Currebt U.S. Foreign Policy

[JohnnyRocketFingers]

I tend to agree with Joanna Jewsom.

[Elston]

Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, there have been 9,402 confirmed civilian deaths. It will be interesting to see the numbers under Obama's leadership.

I was not happy with his appointing of Clinton as Secretary of State. She voted for war with Iran a couple years ago.

[Elston]

[joannajewsom]

Honestreporting tries to maintain balance. It swoops in and attempts to the level the playing field, and once it feels it has done it's job, it moves on. You yourself complain about pro-Israel bias in American media (which you still haven't been specific about), and I have yet to hear you talk about anti-Israel bias; you even still seem to be denying anti-Israel bias even after I've cited several specific incidents and reports, and suggested some things to look into and fact check for yourself.

Tell me, when are you going to comment on both anti-Israel media and anti-Palestinian media? When are you going to condemn terrorism on both sides, and criticize Palestinians as much as you do Israelis? You're only focusing one side of the issue. Again, just because you choose to defend one side against wrongdoings and not the other, doesn't mean that you're not being fair. That honestreporting only focuses on anti-Israel bias, and does nothing for anti-Palestinian bias, I kind of see somewhat of a point- and not really, but you're really reaching here, and you yourself do not live up to this definition of fairness.

Anyway, it does not change the fact that they do not push a pro-Israel agenda and an anti-Palestinian agenda, like If Americans Knew does. Honestreporting obviously feels that anti-Israel bias is more problematic. I agree, and I've cited anti-Israel bias by two of the biggest media outlets in the world.

If Americans Knew just gives you numbers? Does it offer anything more than that? It provides people with numbers like 123 Israeli children killed and 1,000 Palestinian children killed, but it does not provide any context. Honestreporting and CAMERA are just as well-respected as If Americans Knew. Please, show me criticism of honestreporting from legitimate organizations. I'll repeat again, CNN engaged in a dialogue with honestreporting and made changes according to their study. Honestreporting seems to well-respected by CNN, at least. You don't respect honestreporting because you've already made up your mind about honestreporting, and you refuse to read the reports, fact check, and see if they are a good source.

Peter Jennings was arguably the most important figure in ABC's history, and also in terms of ABC's Middle East coverage since the late 60s-early70s up; Jennings was not just a journalist, Jennings WAS ABC Middle East coverage for a few decades, and he was famously anti-Israel. You can't deny that he was one of the most influential journalist of the last century. Amanpour is one of the most important media figures in regard to Middle East reporting in the last 20 years, and she is famously anti-Israel. These aren't just journalists; these are very important figures and the face of their media outlets.

You asked for examples of bias in American media outlets and I provided it. What more do you want? These are just examples of two of the most influential media figures of our time, who just happened to be biased. I also pointed out the bias by the world's biggest media outlet, BBC (which reaches just as many Americans as any American outlet). Still not convinced? I also cited a specific incident in which the New York Times displayed a clear bias, and pointed to you a report, that I suggest you read and fact check.

CAMERA has a number of articles on CBS and NBC, which I've done fact checks on, but I don't think that these two outlets have a significant anti-Israel bias. However, I do stand by my claim that BBC and CNN- the two biggest outlets in the world, and Jennings and Amanpour- two of the most important media figures of the last century, all have, to an extreme degree, been guilty of anti-Israel reporting. I think pointing out anti-Israel bias of the two biggest media outlets in the world and two of the biggest media figures of the last century would be enough to validate my claim of that a significant amount anti-Israel media coverage exists. However, this doesn't seem to be enough for you. I guess there's no convincing you.

[maxxy]

[maxxy]

And I would like to make a point about the press: The press is, undoubtedly, influenced by the people who run it, and nothing will change that...but in the end it is the watcher of CNN or the reader of the newspaper's job to filter out what is true and what is bias. Form your own opinions.

The press has and always will be biased. For example, everyone knows CNN is liberal and Fox is conservative. It's hard to find completely neutral reporting anywhere because people are individuals and have opinions. Any thing except data tables that claims to be unbiased is spewing bullshit. Just admit you're biased or opinion-influenced and move on...

[Elston]

Joanna, perhaps I haven't made myself clear, but I don't want to do this anymore. We're not listening to each other. We're both choosing sides. It's not productive.

