Talk:Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Archive 1

I propose to reduce this page to a stub until someone is willing and able to write an article that is not just junk like at present. --Zero 01:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again Zero wishes to remove from Wikipedia any material that might be intepreted as supporting Israel or failing to support the Palestinians.

Once again OneVoice wants to turn Wikipedia into his personal anti-Arab hate site.

''On May 19, 2004, United States armed forces in Iraq fired upon a village celebrating a wedding. 41 Iraqis, including 15 children, are killed.'' - what does this have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? RickK 22:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Compare its coverage in the media vs. the coverage of the incident in Gaza on the same day. The article is not about the conflict but rather about its coverage in the media. --Humus sapiens|Talk 22:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

And again Zero's position on the matter is rejected by Wikipedia.

This article stinks
This must be one of the most ridiculous and biased articles in the whole of Wikipedia. --Zero 08:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

photo
Why is this photo included in this article? Its inclusion is only meaningful if it reflects systematic bias one way or another. Without concrete evidence of this on the part of the NYT, it should be deleted. The Times, like every other newsapaper, screws up on a regular basis, and this was probably just a stupid mistake. -- Viajero 15:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You are looking for "the concrete evidence" of their bias and propose to delete it in the same sentence. If someone short changes you on a regular basis, would call it a "probably just a stupid mistake"?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 16:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What is the evidence that the NYT systematicaly "short-changes" Israel? -- Viajero 08:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * One example
 * Error (New York Times, AP reporter Hussein Dakroub, 5/31/03): While the United States lists Hezbollah as a terrorist group, Lebanon regards it as a political party fighting Israeli occupation of a tiny piece of land in south Lebanon.
 * Fact: “A tiny piece of land in south Lebanon” under Israeli occupation is presumably a reference to a region called Chebaa Farms. However, in its June 16, 2000 report of the Secretary-General (S/2000/590), the United Nations ruled that Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanese territory...
 * -- none of which contradicts what the NYT wrote. --Zero
 * Here are the lists of Uncorrected and Corrected ones.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * That is just a typical CAMERA list of whinges that NYT doesn't follow the Israel-does-no-bad line that CAMERA espouses. It is easy to refute a great many of their claims. --Zero 12:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie
Rachel Corrie may be a controversial figure, but I fail to perceive -- and the article does nothing to clarify -- how this has anything to do with media coverage. Failing clear evidence of systematic media bias with regard to her this section should be deleted. -- Viajero 15:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this counts as it's biased, but it's a start. Johnleemk | Talk 01:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

changed "overly sympathetic" to "biased"
IMHO, "overly sympathetic" is not the problem. Just the opposite, being sympathetic to the Palestinians means they deserve better. The media, education, NGOs that support anti-Israel hatred and violence is counter-productive, just as keeping them eternal refugees. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Occupation in 2001
Moved the following paragraph to talk:
 * The US media watchgroup Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) claimed in 2001 that the word occupation has become almost taboo for American reporters. FAIR said that even the designation occupied territories, once routine on network TV, had all but disappeared. On the three networks' evening news broadcasts -- ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News -- FAIR determined the West Bank or Gaza were mentioned in 99 news stories since the fighting began in September 2000, but of those 99 stories, only four used the word "occupied," "occupation" or any other variation. FAIR determined that there is a significant difference between UK and US media: Israel's occupation was mentioned in almost two-thirds of the news stories in the British newspaper The Independent in 2001, while it was omitted from more than two-thirds of stories in the The New York Times.

Reason: an outdated and non-neutral para. As per Oslo, in 2000-2001, the "Area A" territories were already under Palestinian control, and "Area B" - partially so. They were reoccupied later, in 2002, as a result of Intifada2. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

anecodotal evidence insufficient
I have removed the photo. The Times makes errors everyday. What is special about that one? If someone presents quantitative evidence of systemastic bias on the part of the Times we can restore it. By quantitative, I mean that kind of statistical analyses FAIR does. Otherwise, it is simply anecdotal (and hence propaganda). -- Viajero 21:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * See the Photo section above for an answer to your question. By removing the text and the photo not in line with your POV, you only demonstrated your non-neutral opinion. I think the AP/NYT photo is very representative of the topic . Regarding FAIR: who is the judge to say it is not unfair? I have included some numbers as requested.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV
For example, The New York Times is reguarly castigated by progressive groups in the United States for its uncritical support of Israel, especially on its editorial pages, while right-wing, pro-Israel groups claim its reporting has a pro-Palestinian bias.

