Why does that website only deal with the Israeli side of the argument? It would be better served if it treated both sides of the argument i.e. British media bias against Israel and US media bias against Palestine because when you first look at the site it smacks of some sort of Zionist agenda when in fact it's contributors seem to be from fairly impartial backgrounds - the Director Adel Darwish even appears to be possibly even of Palestinian origin.FEOS wrote:
They certainly aren't even-handed when it comes to reporting on the Israel-Palestine situation. That's documented quite thoroughly at wwww.justjournalism.comPureFodder wrote:
Where else have you been looking?FEOS wrote:
Funny that one doesn't see that "mainstream view" reflected anywhere but here (from a few of you) and a handful of whacked-out websites that the few of you here frequent.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a fairly mainstream view outside the US, most people rate Israel level with Iran and many rate them on a par with Nazi Germany.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7324337.stm
More people see Iran and N. Korea positively than Israel. It really is the mainstream view outside of North America and Israel.
Or is the BBC a 'whacked-out' website?
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1022127,00.html
That website examines the coverage of the Israel/Palestine situation by the British media, comparing it to published UK governmental media standards. And British media comes up short in meeting those standards. If there is a bias for one side, why would you expect to see a bias toward the other side? If that were the case, there would be no bias, would there?Braddock wrote:
Why does that website only deal with the Israeli side of the argument? It would be better served if it treated both sides of the argument i.e. British media bias against Israel and US media bias against Palestine because when you first look at the site it smacks of some sort of Zionist agenda when in fact it's contributors seem to be from fairly impartial backgrounds - the Director Adel Darwish even appears to be possibly even of Palestinian origin.FEOS wrote:
They certainly aren't even-handed when it comes to reporting on the Israel-Palestine situation. That's documented quite thoroughly at wwww.justjournalism.comPureFodder wrote:
Where else have you been looking?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7324337.stm
More people see Iran and N. Korea positively than Israel. It really is the mainstream view outside of North America and Israel.
Or is the BBC a 'whacked-out' website?
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1022127,00.html
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well fair enough I guess if it is working strictly within a UK remit but given that it is in the online realm and doesn't have any links to other sources focusing on objective treatment of the other side of the political issue (the Palestinians) it smacks a little of Israeli bias (at face value that is).FEOS wrote:
That website examines the coverage of the Israel/Palestine situation by the British media, comparing it to published UK governmental media standards. And British media comes up short in meeting those standards. If there is a bias for one side, why would you expect to see a bias toward the other side? If that were the case, there would be no bias, would there?Braddock wrote:
Why does that website only deal with the Israeli side of the argument? It would be better served if it treated both sides of the argument i.e. British media bias against Israel and US media bias against Palestine because when you first look at the site it smacks of some sort of Zionist agenda when in fact it's contributors seem to be from fairly impartial backgrounds - the Director Adel Darwish even appears to be possibly even of Palestinian origin.FEOS wrote:
They certainly aren't even-handed when it comes to reporting on the Israel-Palestine situation. That's documented quite thoroughly at wwww.justjournalism.com
I guess you can't have an equivalent site for anti-Palestinian news coverage in US media because there are no media standards or watchdog regulations in the US!
www.justjournalism.com is clearly biased toward Israel.. Just look at the colors of the page and the writing. reming me of the color of the israeli flag..
/tinfoil hat
/tinfoil hat
Does it ever discuss BBC reports that aren't biased against Israel or does it just point out the biased ones... thus themselves presenting a biased view against the BBC!?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
www.justjournalism.com is clearly biased toward Israel.. Just look at the colors of the page and the writing. reming me of the color of the israeli flag..
/tinfoil hat
Someone should set up a website to keep an eye on these guys I reckon.
...but then I will have to set up a website to watch your website.Braddock wrote:
Does it ever discuss BBC reports that aren't biased against Israel or does it just point out the biased ones... thus themselves presenting a biased view against the BBC!?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
www.justjournalism.com is clearly biased toward Israel.. Just look at the colors of the page and the writing. reming me of the color of the israeli flag..