I wish in hindsight that I hadn't started this topic as a Palestine sympathizer, which I didn't even realize I was doing. I'll make it clear why I sympathize more with the Arabs than with the Jews. The Jews are in control, the Arabs live under occupation. More Arabs are dying. The American press, like their government, has taken sides with Israel. There's several other reasons I've already mentioned.

The organizations your quoting, CAMERA & Honest Reporting, are both pro-Israel groups, the latter being funded by Aish HaTorah, a group "providing opportunities for Jews of all backgrounds to discover their heritage." These groups are both heavily criticized for showing a pro-Israel Bias.

If Americans Knew is a website "to be directed by Americans without bias and ethnic ties to the region." Its results have been replicated by a University Study in San Jose.

I'm going to try to look at this from a different angle.

I don't think CAMERA is a trusted source because of their explicit bias, however, they do make a good point in critiquing If Americans Knew's findings. CAMERA states that Israeli deaths receive more coverage because they are generally the result of bloody terrorist attacks targeted at non-combative individuals. Many of the Palestinian civilian's deaths are the result of Israeli soldiers, however, a substantial amount are simply from being displaced and occupied by the Israelis. This is a less dramatic form of death and thus is less often reported.

I'll also say that the Jews are far more advanced politically, economically, and militarily than the Arabs. Their Air Force is immaculate, same with the Army, and there are many Jews in Israel who want to establish peace.

Okay, now lets hear you say something nice about the Arabs.

[Elston]

[maxxy]

I was reading an article in Scientific American that said they were going to put more effort into investigating media bias. I thought that was interesting.

I think that an entire media station can be centrist, I just think that if you take any random individual article it's probably going to lean one way or the other.

[joannajewsom]

First off let me say that because I'm defending my side of the argument so passionately- sometimes a little too passionately, it doesn't mean that I'm not listening. I think that you've made some valid and interesting points, and it's been a challenge engaging in a dialogue with you. If I thought your opinion wasn't worth listening to, that would mean that it wouldn't be worth responding to.

See, I'd like to think that it isn't so, but when you say that you sympathize with the Arabs because more are dying and they are the ones under occupation, it sounds like you're just siding with the underdog. Instead of looking at which people are dying, how they are dying, and the tactics of those doing the killing- whether they target civilians or terrorists groups, you just look at numbers. That's my problem with only looking at If Americans Knew. Numbers and charts are good to reference but behind those numbers lies layer of context and history that is needed to fully assess the situation.

CAMERA's critique of If Americans Knew points at the one of the flaws in just judging things by numbers. Also, a news program can show ten Israeli deaths and one Palestinian death, but it matters how these deaths are reported. The reporter could say that "ten random Jews were killed by an innocent Palestinian human rights activist, who strapped a bomb to her chest which she then detonated on a bus full of civilians who obviously support Israeli's oppressive, and Nazi-like state." It wouldn't be as over-the-top, but my point is that what matters is how these deaths are reported, what language is being used, etc. That's what a chart can not show you. Camera and Honestreporting points out the bias in how things are reported, and it provides links to the original article or photo caption, etc., so you can ultimately take a look at the methods of these reporters and judge for yourself whether or not their claim of bias is legitimate. I'll admit that there have been a few instances when I thought both of these groups were nitpicking.

Some American press has taken sides with Israel, and some American press has taken sides with Palestine. You seem to be denying that there is anti-Israel bias in the American media, as well as anti-Palestinian bias.

If Americans Knew has also been criticized. Tell me, have you actually read articles and critiques on CAMERA and Honest Reporting websites? What's your take? Just saying that they're pro-Israel doesn't say anything about the quality of their reporting. Give me some of your original critique, or are you just forming your opinion based on what some anti-Israel critic may say about the site?

If Americans Knew is viciously anti-Israel. You refuse to give any regard to pro-Israel groups because you think they'll obviously be bias ("I don't think CAMERA is a trusted source because of their explicit bias"), but you promote something which is explicitly anti-Israel, and has an obvious anti-Israel bias. I don't understand. By your logic IAK, an explicitly bias source, should also not be trusted. IAK does nothing more than trying to sell their own bias to people who aren't pro-Israel, and their embellishment, exaggeration, and their lack of ability to be even a little objective is disgusting.

If Americans Knew says that "while the large majority of Palestinians oppose suicide bombings...", but they provide no numbers at all to back up this claim, and anti-Israel people buy into this garbage. Where is their proof for such a statement? The most recent PCPO poll shows that 57% of Palestinians oppose suicide bombings, and the most recent PCPSR poll shows that only 46% of Palestinians oppose suicide bombings. Depending on which poll you would like to believe (let's say it's somewhere in the middle, to be fair) this hardly constitutes a "large majority". If Americans Knew is a joke because it is full of hyperbole and conjecture which it can not and does not back up.