Do you call this NPOV? Progressive is definitely not (implying that the opposite is regressive). And being pro-Israel and right-wing is not the same. See also the comments above and learn to accomodate opinions other than yours. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 18:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * yep, and rightwingers all sit on the right side of the table... -- Viajero 17:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Palestinians as journalists
I have removed this paragraph:


 * Pro-Israeli media critics claim newswire services such as the Associated Press, Agence France Presse and Reuters have a pro-Palestine bias because they employ Palestinians as journalists, due to their knowledge of the Arabic language and culture and easy access to the Palestinian population. Because of this, such critics say, the media outlets that depend on them are biased towards the Palestinian perspective. Others point out that major media outlets, particularly in the West, tend to portray the Israelis as victims.

This basically an ad hominem attack on Palestians. If someone comes up with objective, quantitative evidence that the wire services do in fact hire many Palestinines in Palestine and that it results in bias, we can reinserit it. -- Viajero 17:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It is common for Palestinian guides, interpretters, camera crew, etc, to be hired by Western news agencies when they want to report from the Palestinian areas. They hire Israelis in the same fashion within Israel.  However, the talking head (if TV) or news copy writer (if print) is usually Western.  There are probably exceptions, but the extent would have to be documented and the claim of bias justified before anything like the disputed paragraph is acceptable. --Zero 18:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of BBC
The following was added by Humus Sapiens and removed by me:

{The BBC is legally obliged to cover news items in an accurate and impartial manner. In his December, 2002 analysis report The BBC and the Middle East, the London attorney Trevor Asserson writes: "It is clear that no news source can avoid error entirely. However we detect a consistent pattern in the type of "error." Time and again we find stories critical of Palestinians either suppressed or in some other way neutralised. By contrast we find time and again stories critical of Israel given undue prominence. Stories which would reflect well on Israel are apparently down-played."}

Humus, this is neither professional nor representative of NPOV. In fact it comes close to slander. You have used the remarks of a single individual's remarks on the BBC to imply that the BBC has at one time or another been unfair in one way or another, without any professional and widely recognized studies to back up such a claim. The only other example in this article is of the NYT, but the article clearly mentions the criticism that the NYT has received from both sides. Linking to one attorney's opinions does not amount to fact or even widely accepted sentiment. Trevor Asserson has been called to the Israeli bar and his study was conducted with the help of an Israeli lawyer, hardly an example of a source of objective and neutral criticism. To say the BBC is legally obliged to be objective, and to follow it up with mention of Asserson's study doesn't necessarily mean that the BBC came under the obligation AFTER the study, which is the POV your comment suggests; every professional news agency is similarly obliged and they all come under the same criticism of bias.

PS I am looking through his article now - among the other criticisms of BBC he makes is that the BBC does not classify Palestinian suicide bombing as terrorism. That is hardly what one might consider objective criticism... Simonides 08:17, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You should have read the analysis first, it is exhaustive research and contains facts. enough for BBC to hire a special ombudsman. The legal obligation is in the [www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/charter.shtml BBC's charter]. This whole article is turning into the "Jews control the media" disgrace.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Humus, the analysis focuses on perceived bias - another report could just as well document the perceived bias against Palestinians and attack the BBC. Now if you report both, that would be NPOV. That the BBC hired someone to deal with the anti-Isreal charges tells us nothing, defendants need to protect themselves even when they are innocent. This article is not turning into a disgrace, it was perfectly fine as it was (already disputed - what more do you want?) until you started tried to wedge your little piece in there. Now, I am going to remove your passage one more time. The charges are not serious, they are from a single POV, and again, focus on the BBC instead of the countless other news agencies which could be cited for extreme bias, such as the Fox News channel. And your link is from Ananova, a tabloid - please. If you insist on turning this into a farce we will have to appeal to a third party. Simonides 09:00, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)...


