Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Earlier discussion:

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May 2004, June 2004, and July 2004. The result of those discussions was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussions, see /Delete.

Contents

[edit] The Guardian

This is the perfect forum for someone to write a piece on the Guardian's Coverage of Israel. The Guardian was once israel's biggest supporters, from the 20's to the 40's it referred to the Arabs as being at a lower stage of civilisation. They were the UK's chief Zionist promoters. After the Arab-Israeli war following the foundation of Isael the Guardian urged the UK and US governments to help the fledgling Jewish State, and again supported the Israelis in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

However since then they have taken an increasingly anti-Israeli stance, following on mainly from the Israeli invasion of lebanon to the present Day. Today the Guardian is the fore-most promoter of Palestinian rights amoung the UK National papers.

I think this is interesting, and deserves a decent few paragraphs, but I'm too lazy to go look for the "back-up" which will enevitably be asked of me before being Reverted.

This just goes to show that even from the beginning writers at the Guardian are inherently prejudiced. The West generally looked down on Arabs then, and now it just hates Israel's guts. The Guardian just feels this need to go with popular sentiment—to become yes-men—in order to sell. The bottom line is profit.

[edit] Factual accuracy?

Sorry I was away for a while. Exactly what factual accuracy is being disputed here? I have reverted the header to read {npov}} -- Simonides 05:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edited the post above so this talk page won't show up in the NPOV disputes category. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is not "Randomly bashing Israel" or "Israel owns the media" article

This is not the right place. Why don't you create those? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I cannot see how the statements and actions, in re media coverage, of the Israeli government, are irrelevant to an article on Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli government is the pre-eminent power in the region, and what it says or does about media coverage can have a significant effect on journalists' behavior—right? —No-One Jones 19:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fine, but all this should work both ways. Allegations should not be presented as facts. This article contains numerous lies by omission:
  • Where is the section on Arab influence? It was purged.
  • link to atrociously POV http://www.freemedia.at/intifada.htm
  • not examining Arab media.
  • Tuvia Grossman's image, as well as refs to Rachel Corrie and Jenin are still being used by anti-Israel propaganda. All of those three were promoted by the media, therefore are highly relevant to the conflict's coverage. All of them vanished from this article.
I also object to renaming this article. We don't have Media coverage of Ireland or Media coverage of Japan, etc. Why is the Jewish state being singled out for scrutiny? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Like to establish your claim about Tuvia Grossman? I don't believe it was ever more than a garden-variety error on a trivial subject. It does not belong in Wikipedia at all and the page about it should be deleted, --Zero 23:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"a garden-variety error" in a long chain of similar errors which were removed from here. Google shows 990 hits. Some WP articles with a lot less hits are never even put under question. In regards to other points, I guess the NPOV policy stops there. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Humus, perhaps you missed the part of the article where it says the Israel-Palestine article is one of the most widely reported news items. It is natural that if a news item is constantly reported on, the issues in question will come under scrutiny. There is no singling out here - I wonder if you ever realise what a discredit you do to yourself when you use such defensive language. -- Simonides 05:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'll repeat the point here for those who missed it: I also object to renaming this article. We don't have Media coverage of Ireland, etc. see above. "There is no singling out here": then please name me another article named Media coverage of state X. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion. I think that it would be interesting to have an article like Media coverage of the Gulf War or Media coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There is probably already a fair bit of useful information in various articles that could be refactored out. I am going to look into this weekend. -- Viajero 12:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Humus, see Media in the United States. I think it needs to highlight the fact Anglo-American media is owned by corporations and conglomerates who finance and endorse the views of right-wing political parties, and are pro-government on the side of error, receiving exemptions from anti-trust laws and tax cuts in return, but the fact the article exists is a start. There are already articles devoted to specific US and UK news channels (ex. Fox News,CNN), so I don't think you can say Israel is singled out; but I agree with Viajero that we could be more specific about, say, American media coverage of the invasion of Panama - the latter is a rather poor article by the way, it ignores background and casualties and needs work. -- Simonides 23:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suspect you (all of you who don't speak out against this latest renaming) are actually able to recognize the difference between Media in X and Media covering X. How about the diff between scrutinizing a nation and a policy? With the monstrous regimes in N.Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc., your singling out only the Jewish state tells a lot about you. For the self-appointed NPOV-police here, your bigotry is noted. Must be an effect of the "progressive" media. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:03, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You are welcome to add and write articles on the "Media Coverage in Country X of Conflicts that Country X in involved in", Humus. -- Simonides 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why the article was renamed then? Judging a nation (not a policy) is wrong. Singling out Jews is wrong. Doing it simultaneously constitutes anti-Semitism, plain and simple. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This was posted on the page

"The perceived anti-Israeli bias does not appear to concur with statistical studies in the UK and USA. On June 22, the news channel Totally Jewish, along with other news sources, reported that "a research study published this week claims to have revealed a clear media bias (in the UK) in favour of Israel." Called " Bad News from Israel" (Greg Philo and Mike Berry, 2004, London: Pluto Press) the study, conducted over a two year period, suggests

television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views... There is a preponderance of official 'Israeli perspectives', particularly on BBC 1... TV news says almost nothing about the history or origins of the conflict... Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as "starting" with Palestinian action. On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised ... There was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though Palestinians had around 2-3 times the number of deaths as Israelis)... The book shows the crucial importance of TV news in informing public opinion and the powerful influence it can have on how we see and understand our world. [1]

In America, studies on the San Francisco Chronicle and other selected periodicals revealed that there was a clear bias against Palestine during the first six months of the 2000-2001 conflict. Despite the fact that, according to Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, over 5 times as many Palestinians were killed as Israelis,

the San Francisco Chronicle reported on 111% of Israeli deaths and only 38% of Palestinian deaths in the headlines and/or the first paragraphs ... This discrepancy was even more exaggerated in the Chronicle’s coverage of the killing of children ... the Chronicle covered 150 % of Israeli children’s deaths and only 5 % of Palestinian children’s deaths, giving readers the impression that approximately equal numbers of youths had been killed on both sides ... Regarding Chronicle coverage of cumulative totals, information that would have at least somewhat ameliorated the above misimpressions, we found that only 12 stories (or 4.8%) of 251 news stories on this topic contained cumulative totals of deaths on both sides somewhere in the article. There was not a single report on the total number injured ..."

