BBC's anti-Israel Bias
Watch this BBC report and try to tell me that the BBC is not biased against Israel. Journalists are given guided tours by Hezbollah, being shown only what they are allowed to see. No-one ever asks why Hezbollah is operating in areas full of civilians. No-one questions their despicable use of human shields. For shame:
posted by Avi at 9:33 pm
10 Comments:
Israel fucking bombed Lebanon. That's all the world needs to know. Photographers doctoring up images and journalists being biased? Oh police! You wouldn't give a crap about this if the situation was reversed.
actually, luke, Israel bombed Lebanon AFTER Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldeirs on Israeli soil and killed a few more on the way back across the border to Lebanon. Not only that, but Hezbollah has been rocketing the katyushas and new long range missiles into israel at far as Haifa, Israel's 3rd largest city, adn some can even reach as far as Tel Aviv. Israeli civilians live daily in the same fear that the Lebanese civilians have just begun to witness and understand. If Hezbollah stops fighting, the war is over. If Israel stops fighting, it will cease to exist.
That's all the world needs to know? Luke, Israel bombed Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah fighters and their missile batteries. Sovereign states have the right to defend themselves from those that seek to destroy them, and Israel is no exception.
Does Hezbollah drop leaflets a week in advance, advising residents to evacuate? Fuck no. But Israel does! Does Israel intentionally kill civilians? Hell no. But Hezbollah does.
As Noam says above, If Hezbollah gives up their arms, it is the end of the war. If Israel gives up their arms, it is the end of Israel.
To paraphrase a popular sci-fi movie:
Vader: Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.
LUKE: No! No!
Wake up.
Both of you guys missed my point. I didn't say which nation bombed first and why. My point Avi, is that you seem to be upset at the media because you believe that it's portraying Israel in a negative light. The context of the conflict and whether Israel was defending itself or not are out of my topic. It doesn't matter if they cloned more smokes. The fact is that Israel bombed Lebanon. WHY it did this is another debate. And don't bring in Star Wars. This shit is serious
Fair enough. I'll address your point head on.
I was upset that Israel was being portrayed in a negative light. I presented video evidence, and I shared my dismay.
You chose to post a comment on this blog, saying "Israel fucking bombed Lebanon. That's all the world needs to know." I disagree, and I believe it is unfair to oversimplify this conflict by decontextualizing the fact that Israel has taken action against threats in Lebanon.
What riles me up most, is that you then declare "You wouldn't give a crap about this if the situation was reversed."
Just like the first portion of your comment, this is unfair.
The best I can say is 'No, you are wrong', only to be met by you shouting 'Yes, I'm right!'.
I believe that the international media should offer fair and balanced reporting. I look to Canada's National Post as a fine example. Their coverage of the war displays the suffering of the Lebanese people as well as the suffering of the 1 million Israelis holed up in bomb shelters. No sympathy is shown to the terrorists themselves.
The BBC has had a long and sad history of bias against Israel, and just like countless other bloggers (http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=BBC+anti-israel), I have chosen to outline it for my readers.
I welcome healthy debate on this blog, and I'm really glad you chose to return and defend your views.
I hope you take the time to consider mine.
Again, sticking to my topic about your thoughts on certain news sources, I understand that I obviously can’t get an objective view from your blog since you are Jewish and you feel very hurt by the media’s views on this conflict. You have the right to post whatever you want on your blog. As a non-Jewish reader though (at least to me), your complaints about the media’s techniques seem… like you are writing about a pretty minor thing. Let’s face it, if Israel bombed Lebanon to defend itself, and you, Avi know in your heart that this is true, then what the media frames wouldn’t matter – because the truth you know is that Israel is fighting Hezbollah, not the civilians. I am not here to moderate what you post and don’t in your blog. I have noticed however, that the majority of your commenters are Jewish, and I wanted you to read what other people of different ethnicity (starting with me) see in this conflict. You might say that I have formed ignorant judgements about Israel, and that I only believed what I saw and heard from unrealiable sources. It’s pretty difficult to get a full picture of my opinions on this issue from my short comment: "Israel fucking bombed Lebanon. That's all the world needs to know." I admit that it’s unspecific. And now that I read it again, I can see why you found that it de-contextualized the abstract of the conflict. I will say that my comment came out wrong. If I were to phrase it differently, I would say in response to your video evidence, “The fact is that the bombing caused the destruction – not about whether more smokes were cloned or whether the BBC only showed crumbled buildings. The video is about what the bombing did to the town.” The world does need to know a lot more than just this fact. I should have been more specific and focused on the physical bombing aspect of the issue. If you found “You wouldn't give a crap about this if the situation was reversed” to be an unfair statement, then I will explain what I honestly meant. I said this in reference to your criticism of the media’s techniques. If the situation was reversed and Lebanon bombed Israel, would you have devoted an entire post to complain about how photographers cloned more smokes and framed shots to make the actions of Lebanon seem more destructive than they actually were? You as a Jewish blogger, I mean. I can’t imagine you arguing that it wasn’t right for the media to exaggerate if buildings in Israel were (God-forbid) burning down… You would be (understandably) too angry and sad about what had happened.
I apologize if you found my first comment to be rudely phrased. I hope that you have a better idea of what I meant to say.
You seem like a decent guy, and I appreciate you being willing to apologize for some of your phrasing, but you have also opened a new can of worms, and it's about to get stinky:
You say "I wanted you to read what other people of different ethnicity (starting with me) see in this conflict".