 * PS here is your revised text: {Unusually for a news service, according to its BBC's Charter, it is legally obliged to cover news items in an accurate and impartial manner. In December, 2002 analysis report The BBC and the Middle East, the London attorney Trevor Asserson writes: "It is clear that no news source can avoid error entirely. However we detect a consistent pattern in the type of "error." Time and again we find stories critical of Palestinians either suppressed or in some other way neutralised. By contrast we find time and again stories critical of Israel given undue prominence. Stories which would reflect well on Israel are apparently down-played." To answer it, as well as Israel's decision not to cooperate with the BBC in protest against "its anti-Israel coverage, which is characterised by violation of journalistic ethics and the broadcasting of baseless claims", and winning the 2001 Dishonest Reporting Award, BBC hired an ombudsman for Middle East matters.}


 * Humus, this is the third time you are inserting your piece into the article, and you have declined to discuss the point for your last edit. I have reported this page for Comment on NPOV; until that time please refrain from further edits, thank you. Simonides 09:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I addressed your points and revised the piece. None of revisions of the paragraph was acceptable enough to leave a sinle word out of it. Sorry, we cannot just ignore the official ban in an encyclopedia article. Annanova says it comes from AP, some others - from AFP, tt was all over the news. If one side decides to ban one news service and another is happy with their bised reporting, how does this makes pointing out their bias wrong? It could just so happen that they are truly _are_ biased and the other side has not much to complain about.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * 1)Because you do not mention or cannot find conflicting views, it does not mean they do not exist. 2)You did not address my points before making your third edit. 3)There are official bans of all kinds on numerous agencies, coming from various parties. A representative example has already been made, ie the NYT. The article does not need more, and the only thing your piece suggests is that the BBC is biased, without proof from any non-biased sources. Thank you, in any case, for stopping the edit war. Let us just agree to leave the article as it is - it already holds "disputed" status. Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Add any other major official reactions such as bans to the Reactions section. The strategy of removing refs & quotes and then saying that there is no evidence won't work.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography + DO NOT make edits without initiating discussion.
Humus, as a conciliatory act I will not revert my bibliography to its original version. In future, however, do NOT revert any of my edits until you comment on it first, instead of simply adding a note to your edit. Since you asked about why I put The Holocaust Industry in there, it is because the book is about Media Coverage. It doesn't need to have the words "media" and "coverage" in the title to be so. I don't see what your objection to Finklestein, a Jewish person, is - just above you were claiming I was trying to turn this article into an anti-Jewish "disgrace". Simonides 09:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Jews have full range of opinions. Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew, who does not represent majority.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly, since Jews (all other people as well) have a full range of opinions it is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia to represent the full range without maliciously characterizing or reducing any of these opinions. Calling someone a self-hating Jew does not reflect objective thought - this is not about majorities, it's about objectivity. Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * "A self-hating Jew": that is about the stupidest cliche there is. Simonides, don't bother try to reason with Humus, he is just a zealot. -- Viajero 09:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * PS: Simonides, you haven't been around so long, right? Take a look at the version of this article Humus regarded as acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict&oldid=4010575 Very instructive, no? -- Viajero 09:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Viajero, thank you very much for stepping in. Yes, I'm new! Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi again, as I am sure you are aware, accusations of "media bias" are a dime a dozen. The only meaningful way to tackle the topic IMO is to try to find studies where media analysts try to "quantify" such bias by counting and analyzing the use of terminology, images, sources, and that kind of thing. FAIR has been this doing type of work for many years, and it is extremely useful, but it is very time consuming and not many groups do it. If you can find any other studies of this kind, it would be enormously helpful. -- Viajero 10:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I shall keep an eye out for such groups, Viajero. For the most part I only know sites which discuss media bias, but don't do many exhaustive studies. Articles on such studies do show up on internet news stories from time to time however. Simonides 10:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I own and have read The Holocaust Industry, and it does not say a great deal about the topic of this article; likewise ''Image and Reality. . ., which barely discusses the media, instead critiquing various academic works on the subject, especially From Tracts Invented''. In fact, Finkelstein's only worthwhile media critique (from Image and Reality. . .) concerns the public reaction to Peters's book, which issue is A: old (from the mid-80s) and B: at best ancillary to this article. (I could write up a one- or two-paragraph summary of that section if anyone thinks it should be included, though I'd rather put such content in the appropriate article.) Therefore I really don't think these books are useful references for this article. &#8212;No-One Jones 12:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the critique, Mirv. The two books indeed do not restrict themselves to media coverage and cover other topics; but since the article mentions a "war of words" I thought it worthwhile to bring up books which discuss bias in print media - books and periodicals. I own The Holocaust Industry too, but not the other one and it has been a while since I looked at it (but I do remember it discusses media coverage at several points.) Please note that the bibliography is only a start. You are welcome to add to it, and remove one of the Finklestein titles as you find replacements. You are also welcome to add books from another POV, but preferably books written by "serious" authors, not griping, hysterical hacks. Simonides 20:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha! We are perhaps reading different versions of these books. I have the 2000 edition of The Holocaust Industry and the 1995 edition of Image and Reality; you referenced the 2003 editions of both. It may be that the new revisions included material on media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; if so, I withdraw my critique. &#8212;No-One Jones 02:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is still here??
How did we ever get a consensus to keep this? It's inherently POV and can never make a worthy article. I can't believe this junk gets to stay. blankfaze | •­•