Should it be retained or is it too controversial? -- Simonides 05:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of using such material which attempts a quantitative analysis of bias rather than simply editorializes. -- Viajero
Quantitative studies are good, but we should of course prefer the original source to a second-hand review or summary. Since the second study is available online, we can use it, but we ought to hold off on Bad News from Israel until someone has read the book. —No-One Jones 12:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you all for the comments, I shall add the passage back with modifications. Please note that as of this moment no contributor to this article has objected. A revert to the page without prior discussion, should one of the current contributors find the passage objectionable, will not be tolerated. -- Simonides 22:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Mirv

Mirv, I can't open either of these ext links:

Hopefully just a temporary glitch. -- Viajero 12:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It must be a glitch—I have no trouble opening them with Firefox 0.8 or IE 6. —No-One Jones 12:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
hmmm, still can't open them (using Mozilla 1.7) :-( -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inline ext refs considered harmful

Simonides, I tweaked the section you just added. One thing: embedding external links in text is considered reader-unfriendly, as for many it is not always obvious what is a wiki link what is external. The concensus appears to be that grouping them at the end of an article or supplying them as citations is the way to go. Personally, I think it makes sense, because it forces us to make sure the text stands as a whole, and not depend links for vital information. -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on statistics

Can someone who understands statistics explain to me how the authors of the report on the Chronicle end up with percentages above 100, ie "111% of Israeli deaths" and "150% of Israeli children's deaths". I thought maybe it was an editing error but that is how it stands in the cited PDF document. -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I examined the study and determined how they arrived at these figures, and then rewrote the section accordingly. -- Viajero 11:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

removed from article

Given the crucial importance of media coverage in the conflict, an unfortunate but not surprising side-effect has been attacks on journalists from both sides. Since the flare-up of violence in September 2000, journalists have repeatedly been targeted, shot, beaten, arrested, threatened and intimidated by Israeli soldiers, police, politicians, settlers and civilians, as well as by Palestinian police, politicians and civilians. According to figures published by the International Press Institute (IPI), there were 310 incidents up to May 2003, including the deaths of ten journalists. Journalists and media workers were injured by live ammunition, shrapnel or rubber coated bullets, and were harassed and physically assaulted in other ways. 126 violations involved shootings, almost all of them perpetrated by Israeli troops. Journalists were jailed for several months by the Israelis without even being charged with an offence. Palestinian journalists were denied Israeli press cards and thus severely obstructed in carrying out their professions.

At least 240 press freedom violations were carried out by Israeli authorities. 17 violations were committed by Israeli settlers and civilians. One was perpetrated jointly by soldiers and settlers. Thus, at least 82.9 per cent of all reported violations were perpetrated by Israelis. Another 24 reported violations were carried out by Palestinian authorities, 8 by Palestinian paramilitaries, and 7 by Palestinian civilians. This makes Palestinians responsible for 12.5 per cent of the reported number of abuses of press freedom. The overwhelming majority of victimised journalists are of Palestinians. Eight of the journalists who were killed so far were Palestinian, one was Italian, and one was British. Eight were killed by Israelis, one by Palestinian paramilitaries and the tenth killing is disputed. (It is unclear whether this journalist was killed by Israelis, Palestinian or as a result of an accident.) Of the 4.5 per cent of the incidents whose perpetrators are unknown, the IPI believes it likely that the initiative lay with the Israeli army in most of the incidents. [2]

please compare text with link

It was not clear that the paragraph was a quote, which has been rectified; apart from that the text is not a copyright violation because the source is cited. -- Simonides 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Examples"

This text was posted under the heading "Examples." It needs to be made concise and coherent: a) the Jenin story is not representative of bias, but of poor reporting. Secondly it's not a "substantial majority" that were armed militants, there were about 27 armed casualties which makes only around half. Thirdly there is no mention of the war crimes that were committed during that period by Israel; b) there is no working link for the Plot story, so it is unverifiable at the moment; c) there doesn't seem to be any reason for the string of Palestine vs. Iraq examples; what exactly is right or wrong about the reports?

Quite aside from the above points (which are all good), listing examples of media bias isn't the way to write a good article on this topic: anecdotal evidence is not informative. First of all, all the examples listed are, apparently, examples of bias only in the mind of the user who posted them: no source claiming that these are biased has been cited. Secondly, on topics as contentious as this, everyone thinks the media are biased; even if we didn't list stories that we thought biased, instead restricting ourselves to specific instances of coverage that other sources called "biased", we could fill this article with innumerable examples. —No-One Jones 19:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Those were my thoughts too Mirv, but I didn't want to discourage our anonymous edit-and-run users who might be sensitive to having their "sources" "censored". I was hoping they could provide an argument for inclusion first - apparently not. -- Simonides 19:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"

  • Reports of alleged Jenin massacre

The most egregious example was the Jenin story, regarding which the media widely reported, without verification the Palestinian claim that 3,000 civilians massacred. The leading British newspapers of April 2002 may serve as an example:

  • "Hundreds of victims were buried by bulldozer in mass grave." (Daily Telegraph)
  • "We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide" (London Evening Standard)
  • "Rarely, in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life." (The Times of London)
  • "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up..." (The Independent)

Subsequent investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch ([3]) and the United Nations ([4], [5]) and confirmed by the PA sources have determined that the number of Palestinians killed was less than 52 to 56, of which a substantial majority were armed militants, while Israel lost 23 soldiers in the battle.

Four cherry-picked examples are hardly evidence of a systematic bias in the coverage of this event. FAIR has a better study of the same subject, which might be worth using in the article—though what I said about specific examples, above, still applies. —No-One Jones
  • Misleading headlines
  • Guardian

On April 13, 2004 the Hungarian police arrested three Arabs suspected of planning to attack a Jewish museum in Budapest. The next day, the Guardian International Edition (printed version) publishes an article entitled Hungary Foils 'Jewish' Terror Plot.