First off, don't put me in a box. I may be a Jew, but I am also a Canadian, and a citizen of the world.
Secondly, I know what other people think of the conflict. I have Muslim, Christian and Atheist (South Asian) friends that see things the way I do. We are horrified by the casualties that the Lebanese are suffering, but we also believe that Israel has the right to respond to existential threats with full force. We are aware that Lebanon has never enacted the UN resolution which requires the dissolution of Hezbollah, and we are aware that the support from Syria and Iran really make this a proxy war against Israel on their behalf.
You say "You as a Jewish blogger, I mean. I can’t imagine you arguing that it wasn’t right for the media to exaggerate if buildings in Israel were (God-forbid) burning down… You would be (understandably) too angry and sad about what had happened."
You don't know me. What you say is unfair, wrong, and in prejudging me based on my 'ethnicity' you are committing a crime of ethics based in a vacuum of immorality.
I've travelled the Arab quarters of Jerusalem. I've crossed over the Green Line to meet with Palestinans. I've engaged in dialogue with Israeli Arabs. But to you, I'm just a blind Zionist.
I'm not blind. Not morally, nor physically.
As for your question "If the situation was reversed and Lebanon bombed Israel, would you have devoted an entire post to complain about how photographers cloned more smokes and framed shots to make the actions of Lebanon seem more destructive than they actually were?" - I can honestly say, 'I don't know'.
Of course, if the roles were truly reversed, it would be Lebanon fighting an Israeli terror group. If that were the case, I would be in support of Lebanon for sure. Terrorists disgust me. They seek to maximize civilian casualties. Luckily, I support a country that does not.
I keep coming back to read your comments because they are very entertaining and make me laugh :-) (It’s a good thing, in case you misinterpret this too).
a citizen of the world.
Where in my comment did I make you think that you are not a citizen of the world?
Secondly, I know what other people think of the conflict. I have Muslim, Christian and Atheist (South Asian) friends that see things the way I do.
It’s good to learn what other people who don’t see things the way you do, think of the conflict too.
You don't know me. What you say is unfair, wrong, and in prejudging me based on my 'ethnicity' you are committing a crime of ethics based in a vacuum of immorality.
I asked you what you would say if you were in a Lebanese’s position. I said “You as a Jewish blogger” only to make you think out of the perspective of a Jew. Didn’t prejudge that all Jews were the same.
But to you, I'm just a blind Zionist.
You are judging me now! You don’t know what I think about you behind that Vader mask.
I'm not blind. Not morally, nor physically.
No, you are not. You read my comments and replied them – thanks.
Terrorists disgust me.
No argument there.
You don't know me.
Neither do you.
I'm done here. Consider it a victory if it makes you feel good, but I don't think anything has been accomplished by either of us.
You began this 'dialogue' with an obnoxiously worded hypothetical statement/question, and you have expanded it into the question "If the situation was reversed and Lebanon bombed Israel, would you have devoted an entire post to complain about how photographers cloned more smokes and framed shots to make the actions of Lebanon seem more destructive than they actually were?".
I will never be able to offer you a satisfactory answer.
Nice jamming with you.
Oh, hey - wait a second. You've been firing questions at me - I guess it is only fair that I lob one at you.
What do you think Israel should do about Hezbollah and their rocket attacks on North Israel?
Wow. I've got to saysay, stepping into this topic a little late, that we've got a pretty interesting dialogue going.
From what I'm seeing it does look like the people writing do understand that all media is bias, but I think some things need to be pointed out.
First, in general, most people will tend to gravitate towards the media outlet that gives the side of a story they prefer. People hear what they want to hear, and if they don't they'll try to search for it.
Second, because of media bias, people should be looking to multiple sources for their news, otherwise they won't be getting the whole story. (I should note that when I say multiple sources, I do mean reliable ones.) Once a person has reviewed these sources, they then have to filter what they heard and saw all by themselves. That's usually the point that becomes a big problem. People will filter the media in the best way which suits them, and their position on the story. For instance, I am in support of Israel and when I see something like that piece of BBC footage, I am disappointed by their bias. However, if I look more objectively at it, I can simply see that clip as information showing me what the current situation looks like in Lebanon. Though, some may still consider, even that, a subjective view. Which, I believe, brings me to a third point.
Third, objectivity can be viewed as subjectivity. People are people, and as I mentioned in my first bit, people will hear what they want. So even an objective statement or view can be skewed.
So let's try and be objective about this for a second and take a look at something. Israel and Hizbullah are currently at war. Israel is also at war with Palestinian militants. Hizbullah and the Palestinian militants are both terrorist groups. Israel is a country (or state depending who you ask), it has an army which is fighting against two terrorist organisations at the same time. The job of terrorists is to cause death, destruction and fear. The job of an army, in this case, is to defend the citizens of its country. There have been deaths on both sides, and both sides are going about their attacks in very different ways. The media will create their reports on the situation based on whatever way they are biased.
So I conclude with a little flashback to the Israel rally that was held a couple weeks ago. Former major-general Lewis MacKenzie, the keynote speaker, said that if there were a rally in support of Lebanon the next day, he would be there, but he has no time for terrorists. So let's hope everyone can start to think clearly, and see the difference between the two also.
Post a Comment
<< Home