 * In my opinion this is an important article and it is not inherently POV. To mention bias does not mean one needs to choose sides. Simonides 20:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I disagree. However, I do respect your opinion.  Perhaps "inherently POV" is the wrong terminology.  See my comment below in response to Viajero's concerns.  blankfaze | •­• 00:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Blankfaze: If you'd take the trouble to view the VfD voting record, you would know exactly what the nature of the consensus was. Does that the fact that you consider it junk imply that you will also be contributing to the (considerable) effort required to turn it into something respectable? -- Viajero 21:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'd like to apologise for not signing my comment. Simple oversight/mistake.  Not cowardice or anything.  I take full responsibility for what I write.  Second of all, it's not the content of the article that I have a problem with.  The article itself seems to be mostly well-written.  But this subject is simply too controversial to ever be NPOV.  You just can't be neutral here!  It's impossible.  Sorry if you disagree, but that's just my opinion.  But I respect the fact that a majority of people have a differing opinion.  You all have the right to make your opinion known, just as I do, and have done here.  I don't think it belongs here... but this is a community encyclopaedia, not my encyclopaedia. blankfaze | •­• 00:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Holocaust is controversial, and is inherently POV, but we keep it. This article is even more so, but I believe it deserves to be here because it's a valid topic. There's nothing inherently POV about media coverage of a war. If there is, the article on the war in question should be deleted as well. We are dealing in facts here. That there is a conflict is a fact. That it makes headlines around the world is a fact. Therefore, we have an article on the conflict, and likewise, an article on its media coverage. If the title read "media bias" I would agree, but as it is I see nothing inherently POV about this. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is being passed as NPOV here
I am willing to go through this latest diff one by one, but here's a recipe:
 * 1) Slap a reference and a quote from a "progressive" website that harps exclusively on Palestinian victimhood.
 * 2) Whack (no need to edit) anything that doesn't suit your agenda: research, analysis, or important facts (such as official boycott of BBC because of their bias, see  above), simply "Because you do not mention or cannot find conflicting views".
 * 3) Never enter into discussion with those whose opinion differs from yours and simply revert _anything_ they write.
 * 4) Use Israeli newspapers, as long as they help exposing "Israeli government influence". No need for the "conflicting views" here, or even mentionining Arab Media.
 * 5) For balance, add The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition, by Norman G. Finkelstein (2003): see, he's a Jew (an Israel-hater, but nonetheless). So there, certifiably perfect NPOV.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * So, a person who is critical of Israel is a "Israel hater"? Your way of thinking is as simplistic and reductionistic as those dreadful cartoons from the Arab media which you like to dredge up. Maybe someday you will learn it is possible to be critical of both of the Israelis and the Arabs, sceptical of the claims of all governments. But I am not holding my breath. -- Viajero 06:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--> User talk:209.135.35.83

I challenged your last revert. Focus on the article, try to make it better. Learn to cooperate and accept another opinion without personal attacks. Don't try to patronize others or to drive them away. Nowhere I wrote that Israel is not accountable for any violations of international law just like any other state. The point is, it has been systematically singled out for differential and discriminatory treatment, particularly in the media. The BBC's bias and Arab media definitely must be mentioned, not swiped under the rug. My other four points were omitted on purpose or by "just a stupid mistake" (your expression)? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:55, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)