This is only tangentially related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and two of the three plotters were Syrian anyway, neh? —No-One Jones 15:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Reports of a Palestinian protest vs. an Iraqi wedding

On May 19, 2004, United States armed forces in Iraq fired upon a village celebrating a wedding. 41 Iraqis, including 15 children, are killed. [6] On the same day, Israeli armed forces in the Gaza Strip fired upon a group of Palestinians. 10 Palestinians are killed, including some number of children. [7]

  • New York Times

The Israeli incident appeared in two places on the front page of the New York Times web site At a Palestinian Protest, Israeli Gunfire Leaves at Least 10 Dead with an accompanying picture of a wounded Palestinian. The American incident did not appear anywhere on the New York Times web site. The following day The New York Times reported the American incident thusly: Disputed Strike by U.S. Military Leaves at Least 40 Iraqis Dead

  • CNN

On May 19, 2004, CNN reported Explosion kills 18 at Gaza demonstration regarding the Israeli incident and Witnesses say planes attacked Iraqi wedding party regarding the American incident.

  • Washington Post

On May 19, 2004, The Washington Post reported Israel Kills 12 Palestinians with a picture of a damaged building and an Israeli tank regarding the Israeli incident and Iraqi Wedding Reportedly Comes Under U.S. Fire regarding the American incident.

  • Washington Times

On May 19, 2004, The Washington Times reported Israeli Forces Kill 10 Protesters in Gaza regarding the Israeli incident and U.S. Reportedly Kills 40 Iraqis at Party regarding the American incident. "

The ludicrousness of comparing coverage of two entirely unrelated incidents, similar only insofar as the victims were Arabs and the killers, armed and backed by the U.S. government, should be readily apparent. This is an example of bias only in the minds of certain opinionated editors. (OTOH a systematic study of media coverage of the American occupation in Iraq vs. coverage of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza would be interesting, but this isn't it.) —No-One Jones 15:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] June 28, 2004 statistics

I am sure this: Israeli Helicopters Hit Gaza Media Office, Foundry will make it into the statistics condemning "Israel's control over media". It doesn't even mention what happened earlier: "The rocket in Sderot, a working-class Israeli town near Gaza, landed just yards from a pair of nursery schools, killing a 3-year-old boy and a 49-year-old man." Here, media bias and skewed statistics in the same news story. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a research institute

Well, actually it is; and probably the worlds largest, AFAICT. For this article I'd like to keep things on the road by removing the right and left pulling forces when things heat up a bit. This means, protect this at the outset of conflict and bar (temporarily) those percieved as the main partisanos in the debate. That at least keeps the car on the road. I hope it doesnt get to that, but...-Stevertigo 18:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see. And by what authority do you intend to thus take charge of this article? -- Viajero 22:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We all have the authority. But I am worried about the tactic suggested by Vertigo. It is a problem mentioned in the article "Balance does not equal neutrality". An 'extreme' view might be closer to the truth than its polar opposite. Much more important is to get rid of the baseless, unsubstantiated, and unreferenced. -- Tony 2:07 13 Jun 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof please

Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi told Reuters in the same article that Israel knew the importance of the media, and she quoted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as saying that winning the struggle was 80-90 percent dependent on the media's effectiveness. [8] Can we do better than El-Intifada quoting Ashrawi supposedly reported by Reuters as quoting Sharon? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proof - in a right wing paper. - Simonides 09:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please find anything better than the same [www.freemedia.at/index1.html Welcome to the International Press Institute]. And please keep your POV designations to yourself. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you try finding it? If two sources with opposing POVs confirm it, it's good enough for me - the quote goes back into the article. And kindly keep your inanities to yourself: any opinion is allowed on a talk page, and The Age is a right wing paper as anyone who reads for comprehension will confirm. -- Simonides 09:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on some sensitive toes, I simply disagree with this id. The Age talks about the same report, so that would make a single questionable source. Please allow some scepticism here. Until you find the proof, please refrain from putting it back into the article. It's been there long enough. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. Humus, what is this "El-Intifada" you mention? The International Press Institute is a prestigious professional organization of media editors and journalists. Their report on this subject is the best available. I don't know why you would doubt the alleged words of Sharon as they sound perfectly reasonable to me. I did not find the cited Reuters report, but there's one from 10 days later at [9] with similar content. --Zero 12:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this report made IPI "prestigious" in some circles. Would you insist it is objective and neutral? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The prestige of IPI is not due to this report but long preceded it. As for objective and neutral, one would have to investigate each incident independently to determine this. However, the general picture given by the report is the same as reported by countless journalists and incidents like the ones in here are reported in the Israeli press regularly. So, apart from the standard requirement to write "According to a report by IPI, ..." or similar, this is material that should be in the article. --Zero 01:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You may find all kinds of views in Israeli media because it is a democracy. A compromise: why don't we add both the IPI report and the BBCwatch report. I believe it should be in the article. We can work out the language. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mention views, but reports. The main problem with BBCwatch is that it concerns just one particular broadcaster. It can't be presented as showing a general trend (and it doesn't even claim to show it). The BBC's reply would need to be quoted too. I'm not opposed in principle to its mention, but it is hardly an equivalent to the IPI report. Actually it is far less significant and far less authoritative (neither author has experience in the media as far as they revealed). --Zero 09:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on BBC watch report and their reaction. I left the para on Israel's Secret Weapon but removed the text about Vanunu, irrelevant to the IPC.

To your point above, does the PA-controlled media allow either views or reports as critical of them as Israel does? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent bias

I'm afraid that the "BIAS" section of this article is biased; take for example the following statement: "The New York Times is regularly 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 the paper has a pro-Palestinian bias". Why "progressive" and not "left-wing" ? Why "right-wing" and not "conservative" ? Why specify "pro-Israel" for the latter and not "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Arab" for the former ?

Coherently, the rest of the section deals exclusively with studies from organizations which have "demonstrated" (on the basis carefully selected statistical figures) that the complaints for pro-arab bias are not founded; analysis performed by other institutes (for example BBCwatch.com), which arrive to very different conclusions, are not even cited.