/tinfoil hat
Someone should set up a website to keep an eye on these guys I reckon.
My website will have "fair and balanced" continually revolving in the corner of the screen though!imortal wrote:
...but then I will have to set up a website to watch your website.Braddock wrote:
Does it ever discuss BBC reports that aren't biased against Israel or does it just point out the biased ones... thus themselves presenting a biased view against the BBC!?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
www.justjournalism.com is clearly biased toward Israel.. Just look at the colors of the page and the writing. reming me of the color of the israeli flag..
/tinfoil hat
Someone should set up a website to keep an eye on these guys I reckon.
Next to the FoxNews watermark.Braddock wrote:
My website will have "fair and balanced" continually revolving in the corner of the screen though!imortal wrote:
...but then I will have to set up a website to watch your website.Braddock wrote:
Does it ever discuss BBC reports that aren't biased against Israel or does it just point out the biased ones... thus themselves presenting a biased view against the BBC!?
Someone should set up a website to keep an eye on these guys I reckon.
Perhaps you should try reading the various pages on the site. It clearly explains its methodology and why it is analyzing British news coverage writ large (not just the BBC).Braddock wrote:
Does it ever discuss BBC reports that aren't biased against Israel or does it just point out the biased ones... thus themselves presenting a biased view against the BBC!?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
www.justjournalism.com is clearly biased toward Israel.. Just look at the colors of the page and the writing. reming me of the color of the israeli flag..
/tinfoil hat
Someone should set up a website to keep an eye on these guys I reckon.
By pointing out how British journalists do not follow UK governmental guidelines for journalistic integrity when covering the Israel/Palestine situation, they are clearly biased toward Israel. Right.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So basically they are an organisation whose agenda is to present Israel more favourably than is currently the case in Britain.Justjournalism wrote:
Just Journalism aims to promote accurate and responsible reporting about Israel in the British media.
They aren't interested in balanced journalism, no comment about bias against anyone else, the Palestinians for example, just Israel.
Their comments are therefore of zero interest.
Just looking at their front page, the Daily Mirror, The Independent and the BBC are all apparently unreasonably biased against Israel, which is clearly ridiculous.
Journalists aren't required to follow government guidelines, that would be Stalinism.FEOS wrote:
By pointing out how British journalists do not follow UK governmental guidelines for journalistic integrity when covering the Israel/Palestine situation
Didn't know you were against a free press - until now.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-12 00:08:46)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
andJust Journalism wrote:
Whilst the existing codes and guidelines that deal with journalistic principles vary, they share common themes. We have classified these principles into the following categories. Please click on the categories for further information about their definitions and use:
* Factual accuracy
* Impartiality
* Use of sources and quotes
* Balance
* Contributors
* Language
So it's clear you didn't actually read any part of the website, because I misrepresented (from memory...it's been a while since I visited the site) the standards as being UK governmental. While they are related to the UK government in some ways (royal charter for BBC, for instance), the standards that Just Journalism uses are those standards espoused by the British journalistic community. Just Journalism only compares what the British journalistic community actually produces to the standards they are supposed to enforce on themselves.Just Journalism wrote:
Our analysis of the media’s coverage of Israel is systematic and rigorous. On a daily basis, we monitor UK press and broadcast for all relevant coverage. Using the UK’s publicly available regulatory frameworks, we then seek to evaluate whether the coverage that appears in the public domain adheres to core journalistic principles. We also produce regular in-depth special reports analysing coverage over time.
As well as a diverse research programme, Just Journalism will also engage in a series of public and private activities designed to highlight the importance of journalistic integrity.
The journalistic principles we cite in our analysis are derived from four key sources and will always refer to one of these. These sources, in combination, form the bedrock of journalistic standards in the UK.
The BBC Editorial Guidelines
The BBC is a public service broadcaster, established by a Royal Charter and funded by the licence fee that is paid by UK households. The BBC Editorial Guidelines outline the standards the BBC expects of all BBC content on TV, radio and online.
