on at the moment isnt defence, its maddness. They are destroying one country to get at one organization.

Squaddy

I think Fox News are the most biased news station around. Sure they show this to the soldiers in Iraq.

Take a look at this and this. They talk about attacking Syria and Iran.

up for anything

Benedict XVI wrote:

Both the Lebanese and Palestinian publics have elected terrorist organizations to government and they have to pay when those terrorist organizations attack Israel.

The sooner the Lebanese and Palestinian cop on and stop electing terrorists then the sooner Israel will stop retaliating, until then they should watch their backs.

Oh Shi'ite... I voted for Sinn Fein in the last election.

Kevster

My friend, I learned long ago not to watch Fox News. I also learned not to read such newspapers as The Sunday World, The Irish Sun, The Evening Herald, and The News Of The World. They will only serve to depress and anger you.


Not even Sky News is 'safe' to watch anymore. It appears that Murdoch got it wrong when he wanted to be King Midas - Instead of everything he touches turning to gold they instead turn to *BLEEP* [faeces].


For news stick to EuroNews.