It is suggested that one reads the Talk page archives before reviving a discussion already finished with. See Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict/archive_1#Criticism_of_BBC -- Simonides 03:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The first is a valid point, and I have tweaked it slightly. As to the second point, I agree that the presentation of the various studies could use better structure; perhaps highly specific examinations—say the If Americans Knew studies and the BBCwatch stuff—could be split into a separate section dealing with the analyses of various news outlets. Say something like this, except without so many headings:

[edit] SUGGESTED OUTLINE: Studies of media coverage

[edit] Television

[edit] CNN

[edit] FOX News

[edit] BBC

[edit] etc.

[edit] Print media

[edit] The New York Times

[edit] The Globe and Mail

[edit] The San Francisco Chronicle

[edit] The Guardian

[edit] und so weiter

And I think sticking to "studies" rather than "examples" as the section header might forestall the fanatics from posting their rants—but I am extraordinarily naive :) —No-One Jones 03:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea (but not the style :)) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Simonedes removed some material and used incivil comment. One doesnt often hear "BBC report" and "crap" in the same sentence, but its probably fair to remind that inclusion, not exclusion is the rule. For an article like this whos scope is so broad, people should be reminded that the available material is too much to be too inclusive; that still doesnt change the basic principle of inclusion with attribution. -SV 18:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Steve, one wishes you would take the time to learn a little about an article before jumping in to broadcast your opinion (since this isn't the first time.) The "BBC report" is not a report by the BBC, but a report on the BBC, and it was removed several weeks ago after a discussion - there was no reason to put it back in, and the discussion was even linked above (something you'd only know if you read the Talk page). Mirv and others have also noted that while inclusion is welcome, a certain degree of discretion needs to be applied in judging what is mere anecdotalism and what are authentic studies of patterns. -- Simonides 02:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. We discussed the inclusion of the BBC watch report with User:Zero0000 a week ago (see above), but User:Simonides (who thinks he possesses this article) did not care to participate. BTW, this recent study is a done in July 2004, Simonides talks about an older one done in 2002. He doesn't need to open or even consider it. Why? Because it's "crap". "mere anecdotalism" would be Vanunu or Hounam who have no connection to the IPC. Why don't we mention that Vanunu recently alleged that Israel was involved in the murder of JFK? It has about the same connection to MCotIPC. The study over major newsmaker contains patterns, trends and numbers, but the conclusions of the report contradict his anti-Israel agenda, therefore it is "crap". His idea of neutrality is to wipe out the text he doesn't like, his objections to the old report (see the discussion is in the archive) are laughable, such as: you do not mention or cannot find conflicting views, it does not mean they do not exist. (who says they don't?), or 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. (emphasis mine).
  2. Simonides reverted all my recent changes, e.g. I removed this lie: overt press freedom abuses by the PNA are said to have diminished as its power has faded ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oct 2000 lynching and RAI TV apologies

The Italian TV's letter of apology to the Palestinian Authority with promises never again to film events liable to cast a negative light on the PA also was removed. Why? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the Italian TV's supposed letter, it does not belong here without some evidence that it actually existed and what its actual content was. All you have is a supposed paraphrase from a Israel-advocacy organization which you have further paraphrased. We should not be in the business of repeating rumors. What were the exact words that AFSI reports as "promises never again to film events liable to cast a negative light on the PA"? Unless you can answer that with some evidence, this story is out. --Zero 09:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my doubts, Humus. As I suspected, Cristiano was not "the representative of Italian state television", he did not write to the Palestinian Authority, and he did not "promise never again to film events liable to cast a negative light on the PA". And you think you can lecture me about NPOV! --Zero 10:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the "supposed letter": Special Clarification by the Italian Representative of RAI, the Official Italian Television Station that has been printed in Al Hayat Al Jadidah on October 16. On October 18 RAI issued a statement repudiating the contents of the letter, closed its three-year-old Jerusalem bureau until further notice and called all its journalists back to Italy. You may rephrase the text, add that after the story gained notoriety, RAI came up with denials and apologies in Italian media. The damage has been done. BTW, did the PA "free press" print the correction? Our article talks about the incident in such apologetic tone, as if it was edited by Arafat himself: Amin had merely reported that the mob that attacked the Israeli reservists had "assumed that these were undercover units."). An honest mistake, how sweet! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Courtesy of the entirely reliable website of the The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thank you for the daily laugh. -- Simonides 03:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show us the facts if you have them, otherwise the statements such as above (worthy to appear in hate-chat, not in encyclopedic discussion) work only against you. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Having been protected for a week, I've unprotected this page. I encourage everyone to be civil and to seek compromise. Snowspinner 15:55, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Put back reference to RAI. The Italians press seem willing to admit to the existence of the letter:

Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring October 21, 2000, Saturday HEADLINE: Italian state TV to return to Jerusalem after lynching footage row SOURCE: ANSA news agency web site, Rome, in English 1047 gmt 21 Oct 00 BODY: Text of report in English by Italian news agency ANSA web site

Milan, 21st October: Italian state broadcaster Rai said today that it would soon be back reporting from Jerusalem, having yanked all its correspondents out of the city in the wake of a row over footage of the lynching of two Israeli soldiers, which threatened to put their lives at risk.

Rai Chairman Roberto Zaccaria told reporters here that "we are working on our return. It will take some days but not very long, just the time needed to find solutions which will enable us to work well".

The broadcaster pulled all its staff out of Jerusalem after a row sparked by its chief correspondent Riccardo Cristiano, who wrote to a Palestinian daily to say that the lynching of the soldiers by a group of Palestinians in the town of Ramallah on October 12 was filmed by commercial rival Mediaset and not Rai...

Cristiano's letter, which was not authorised by his superiors, appeared to side with the Palestinians, implying that Rai wouldn't have filmed the murders if it had been on the spot. The letter prompted an official complaint from Israel and brought a fresh wave of domestic criticism from the parliamentary opposition Freedom Front, led by Mediaset owner Silvio Berlusconi.