OFCOM Broadcasting Code
Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services.
The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice
The Press Complaints Commission [‘PCC’] is an independent body which deals with complaints from members of the public about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines. The PCC is charged with enforcing the Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry.
The National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct
The National Union of Journalists is a trade union whose members cover the whole range of editorial work – staff and freelance, writers and reporters, editors and sub-editors, photographers and illustrators, working in broadcasting, newspapers, magazines, books, on the internet and in public relations.
Lo and behold, they don't enforce those standards consistently when it comes to reporting on this particular topic.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wow you swallow unblinking anything which suits your agenda don't you?
A pro-Israeli organisation looking for 'factual accuracy'? Yeah sure.
Do you believe Fox News when they say they're 'Fair and Balanced'?
Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
A pro-Israeli organisation looking for 'factual accuracy'? Yeah sure.
Do you believe Fox News when they say they're 'Fair and Balanced'?
But only according to this whacked out website funded by 'private individuals'.FEOS wrote:
Lo and behold, they don't enforce those standards consistently when it comes to reporting on this particular topic.
Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-12 03:58:23)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You can't refute their findings, so you'll just lambast the source?Dilbert_X wrote:
Wow you swallow unblinking anything which suits your agenda don't you?
A pro-Israeli organisation looking for 'factual accuracy'? Yeah sure.
Do you believe Fox News when they say they're 'Fair and Balanced'?
But only according to this whacked out website funded by 'private individuals'.FEOS wrote:
Lo and behold, they don't enforce those standards consistently when it comes to reporting on this particular topic.
Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Utterly predictable.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That what you do with every piece of information which doesn't suit your biased and blinkered Neo-con agenda.FEOS wrote:
You can't refute their findings, so you'll just lambast the source?
Anyway, they have no 'findings' - they don't have enough credibility or impartiality for that - just opinion.
Sorry but I'm not interested in the opinion of a single issue pressure group funded by unknown sources.
The sources they criticise are middle of the road, its just the usual Israeli tactic of claiming anyone who criticises them is biased and anti-semitic.
Might as well treat Fox News ranting opinion as gospel.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-13 00:40:18)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
British media is piss-poor IMO, because they fail to make the distinction between opinion and fact.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Oh please.Dilbert_X wrote:
That what you do with every piece of information which doesn't suit your biased and blinkered Neo-con agenda.FEOS wrote:
You can't refute their findings, so you'll just lambast the source?
Anyway, they have no 'findings' - they don't have enough credibility or impartiality for that - just opinion.
Sorry but I'm not interested in the opinion of a single issue pressure group funded by unknown sources.
The sources they criticise are middle of the road, its just the usual Israeli tactic of claiming anyone who criticises them is biased and anti-semitic.
Might as well treat Fox News ranting opinion as gospel.
Now you resort to name-calling because you can't refute either the findings or your tactics. And then you resort right back to lambasting the source again.
They are the only ones who have done any research...have you? If anyone has a problem with speaking from a position of opinion and no "credibility or impartiality"...it's you.
They compared what those news sources reported with the guidelines for reporting they are supposed to live by. You just don't like the results because they don't fit within your narrow agenda.
Who has called anyone anti-semitic? There's only one person in this conversation throwing around epithets...and his name rhymes with "Dilbert".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What the hell? That's just what you, and Dilbert, have been spamming on about for god knows how many pages.FEOS wrote:
You can't refute their findings, so you'll just lambast the source?Dilbert_X wrote:
Wow you swallow unblinking anything which suits your agenda don't you?
A pro-Israeli organisation looking for 'factual accuracy'? Yeah sure.
Do you believe Fox News when they say they're 'Fair and Balanced'?
But only according to this whacked out website funded by 'private individuals'.FEOS wrote:
Lo and behold, they don't enforce those standards consistently when it comes to reporting on this particular topic.
Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Utterly predictable.
Are you for real?
lol...
Newsflash:
Black people are bad, white people are better.
