Are some US and British media outlets biased on Israel & Paelstine?

Journalist are human beings -- they all have biases, and it shows in all their reporting. But they will tell you they are neutral and professional -- in other words they are perfect human beings -- LOL

 

And of course, the NY Times tricks people by having an 'opinions' section too. To make it SEEM like the opinion pieces are strictly in that section.

 

Absolutely. Every media who reports biased and made up news goes to great lengths to ballyhoo that they do no such thing.

 

You said: "the more that I think about it the more I realize that few positive things have been reported about Netanyahu in MSM." So does the Western MSM have a pro-Isreal bias or not?

 

After reading several lengthy articles on the recent flare up with the Palestinians and Israel's attacks on Syria, I can say that there is definitely an egregious pro Israel bias in Western MSM.
Whatever is written about Netanyahu doesn't change that long running pro Israel bias.

Please remember that I've been following events in the Middle East since Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and subsequent cover-up. Additionally, I walked and hitch-hiked throughout the Middle East for about 10 - 11 months and communicate with friends who work in the region.
I've noticed that the "Associated Press" prints things that are so bias that they are misleading.

Thanks,

"Western media bias makes Israeli war on Palestinians possible"
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/western-media-bias-makes-israeli-war-on-palestinians-possible/

EXCERPT "While U.S. and western mainstream and corporate media remain biased in favor of Israel, they often behave as if they are a third, neutral party. This is simply not the case.

For the uninformed reader, the article succeeds in finding a balanced language between two equal sides. This misleading moral equivalence is one of the biggest intellectual blind spots for western journalists. If they do not outwardly champion Israel’s discourse on ‘security’ and ‘right to defend itself’, they create false parallels between Palestinians and Israelis, as if a military occupier and an occupied nation have comparable rights and responsibilities." CONTINUED

 

So then why would the media not positively report about Netanyahu if it was pro-Israel?

 

For the simple reason that Netanyahu is only one person and not all of Israel.

As an example of that same Western MSM bias, June the 8th will be the 56th anniversary of Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty and it this year is like the previous 55, there will either no mention of the deliberate attack or a distorted version of the attack.

 

He is just one person? He is the Prime Minister of many years!

 

Please let me clarify one thing, I am not anti Israel. I sincerely wish that peace seeking, everyday Israelis could live in peace but that can never happen as long as Israel's ruling Right Wing extremists continue their ethnic cleansing and expansionist "Greater Israel / Lebensraum agenda.

Western MSM had a pro Israel bias before Netanyahu, it has a pro Israel bias today and it will have a pro Israel bias long after Netanyahu is gone.

Unless you've spent any time in the region and seen both sides of the story, your pro Israel sentiments may be a result of the influence of that same Western MSM bias. You've heard so much about the evil Muslims picking on the poor Jews that you overlook the simple reality that Palestine's native residents had their homes of generations stolen and families murdered, raped and / or mutilated.

Seventy five years later, they've been herded into the world's largest open air prison, Gaza, or the fragmented and frequently targeted West Bank.

I've seen Palestinian refugee camps and talked to Nakba survivors back in 1973 whose suffering had been more severe and longer than that of any Holocaust survivor.

One example of media bias I don't think you can deny is the glut of Holocaust movies contrasted with the dearth of Nakba movies. I can't think of a single movie that ever covered the Nakba but a day doesn't pass when we are not treated to a documentary, movie or lecture about the Holocaust.
It is especially distressing to see how easily and quickly the persecuted transformed into the persecutors.

Finally, I hope you'll agree that Arabs and Germans have almost always been Hollywood's stock villains especially in entertainment media and I think that it is at least possible that there is a subliminal effect that engenders an unfounded negative bias against both groups.


Thanks,



1. "New Study Finds 50-Year History of Anti-Palestine Bias in Mainstream News Reporting"
https://www.mintpressnews.com/new-study-finds-50-year-history-of-pro-israel-bias-in-us-media/254049/

EXCERPT "A study of 50 years of headlines in 5 top newspapers finds that media coverage of Israel-Palestine favors Israel by providing more overall coverage, more positive coverage, and greater access to Israeli voices than to Palestinian ones. Much of this can be attributed to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby."CONTINUED


2. "The Media's Pro-Israel Bias Echoes Coverage of Apartheid"
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-medias-pro-israel-bias-echoes-coverage-of-apartheid/


3. "Media Bias Fanning the Flames of Islamophobia"
https://mediareviewnet.com/2017/12/media-bias-fanning-the-flames-of-islamophobia/

 

I think some will either be biased against Israel/Palestine and some who are biased towards Israel/Palestine. Israel will do what is best for Israel, which may include more settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. The Likud, the majority party in Israel, in their official platform, is to make sure the occupied territories belong to Israel and that any Palestinian national or nation-state is null and void in their mind. Palestine is not much better. They used terrorism to try to create their country, and Israel did the same, in 1947 when 4 British officers were killed, did the same to create their state. Ironic. And this all happened because we are still paying for the sins of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire which used to control the territory and how many Jews were allowed in.