Mediaset has also pulled all its people out of Israel, saying their lives might be at risk because of the lynching scoop and the way they had been "fingered" by Cristiano...

Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring October 23, 2000, Monday HEADLINE: Italy/Palestinian Affairs: Daily demands impartial public service broadcasting SOURCE: 'Il Sole-24 Ore' web site, Milan, in Italian 20 Oct 00 BODY: Text of report by Italian newspaper 'Il Sole-24 Ore' web site on 20th October

The echoes of the organizational, cultural, and also political disaster that involved the TG1 and TG3 Italian Radio and Television (RAI) first and third channel news when the paedophilia photo frames were broadcast have only just died away, but there is obviously no peace for the RAI. A state television journalist, Riccardo Cristiano, one of the two correspondents from Jerusalem, has apologized by letter to "friends in Palestine" for the filming of the lynching of the two Israeli servicemen in Ramallah on 12th October, denying that the "official" television network was responsible for the report and pointing to "a competing private station" (Mediaset, in other words) as its author. Worse still, Cristiano claimed to have always adhered faithfully to "the reporting procedures established with the Palestinian National Authority PNA ".

As happens from time to time, the case verges on the absurd, but it brings us insidiously close to a truth. We now know that public service television reporting on the Middle East was not the fruit of impartial journalism, but was subordinate to a basic agreement with one side. To all practical intents and purposes, there was a sort of parallel diplomacy at work that had taken it upon itself to beam news not to the dislike of PNA Chairman Yasir Arafat's men into the homes of the Italians.

As a result, it would be a good idea to review the news put out on RAI channel newscasts as regards the "new intifadah" the clashes between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the blame attaching to the warring parties, to test whether the feeling that some television reports have been slanted and generally biased against Israel is true.

But that is not all. This latest case once again calls for detailed debate on journalism as a profession, and on the relationship between politics and journalism. However, it also prompts analysis of the issue of broadcasting as a "public service". What should the work of journalism mean in the state television sphere? Objectivity, clarity, neutrality? Then perhaps we should ask ourselves what is going on when the Jerusalem correspondent's office carries out its work in accordance with what sounds like an informal memorandum of understanding with the PNA propaganda office.

The answer is both simple and disastrous. The public television service stands under grave suspicion of providing piloted reporting, at the very least the product of guile, connivance, compromise, doctoring, and mutual back scratching. Now we stand in no need of that sort of reporting. This consideration applies to reporting from Jerusalem, but it also applies to news on Italian affairs. If there is an ethic, autonomy and a principle of freedom for contemporary journalism, there is also a duty to abide by them, and a professional culture capable of ensuring that they are abided by is needed. Otherwise, everything is politics: the competitive relationship with Mediaset, access to Arafat's men, and the taking of ideological, emotional, or diplomatic sides. But in that case let us stop talking in terms of a public service: It is the continuation of an ideology by other means.

[edit] Attacks and intimidation

User:Simonides decided to revert my edit with the following comment: "please justify your removals and changes on Talk page. Also remember - NO LISTS OF EXAMPLES REQUIRED." There were no removals. As my summary already says:

  1. moved the attacks on journalists into the list, to be expanded
  2. hudna was not what the RMP required and Israel did not sign it
  3. mediamon extlink

In regards to "NO LISTS OF EXAMPLES REQUIRED": is this a new policy? Please explain why all the lists and examples in WP are OK but this one. And, if possible, please refrain from screaming. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You reverted my removal of the links, Humus, after I'd already stated that examples weren't needed - one resorts to using capitals when one has to repeat oneself, and one is not sure whether the other can read well enough (you've never proven otherwise anyway.) Especially since this discussion has already taken place, and it remains on this talk page right above this section - it's titled "Examples" - look it up, and read the comment posted by No-One Jones. -- Simonides 14:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What I said about examples being unnecessary was meant specifically for Lance6Wins' highly tendentious and inaccurate "examples" of bias, and for any others someone might be tempted to post: lists of examples of bias could be endless and would not be informative. I don't know whether examples of, say, attacks on and intimidation of journalists are necessary. —No-One Jones (m) 15:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I suspect Simonides hasn't even read what he has reverted (it's called collaboration). Those were no examples of media bias but attacks on journalists. And what was the problem with my other 2 edits? Simonides' ad hom and the absence of good faith (as well as consistent anti-Israelism) are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 16:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The examples were added by - guess who - Lance6wins. The examples were not removed because they failed to point out media bias, but because they were examples of your (Lance, you, etc) bias - all of them a list of Palestinian attacks (one can easily see where that will go) hence the previous discussion and removal referred to. BTW, your boring shtick of anti-whatever to defend your daily breaches of NPOV are also noted - yawn. -- Simonides 23:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will note that there are several examples in the ==Israeli government control of the media== section as well. If we're going to remove some examples we should remove them all, for the sake of consistency and NPOV. —No-One Jones (m) 18:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major cleanup

I don't think this is the place to prove bias one way or the other, but I think it should serve as a good introduction to the issue of media bias when it comes to the conflict.

So I took the liberty of cutting endless verbiage that seeks to prove the case from one side or another and instead started an outline of what types of allegations are made, how this issue is complicated, etc.

Perhaps we can be smart about external links if people want to make up their minds whether there is systematic bias one way or the other.

In the meantime, I hope that we're getting closer to eliminating the NPOV tag.

Hmm. On the one hand, I don't think anyone could fault the neutrality of the current article. On the other, a large amount of factual information has been cut—but then again, most of it was added to prove the point that coverage is slanted in a certain direction, and some of it could be salvaged elsewhere. What does everyone else think? —No-One Jones (m) 16:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Lousy: cleanup in this case = removal of context. This is one of the few articles that's somewhat survived the regular pro-Israeli rampages on Wikipedia, and it appears all the work has been lost. More later - perhaps. -- Simonides 21:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I expect this will grow again, but my hope was that facts get reinserted with more economy.

--Leifern 16:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Journalist body count?