It says so here.
http://www.kkk.com/
Its on the internet, it must be true.
Now why not get back to the point:
How is it acceptable for someone with a family history of terrorism and subversion, and a clear personal agenda to use his position to benefit his home nation to have a key position at the heart of the US govt?
Black people are bad, white people are better.
It says so here.
http://www.kkk.com/
Its on the internet, it must be true.
Now why not get back to the point:
How is it acceptable for someone with a family history of terrorism and subversion, and a clear personal agenda to use his position to benefit his home nation to have a key position at the heart of the US govt?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-13 03:53:16)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Please, oh PLEASE show where I have done that.Mekstizzle wrote:
What the hell? That's just what you, and Dilbert, have been spamming on about for god knows how many pages.
Are you for real?
lol...
"A family history"? Because his father was a member of the Irgun? What about the rest of his family? One person's actions does not make a "family history".Dilbert_X wrote:
How is it acceptable for someone with a family history of terrorism and subversion, and a clear personal agenda to use his position to benefit his home nation to have a key position at the heart of the US govt?
Where is this "clear personal agenda"? It doesn't exist, except in the eyes of his father...a terrorist and subversive. So you'll believe HIM but not other sources. Nice.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yes.FEOS wrote:
"A family history"? Because his father was a member of the Irgun?
Why take the risk?FEOS wrote:
Where is this "clear personal agenda"? It doesn't exist, except in the eyes of his father...a terrorist and subversive.
As someone with close association with a terrorist he probably shouldn't be allowed on a transatlantic flight, but he's allowed a key job in the White House?
Nice double standards, muslim terrorists bad, jewish terrorists good.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
everyone said... don't worry about Bill Ayers and his terrorist activity he took part in...they said we were all reaching and trying to find smear tactics to use against Barack... why should we worry about this guy...?
Love is the answer
Bill Ayers and Obama happened to sit on the same committee, Rahm Emmanuael will be at the heart of the US govt.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes.FEOS wrote:
"A family history"? Because his father was a member of the Irgun?
Where's the double standard? Rahm isn't a jewish terrorist.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why take the risk?FEOS wrote:
Where is this "clear personal agenda"? It doesn't exist, except in the eyes of his father...a terrorist and subversive.
As someone with close association with a terrorist he probably shouldn't be allowed on a transatlantic flight, but he's allowed a key job in the White House?
Nice double standards, muslim terrorists bad, jewish terrorists good.
Is Irgun on the international list of terrorist organizations that would cause a red flag at an airport? No...because the organization hasn't existed in 60 years.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
update:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americ … 729046.stm
"President-elect Barack Obama's White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel has apologised to the US-Arab community for remarks made by his father.
Benjamin Emanuel told an Israeli newspaper that his son, who is Jewish, would "obviously influence the president to be pro-Israel".
He also referred to Arabs in a way which a leading Arab-American group called an "unacceptable smear".
A spokesman for Rahm Emanuel said he had called the group to apologise.
Mr Emanuel also offered to meet members of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
In the interview last week with the Israeli daily newspaper Ma'ariv, Israeli-born Benjamin Emanuel talked about his son's new job. "
so his father is a racist terrorist thug and wants to influence, if not has, his son
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americ … 729046.stm
"President-elect Barack Obama's White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel has apologised to the US-Arab community for remarks made by his father.
Benjamin Emanuel told an Israeli newspaper that his son, who is Jewish, would "obviously influence the president to be pro-Israel".
He also referred to Arabs in a way which a leading Arab-American group called an "unacceptable smear".
A spokesman for Rahm Emanuel said he had called the group to apologise.
Mr Emanuel also offered to meet members of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
In the interview last week with the Israeli daily newspaper Ma'ariv, Israeli-born Benjamin Emanuel talked about his son's new job. "
so his father is a racist terrorist thug and wants to influence, if not has, his son
If its not it should be.FEOS wrote:
Is Irgun on the international list of terrorist organizations that would cause a red flag at an airport?
Actually there should be an organisation to track down and prosecute its members.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!