So what if If Americans Knew had their results used in a study at San Jose University? I wasn't aware that it was the Holy Grail of Journalism. I checked it out, and Grade the News actually said that "the idea for analyzing the San Jose Mercury News' coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict came from a study published by a Berkeley-based group, If Americans Knew...we decided to replicate the study ourselves and expand it to look beyond headlines, to the text of the stories on the front page..."

Basically, some people at San Jose State University, after seeing the results of the If Americans Knew study which was critiqued by someone at San Jose Mercury, decided to do a similar study of their own. They just got the idea from IAK, and commented that they got similar results. Are you really using that to try to validate the site and the research that it does? More impressive than that, I think, is getting people at CNN actually engage in a dialogue with Honest Reporting and make corrections and alterations.

Overall, I'm not saying that the reports of HR and CAMERA are to be taken on blind faith, or that they don't have their own bias to be considered. But the same goes with IAK, and I'm hoping that you would agree. Where I do think these sites succeed and where IAK fails, is that HR and Cam refrain from making political statements. In other words, these two sites aim to point out the bias in the views of others, while IAK seems to be promoting their own bias views. That's my problem with NPR and other alternative media; although I think they are essential and healthy outlets to have in a democracy, they tend to fight bias with their own bias.

You've made it clear that you don't wish to continue, and I do agree that this has gone on long enough. It's been fun, though. Hopefully we can come to some middle ground and recognize that there is bias on both sides of the media, the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and when encountering either we should proceed with caution.



Okay, I'll say something nice about the Arabs. I can't imagine what it must be like to live under occupation, and I can understand the Palestinian viewpoint of "screw your mandates, screw your UN voting- this is our land, plain and simple". I also respect the viewpoint of people who say, 'okay, let's look at the mandates, let's look at history; this is still Palestinian land'. Although I'm pro-Israel, I don't think that Israel is right and Palestine is wrong, and anyone who's pro-Israel is right and anyone who's pro-Palestine is wrong.

I've always been for a two-state solution, and I think that it is insulting to the plight of both sides for anyone to be in support of a one-state solution at this point, whether it be in favor of Israel or Palestine. Even if both the Palestinian terrorist attacks and the legitimate movements for Palestinian nationhood were to stop, and the Palestinians just said "we give up, you win.", I still think that Israel and the U.S. would still need to make the effort to create an independent Palestinian state. It doesn't stop at just defending the Israeli state. At this point, Israel and the U.S. are obligated to not only defend the Israeli state, but to help create a strong, independent Palestinian state. I think that Palestinians have the right to the land just as much as Israelis, some would disagree and that's fine.

Unfortunately for the moderate Palestinians, Palestinian terrorists do not want to give Israel and the US the opportunity to do so- whether they want to do so just to shut them up, I won't argue against. They turn down offer after offer (now, whether or not these offers have been fair is another discussion) and some leaders/groups have refused to even negotiate at all, or recognize Israel as a state, which would obviously be a pre-requisite to coming to an agreement. Looking at history, terrorist attacks increase around the time of discussions between leaders, and moderate Palestine leaders are looked down upon, and worst, there have been a few Arab leaders who were assassinated by other Arabs because they supported two-state solutions and peace treaties.

To say that Palestinians are determined to have their own state is a severe understatement. I support the creation of a Palestinian state, and I hope to see this happen in my lifetime. However, they are not going to bomb their way to a state; it just won't happen. I understand that they're angry. Some may justify their actions. Whether or not you justify their actions, it's clear that their violence isn't working and it hasn't been working for 70 years now.

I think that the teachings of Gandhi, whom you mentioned earlier, would be something worth considering for the Palestinians. I think that non-violent resistance on the part of Palestinians would truly be the way to achieving their own state. If Palestinian violence were to stop, Israel and the U.S. could no longer justify occupation and what people perceive as oppression. Israel could then no longer claim self-defense when civilians were killed. Israel and the U.S. would then be forced to show their true character and could not claim justification through Palestinian terrorism. Where's Gandhi when you need him? The moderate Palestinians are the key to achieving Palestinian statehood. Unfortunately, it's the extremists who seem to be making the decisions for all Palestinians and all the innocent Palestinians are suffering for it.