I read a report about the risk of journalists/reporters being killed while reporting the conflict, but now I can't find it. Anyway, if someone finds it I think it would make a good addition to the article. // Liftarn

Reporters Without Borders on the Middle East press: "Being a journalist in Iran or the Arab world often means not crossing the red lines set by the authorities if you want to avoid the repression of long-established dictatorships, authoritarian regimes or paper democracies. Only the vigorous and irreverent press in Israel has any true independence in a democratic environment, despite pressures on it." Press Freedom Index 2004: Israel #36, PA #127 Details: Israel, PA.

BTW, I think the disappearance of the Terminology section is a big loss. Please see the VfD link above, many folks found it useful. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology section was useful and reasonably neutral, and have added it back. —No-One Jones (m) 09:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I found some more at the site. I found a list of journalists killed [10] and a report about working in Israel and the occupied territories [11]. // Liftarn

[edit] NPOV dispute?

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? There has been no discussion on the talk page since november. If it's no longer disputed (if it is please say why) then I'll remove the npov tag. -- Joolz 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly balanced article showing both sides. Haven't thought it was POV in a long time, but maybe some do. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged motivations

User:Humus sapiens keeps reverting my changes here, and won't take it to talk. I am attempting to add a link to the List of Jewish American journalists to the passage alleging Jewish control of the media. Note that I am not changing any of the text. User:Humus sapiens attaches this remark to his last edit: "RV Nokilli: first, the list is meaningless (unless you allege some Jewish conspiracy); second, WP:NOR; and finally, you are not even doing it right technically)". He is wrong on both counts. First, I am not the one alleging "some" Jewish conspiracy, those words to that effect were here before my arrival. I am simply providing a link so that the reader can see for himself whether such an allegation is founded. Second, I am not in violation of WP:NOR as the list is not of my own creation, moreover, I see that every entry on the list is backed up with verifiable citations. I again invite User:Humus sapiens to take his concerns to the talk page rather than unilaterally deleting them. Nokilli 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean: too many Jews? Is it impossible to have a Jewish conspiracy if there were only tree Jewish journalists? "Providing a link" between ethnicity and their alleged bias is OR and it doesn't smell good. And yes, you are not doing it right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Too many Jews? Where are you reading this? I never said such a thing, nor does the section I edit say such a thing. What doesn't smell good? What are you talking about? Why am I not doing it right? What bizarre behavior! Nokilli 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You attempt to support conspiracy theories by adding the List of Jewish American journalists and that doesn't smell good. And now you violated WP:NPA. Watch for WP:3RR as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No allegation of conspiracy theories is being made here that I can see. It simply appears that the number of Jews in the newsroom far exceeds the number of Muslims, and so allegations that such an imbalance has implications for the coverage we receive on this issue appear well-founded. The "smell good" comment is baseless as far as I can tell and not a little bit insulting. WP:NPA hasn't been violated, the term "troll" appeared to be a fit for your behavior (although this last entry on your part is an improvement). As for WP:3RR, it is you who started reverting changes without cause. Nokilli 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you do not put yourself in the corner by trying to justify racist conspiracy theories. Does "the number of Jews in the newsroom far exceeds the number of Muslims" for Al-Jazeera? Does that prevent allegations of conspiracies? What you believe to "appear well-founded" is your OR that doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Does the number of Jews in the newsroom far exceeds the number of Muslims for Al-Jazeera? I'm sorry for calling you a troll earlier, I now see that English is your second language. I'm sure you speak it better than I speak your first language. Tell me, what would that language be? Nokilli 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am not a native speaker, but let's not make this personal and let's not change the subject. The list does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, the fact that so many Jews occupy such important positions in the media doesn't belong in an article about media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? You are aware are you not that Israel is the Jewish state, yes? Are you alleging that the coverage would be the same as it is today if it were Muslims and not Jews who occupy so many positions of power within the media? Nokilli 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish journalists and Jewish control of the media are not the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I put the link in. To let the readers decide for themselves. Nokilli 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that this is the main reason why the link should stay out of this article, but I notice a number of persons listed as "Jewish journalists" who never had (or have never had, for those still living) even the remotest connection to media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if you count the media executives (Michael Eisner, etc.) as part of the "coverage" because they run/ran the companies that employ the news-people, that still leaves such notable "political correspondents" as Dear Abby, Ann Landers, Art Buchwald, the sports writer who I never heard of, not to mention Walter Winchell, who died in 1972 and I assume retired before 1967. 6SJ7 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that there is an effort here to paint this contribution as suggesting a conspiracy of some sort. I do not claim such a conspiracy. I think that the perception of bias itself can be based on the perceived ethnicity of so many in the media -- which I see nobody is bothering to dispute -- and moreover, that the perceived ethnicity of those in power in the media can have a role in shaping the coverage of the conflict, all without any intent of malice on the part of people like Michael Eisner (who you bring up.) The fact remains that Jews appear to be in an extraordinary position of power within the U.S. media. I understand that you may be uncomfortable with this, but as you can see from the list, it does appear to be the truth. The link, and the list, should stay. Nokilli 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that I am an expert on this particular policy, but isn't the link Original Research? You are taking a list of Jewish people (or who are believed to be so) and then saying that the fact that these people are journalists (even though some of them aren't) feeds into the perception of media bias. I have no doubt that some people do believe that the media (at least in the U.S.) are controlled by "the Jews" and that the coverage of Israel and Judaism-related subjects may be biased as a result. There may even be a source for this belief quoted in the article, I haven't checked. But even that would not mean that the people on this list are related to any such assertion. Some of them aren't really journalists and I don't know whether all of them are Jewish. Many of them probably have nothing to do at all with coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't think Barbara Walters deals with the subject much, and I also don't know that most people watch her on tv and think oh, there's a Jewish journalist any more than people listen to the band Kiss and think oh, there's that Jewish music group. 6SJ7 01:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's either irrelevant or original research. If Nokilli asserts that there is a relationship (and elsewhere he actually does), then it's original research. If he doesn't assert a relationship, then it's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No it should not and you, Nokilli, should get familiar with our policies and guidelines. As I pointed out earlier, "bias ... based on the perceived ethnicity" is a racist allegation. There is a full spectrum of political opinions among every ethnic group that I know of. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty cynical on your part. I stand by my very simple change. Again, I didn't change any wording here. I simply added a link. Nokilli 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The link is not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. You just don't like it, that's all. Nokilli 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's simply not relevant. Please desist from speculating about the feelings of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously relevant when discussing ethnic/religious bias as a motivation to the way this conflict is covered to bring up the disparity between Jews and Muslims in the media. Nokilli 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WOW, and check out how Humus sapiens can actually violate 3rr and not get blocked, whereas I don't violate 3rr and do get blocked! Nokilli 22:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually he self-reverted to avoid being blocked. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains, I did not violate 3rr, he did, I got blocked, he didn't. Nokilli 07:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's original research at best, and particularly irrelevant in this case. Movie reviewers etc. have nothing to do with the Middle East conflict - most of them have never even reported on it. Oh, and Muslim and Palestinian are not the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course movie reviewers actually have a lot to do with the conflict, when they review movies that deal with it. Palestinians are predominantly Muslim, so of course the prevalence of Muslim journalists would have an impact on the way this issue is covered. Nokilli 07:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of Jews often gets abused by racists/bigots, and the list of Muslims is added here as a WP:POINT. None of these lists belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I will defer to your expertise on the subject of racism and bigotry as you evidence it so much better than anyone else here, however, I would just point out that the words "at", "if" and "no" are also abused by people like you and yet still pass muster with Wikipedia. Again, this section of the article is about bias based on ethnicity/religion, these lists are obviously relevant given the charges being discussed. Nokilli 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the last time I dignify your trolling and ad homs a response. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli censorship