A good book on this is From Beruit to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. I highly recommend the book.

 

He represents the Lekud Party, and they are ultra-conservative, politically speaking. One of their main tenants is the destruction of the Olso Accords and to Make Israel into one, which includes the occupied terrorists based on their historical texts.

 

And so I ask again, why would the media not positively report about Netanyahu if it was pro-Israel?

 

Yeah, but how does this make sense as a reply to what I said?

 

It goes back to the basic premise of which media sites in the US and the UK will be biased either for or against Israel, and biased for or against Palestine. For instance, Fox News, a conservative media site is going to be for Israel because the major controlling political party is also conservative, and hence, will be against Palestine because conservatives will still hold old views of the Palestinian state as an extension of the Palestinian Liberation Army or Hamas.

 

In my post that you replied to, I was talking about Netanyahu.

 

Netanyahu is the party leader of the Likud party. Hence why I included the party which includes Netanyahu.

 

@Grau, any new thoughts on this question since the October 7 attack and Israel's response?

 

Thanks for asking.

People seem to forget that Israel created Hamas to incite internal strife with the PLO and their apparent solution to the heinous "surprise" (1) attack seems to have transitioned into raw genocide with the possible annexation of Gaza.

Since there is no excuse for the death toll and misery inflicted on overcrowded Gazans, the Islamic world is as united as ever before and drifting closer and closer to China, Russia and other BRIC members.

Subsequently, I feel that there are two certain consequences that will result from the ongoing Zionist genocide:
1. Israel will never know peace and Jewish people around the world will be much less secure than ever.
2. Israel's omnipotent lobbies will once again ensure the blood of countless American G.I.s will soak distant soil in a permanent war for "Greater Israel".

“QUIETLY LOBBYING CONGRESS TO APPROVE THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ WAS ONE OF AIPAC’S SUCCESSES OVER THE PAST YEAR.”

AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr; N.Y. Sun, Jan. 2003

Finally, I'm not so sure that the horrific attack on 7 October was a surprise to all Israelis since Israel is infamous for its False Flag deceptions.
So far, no one has commented on the following facts:
(1):

1. The day before the Hamas attack, Israel had intelligence that an attack was looming.
2. The Egyptians may have sent intelligence to them three days before.
3. The day before, Israel had several high-level meetings on a possible attack by Hamas.
4. The attack on Israel occurred on a Holy holiday, exactly 50 years to the day of the attack on Israel and war of 1973.
5. Arabs like to attack on holidays and recurring dates and events.
6. The decision at these meetings was to do nothing. Not to call out the IDF to man the border.
7. Who made that decision?
8. In 1973, Golda Meir made a similar decision not to attack first to prevent being attacked in order to stave off international criticism.
9. Border guards in Israel who have been interviewed prior to the attack of last week stressed that they had all kinds of monitoring equipment of every type watching the Israeli border 24/7 day and night and a bug couldn't move out there without their knowing about it.
10. After the attack, despite there being IDF everywhere in the country and military gear everywhere, help to the Israeli victims took between 8 to 20 hours to arrive. Why?

Since I was in the Levant during the '73 War, I am sympathetic toward the suffering of all the region's innocent civilians but I don't rule out at least some complicity by some members of the Netanyahu regime in seeking a "solution" to the "Gaza problem".

Please let me know your thoughts on what I've written. My 96 year old Mom is in hospice with little time left so I may not be able to respond immediately.

Enjoy your holiday and thanks again,

 

Watching and listening to the news over the past 50 years brings two questions to mind -- Why is it that Israel is never considered a victim? And those starting a war with Israel are considered victims?

 

Israel is never considered a victim????

Good God man, if a person criticizes the Israeli government for anything at all, all sorts of victimhood is expressed by calling the questioner "anti-semitic" a worn out phrase that has lost all meaning.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c4b7...eSUyMGNvbmRlbW4lMjB0aGUlMjBtb3ZlbWVudC4&ntb=1

Not sure if this link works or not, but I remember when the number was about 27 states that have passed laws against boycotting Israel. Today that number is 35 states.

Done by way of AIPAC, that is a loud proclamation that Israel is so much the victim that it is against the law to boycott their products. Wake up and smell the napalm sir.

 

You're anti-semitic -- LOL