February 20 Media Critique: ´Palestinians Living in Fear´

"The National Post tells a story the media rarely covers, while the BBC issues a rare apology."

This is familiar territory. HR was here over the Christmas period looking to use Palestinian Christians to push its ideological barrow.

So, what’s the problem?

We commend the National Post for addressing this issue and HonestReporting will continue to highlight those stories that the mainstream media fails to properly acknowledge

Yes, there is "rarely" coverage of the plight of Palestinian Christians, which is why HR pull this from a national Canadian paper. You’d think that would slightly undermine the point wouldn’t you?

So let’s have a look at a recent target of HR, The Guardian, and see what they had in the recent past. Just this and this. How’s that for rare?

But isn’t it touching that HR is so concerned for Palestinians? Well, some Palestinians, and only then if the cause of their misery is ideologically acceptable to the strident partisans at HR. Remember the Christmas story above? A Palestinian Christian group looked at the cause of immigration for Palestinian Christians. 8% moved due to religious intolerance, ie. the evil Muslims. 80+% moved due to issues related to the occupation, ie. Israel. Naturally HR is very keen to draw attention to the 8%. And as the article HR quote says,

It is an awful way to live. It is more awful still that so few know, or care about it.

And HR cares not one bit for vast majority of the awfulness suffered by Palestinian Christians. But it is only too happy to use them for its own mendacious purposes.

February 11 Media Critique: “ Success: Guardian Removes One-Sided Video”

Well, clearly I credited The Guardian with a bit more backbone than it has, when I said,

But no doubt many brain-dead HR readers will fire off their mistakenly outraged emails to The Guardian where they will be deleted with wonderment at the credulity of the HonestReporting zombies.

I also wrote to The Guardians Readers Editor to ask how they deal with a barrage of emails from an orchestrated campaign like HRs. Siobhain Butterworth will apparently be dealing with the issue in her next column. Should be interesting.

This incident highlights the difficulty faced by serious newspapers in responding to readers concerns when there are pressure groups who knowingly exploit this new trend to increase responsiveness to readers. Given that much content is now freely available, groups like HR can encourage people to send complaints about particular media outlets who they would never read, about articles they don’t bother to read. This latest incident is a case in point. It’s safe to assume that many HR zombies would never read The Guardian as a matter of principle, believing it to be one of those guilty of “anti-Israel media bias”. And they can't have read The Guardians coverage of the Dimona bombing, only HRs email, to call it "one-sided".

It’s a tough situation for editors, one deliberately exploited by the unscrupulous, like HR.


Update:
The Guardian Readers Editor's weekly post is up on CiF.

February 6 Media Critique: “Guardian Video: One Minute, One-Sided”

“A Guardian video serves as a Hamas propaganda piece.”

How it does this isn’t too clear. The video features one short statement from a PA and a Hamas spokesperson. In addition, the bombing was carried out by a splinter group of Fatah, making HR’s claim rather odd.

It’s “one-sided” according to the habitually dishonest bunch at HR,

No comment from Israeli sources, such as the brave policeman who shot the second suicide bomber before he could detonate himself, or any of the injured victims of the attack.

Why is The Guardian promoting such one-sided material on its website and why does it prioritize giving a mouthpiece to a terrorist organization justifying its latest atrocity?

Again, HR lie. The first 20 seconds of the video show aftermath footage, with a scrolling caption providing statements from Israeli police and local media.

But the big lie by HR is an omission, and as usual, a very deliberate one. HR provide the video link alone in it’s “media critique”, while over in the world of reality at The Guardian, the video appeared only as a link within their main story on the event, ‘Israel faces constant war, says Olmert'.

The Guardian story quotes Israeli PM Olmert, twice, one being the entire headline, an Israeli eyewitness, an Israeli Govt spokesman and Israeli police are indirectly quoted. There are no direct quotes from any Palestinians, but there are 2 references to statements made by Palestinian groups.

The “one-sided” video is in fact only an adjunct to the main story that provides extensive Israeli perspective on the bombing. HR dishonestly tries to present the video in isolation from the context in which The Guardian presented it, enabling it to fabricate the “one-sided” charge.

But no doubt many brain-dead HR readers will fire off their mistakenly outraged emails to The Guardian where they will be deleted with wonderment at the credulity of the HonestReporting zombies.