Israel is a free press democratic nation. Reports about censorship against military information obtained from reporters being protected by the Israeli and / or covering the army are pointless. If your team is being informed (sometimes by being allowed to join the troops) and protected by any army in the world, you will not be able to report everything you see.

Israel has not any powers to censor AP, as it is an international agency that is going to publish most news outside the country. The "censorship" issue is about controlling priviledged information about the army strategy and security. If AP is not happy with the situation, they should just stop joining the army and start reporting from the outside, without special information, protection and access.

Ok, Rlitwin?

PatoDonald 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not okay. Your definition of censorship is ideosyncratically narrow. This is clearly censorship by normal standards. And if AP is not reliable, what is? To say it's "not the most reliable source nowadays" seems rather tendentious. Rlitwin 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel has explicit press censorship. See [12]. But it covers military operations, not policy. "The rules include no real-time reports giving the exact locations of guerrilla missile hits; no reports of missile hits -- or misses -- on strategic targets; and no reports telling when citizens are allowed to leave their bunkers for supplies. Journalists are also not allowed to give details about senior Israeli officials going to the north, where Hezbollah's rockets are falling, until the officials have left the area. They also cannot report places where there aren't enough shelters or where public defense is weak." That's tactical intel, and reasonable to censor for a time. A few weeks later, that's non-critical information, and we'll read about it when people write their postwar books and articles. --John Nagle 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, John Nagle, but this is not "explicit press censorship", but just a very strict policy regarding the use of priviledged information. These news agencies are travelling on the same convoys that Israeli troops are using, and are receiving protection, information and resources from the Israeli army. This AP article is just unjustified ranting about the use of information that doesn't belong to them in the first place. Not any single army in the planet would allow this kind of journalists to completely disclose strategic information. If they don't want to be controlled, they can just ride their own armoured cars, with their own security officers and information sources, as CNN does most of the time.

The article is not about press censorship, but about the control of private information.

And Rlitwin, AP is not a good source of information because of several coverage mistakes related to this war. The AP coverage is one of the most biased and naive of all times. In fact, AP almost completely missed the entire situation related to photo manipulation and scene staging. Not only missed, but is also praising the Green Helmet "I'll rally around the city holding a dead baby" guy as a skillful and important rescue worker.

PatoDonald 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's Haaretz commenting on Israeli censorship. [13]. The issue isn't private information, or embedded reporters, but censoring information about rocket hits within Israel, especially live video which might allow attackers to adjust their aim. Reporters who aren't associated with the army can still be shot at. Reasonably enough, the IDF doesn't want that info sent out. It's censorship, but there's nothing wrong with it. --John Nagle 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not censorship. I repeat. All you people can find is small articles that cite specific issues that are not related to press censorship, but to other things. The only mention of the word censor in your article is related to the fact that what an official spokeswoman say is controlled by the institution she represents. That's beyound obvious, I'm sorry, but it is. The article makes itself very clear when both the journalist and the spokeswoman states that she does not have any power to stop anything and that she is just "asking the media to display minimal responsibility". Even the Wikipedia's article about Censorship is mostly related to the "other kind" of press control, and not just wartime strategic information control. — PatoDonald 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW: I must remind all of you that this article is about criticism on media bias / partiality. I don't see why stopping live broadcasts of bombings and omitting information about the location of military leaders = targets, is related to media coverage bias. The publishing of non-strategic information and opinions is not controlled by the Israeli government. In fact, a lot of Arab newspapers in Israel are critics of the government and biased towards jihad.'
Confusing this kind of wartime control as censorship is the same thing as categorizing mandatory schooling under "Child Abuse" (you're not giving kids a choice) or portraiting car driving in the same light as murder attempt. Not every kind of media control is censorship. In fact, an opposing army cannot send agents to another country, and label them as "press" and expect free access to a war zone. — PatoDonald 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

— PatoDonald 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not every kind of media control is censorship." That's funny.

No, it's not. The press is far from being a neutral group and information is a very powerful weapon at some kinds of situations. Covering a war zone is not just about showing up there. You must adhere to specific military strategic information control guidelines, or your presence there will simply be denied. — PatoDonald 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a history of Israeli government censorship from the Jerusalem Post. [14]. --John Nagle 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "censorship" in the sense of temporarily suppressing details of military operations for the purpose of protecting the armed forces and citizens, is not a negative term. All nations engage in it, including the U.S., whose constitution states that the freedom of the press shall not be abridged. Do you think the "embedded reporters" in Iraq were permitted to tell us everything? How could they be? 6SJ7 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's all about context. The term "censorship" implies a broader type of action regarding media activies, while wartime information control is all about avoiding damage from improper war-zone information. Both kinds of media control are essentially different, as wartime control is not about opinions and facts, but only about the release timing of a specific set of information. Im most cases, censorship is about arbitrary control of press operations, with no technical reason at all. Heck, even Wp's article about censorship is mostly about this "censorship" interpretation of mine. — PatoDonald 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Now, back to the context: the article is about media bias and improper coverage. I can't see how avoiding live coverage of government official appearances and hostile bombings is going to change the ideological bias of the conflict press coverage. Israeli impositions on war-zone coverage are specific restrictions on information and not content control. — PatoDonald 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


AP definitely not a good war source: [15]. — PatoDonald 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hoaxes" Section

Does anyone else find the section on "Hoaxes" a little one-sided and biased, all reported from pro-Israeli right-wing media outlets, consipracy theorist sites and off-hand YouTube movies?

Have the Israeli media not committed any hoaxes? Surely they have, and one would expect a bit of balance with reporting from both sides. I found this section alarmingly one-sided. The author of the passage is also unashamedly pro-Israeli and has expoused hatred of arab nations and agencies on his profile. Make of that what you will.

RichardWhite 15:00, 15th September 2006 (BST)

If you know of such hoaxes, please add them to the section. But do not delete it. The logic here seems to be that, if no one can think of the hoaxes, they must exist and the hoaxes on the other side must be deleted. Balance is not accomplished by hiding information or by trying to make two sides morally equivalent. You would not make a list of "genocides of the WWII," put the Holocaust, and then feel the need to add Japanese American internment as a "genocide" for balance, would you? POV with two unbalanced sides (and no reasonable person — no matter what their opinion — would deny that this conflict is full of asymmetries) does not mean making them falsely equal; indeed, it demands that they be treated impartially, eschewing false equalities. Calbaer 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There is not one example of pro-Israel bias on this page--where have the relevant links gone? Earlier on the Talk Page there are numerous references to studies showing that the San Francisco Chronicle was biased in its reporting of Israeli and Palestinian deaths, and yet these studies are conspicuously absent with no mention of why they were removed. Also, if we're going to allow the Hoaxes section to stand with such dubious sources, I'm sure you won't mind me adding some pro-Israel hoaxes (such as the "desecration" of the tomb of Joseph in 2001) and using Al-Jazeera and other slanted outlets? Providing a balanced view does not mean citing any reference you can find; objectivity of source material is incredibly important. The article states that al-Durrah's death was staged (which has NOT been conclusively proven, and in fact is still hotly debated, as evidenced by its wikipedia page) and then links a youtube video as evidence? You can't seriously believe this is balanced; since when was youtube an academic source? Furthermore, how was Tuvia Grossman's mistaken identity in any was a "hoax?" A hoax implies that the act was committed willfully with intention to deceive: as far as the wikipedia entry on Tuvia is concerned, it was a case of mistaken identity by Western news media outlets, and has since become a symbol of anti-Israel propaganda. I'm not saying that the incident does not belong on this page, (clearly it does), but the labeling is grossly misleading. Do you want me to keep going down the list? The section needs to change. Spectheintro 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)spectheintro
A little more investigation into the Jenin "hoax" proves that it is also grossly mislabelled. This entire section needs serious reworking; hoax is a terrible word to use. I think the article in itself could use some work--are we talking about global media coverage, or WESTERN media coverage? To what extent should each be considered important? Are we really going to point at Al-Jazeera or the Islamic Republic of Iran's national news agency as an example of anti-Israeli bias in the media? Because all of the "hoax" allegations only apply to strongly biased media outlets in the Middle East; the Western media (notably the UK) initially alleged a massacre, but then retracted that statement. Is the author trying to claim that there was collusion between Palestinian militants and the British press? According to the wikipedia entry on the Battle of Jenin, Israel limited media coverage of the area very heavily, and ended up being condemned by the UN for not cooperating with the fact-finding mission, so most of the initial reporting was speculative. Are we now to assume that any speculation that is revealed to be false should be considered a hoax? Spectheintro 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)spectheintro
The sources themselves cite or tell their references. None is opinion. Other than that, it isn't "biased" or "one-sided" when other hoaxes have not been found. --Shamir1 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, when did bad reporting become "hoaxes?" Last time I checked, they were two completely different things. Second, youtube isn't a source, period--that's just unacceptable. Are you going to answer any of my questions, or are you just going to act like my objection is as simple as: "why aren't there any hoaxes listed for Israel?" It's the section in its entirety that needs revamping.Spectheintro 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)spectheintro
I have changed the section to something much more appropriate. 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

[edit] Edits of the "Incidents" Section

Shamir1, you removed something you claimed to be untrue, but a quick look at the wiki page for the Battle of Jenin shows that Israel was initially very restrictive of any media reporting, (hence the wild speculation that took place, because no reporters could actually get in and see for themselves--although there is a case to be made for anti-Israeli bias in the media as well, especially with regards to the UK). When Israel disputed the studies released, the UN proposed a fact-finding mission, but it never took place because, and this is from the UN, of Israel's unreasonable demands and uncooperation. I admit my original wording needed work, and I will rephrase it to make it more clear. The UN condemnation of Israel was not "initial"; it proceeded well after the conflict, precisely because of the fact-finding mission. I've made a few changes; take a look at them and edit them as you see fit. I think it's fairly neutral, though.

Also, I am editing the "beach blast" because the tone has become decidedly pro-Israel when in fact the reality of the situation is still ambiguous. It is not universally (nowhere near!) accepted that Israel had no involvement whatsoever. Nobody knows. The IDF and HRW agree (in the posted links) that the likely cause was in fact "unexploded Israeli ordnance." Spectheintro 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)spectheintro

[edit] Barbara Plett's lachrymations

There's nothing on Barbara Plett's reporting of her tears over Arafat; it's considered a classic by connoisseurs of biased reporting in this area, and earned the BBC a rebuke from its own oversight body[16]... AnonMoos 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedia_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2ca9.html"