dis-HonestReporting

March 3 Media Critique: “BMJ's Bad Medicine”

2009-03-09T07:26:00.000-07:00

“HR does its own research following the BMJ's attack.”

Doesn’t it just. You know what’s coming right?

HR employs a deeply impartial doctor of its own to whip up some figures and prove the bias at BMJ. This would be better titled 'HR’s Bad Faith'.It’s a sad and desperate attempt at diverting attention from HR’s bullying tactics.

HR’s resident scientific genius “Dr Simon Fishman” works his statistical magic to prove again that there are ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’. That a bit of crude manipulation was applied to get the desired ‘proof’ could hardly be more obvious. But as I said in the last post, it’s all about cultivating outrage.

Dr Fishman, scientifically combs the literature for articles on a range of conflicts: Bosnia Sudan, Palestine, Rwanda and then comes up with a self-serving measure that will deliver the result HR wants – deaths per citations / year. The lower the score the more attention , citations per death wise, the conflict has garnered. Naturally the result is awful, simply awful.

The poor Rwandans score only 40,000, Bosnians 2000. And the all important number- Palestinians – 13. Yes, thirteen. My god, can’t you just smell the BMJ bias!!

HR can,

The evidence clearly shows that the BMJ has a disproportionate interest in Palestinian deaths over those from other conflict areas where the impact on public health is certainly as great and potentially greater….. This bias is consistent with its attacks on the so-called "Israel lobby".

What’s wrong with this? Well for a start, when I searched BMJ I came up with more cites than HRs resident expert did. I suggest next time he try alternative search terms like “Kosovars” and “Albanian” on the Bosnia search and you’ll get quite a few more results.

But that’s a quibble. The whole deaths / citations /yrs measure is nonsense. HR even say so themselves,

articles in medical journals examining a whole range of genuine healthcare issues such as the psychological effects of war on….., HIV testing……….and other studies that are not necessarily focused on death tolls from such conflicts

So, why chose deaths?. Simple - it gives a lower score for Palestinians. And restricting it to just a 4 year period decreases that number further.

A far more revealing measure of attention would be in citations per year. Now a higher number indicates more ‘interest’.

You’ll see why HR doesn’t use this more accurate gauge of ‘interest’.

Citations/year - Rwandans 20, Bosnians 4, Palestinians 7.

Hhmmmmm.

But even that is a little unfair as I used date range of HRs ‘expert’. If you bother to look, you’ll see some Palestinian articles predate 2000 as the conflict obviously does. To be fair, the years should go from the starting date up to the present, as journal articles continue to appear after the conflicts themselves have ended. I’ll use 1989 as the year for the start of the I-P conflict though it would be perfectly reasonable to use 1967.

Citations /year - Rwandans 1.3, Bosnians 1.1, Palestinians 1.45 (using1967 – 0.725)

Hey, anybody seen where my bias went? Amazing how a ‘bias’ factor of over 3000 can just melt away when a little scrutiny is shone on it.

But it gets better. In testimony to the mathematical genius of HR, their Sudan figure of 0 BMJ cites for 188,000 deaths is expressed as “negligible”. Someone ask their primary school child to do the maths on that one for them. Morons. See it for yourself and have a good laugh.

HR opened this one with one of their favourite techniques for cultivating outrage, the misleading selective quote,

From HR,

Indeed, the BMJ has gone way beyond its own mission statement:
'To lead the debate on health, and to engage, inform, and stimulate doctors, researchers and other health professionals in ways that will improve outcomes for patients.
To achieve these aims we publish original scientific studies, review and educational articles, and papers commenting on the clinical, scientific, social, political, and economic factors affecting health'.

Wonder what else the BMA (who owns the BMJ) has to say about its' publication,

The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of the BMJ. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BMJ policy. The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Oh.

Feb 25 ‘Media Critique’: "British Medical Journal Attacks HonestReporting"

2009-03-09T06:21:00.000-07:00

“The BMJ falsely accuses HonestReporting of attempting to stifle debate and freedom of speech.”

Surely not!

HonestReporting, in denying the charge, neatly demonstrates its methods of doing precisely that.

First, it’s worth remembering that HRs primary weapon is to deluge the offending media outlet with angry emails and the tactic it employs to achieve this is - cultivating outrage.

It’s no mere carelessness, inattention to detail, or stupidity that leads HR to consistently fill it’s "Media Critiques" with ‘errors’, which range from simple exaggeration to deliberate misrepresentation and outrageous falsehood. A calm considered and accurate assessment of any media fault is hardly going to motivate a large number of people to email a newspaper or media outlet. What fills the inboxes is anger, outrage. And, as has been repeatedly demonstrated here, when there is nothing to be particularly outraged about, HR are happy to facilitate the process by liberal application of dishonesty.

Take the BMJ articles.

HR says,

In its latest edition, the BMJ devotes some five articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) reviewing the "perils of criticizing Israel"…..

Well, not 5 exactly. Jonathon Freedland take a broader approach and looks at a number of controversial issues and the extreme reactions they provoke from a noisy minority. One of the 5 has absolutely nothing to do with “the perils of criticizing Israel”. Just the opposite. It’s an article from a doctor practicing in Israel about his BMJ blog on work in southern Israel.

But, hey, who cares about accuracy when you know that saying all 5 articles are on “the perils of criticizing Israel” cultivates more outrage and will lead to more emails.

To top it off HR go for some inversion,

Those who accuse the organization of stifling debate are actually the ones seeking to suppress the voices of our readers – the people who express themselves through emails to editors.

Yes, the BMJ criticizing a group that orchestrates an email campaign that leads to people writing abusive and bigoted emails where they demonstrate that they haven’t even the read the BMJ articles they attack, is actually the BMJ suppressing the ‘readers’ of HR.

Back

2009-03-09T02:26:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've been having a break from the cess-pit that is HonestReporting.

Normal service is now resumed.

January 15 'Media Critique': "Media 'War Crimes'

2009-01-16T16:06:00.000-08:00

HR gets back to some of it's old tricks in just plain old fabrication.

Human Rights Watch has condemned Israel for allegedly using white phosphorus weapons unlawfully in the conflict ......media including The Guardian, Times of London, Christian Science Monitor and CNN have repeated HRW's claims

What, the media has reported claims!! The nerve of them. Will HR demand that they also stop reported the claims of IDF spokesmen?

However, this charge has been disputed by the International Red Cross, which stated that it had no evidence to suggest that white phosphorus is being used improperly or illegally by Israel.

They then provide an excerpt from an AP story quoting an ICRC expert. But they leave out an important point he made,

However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza........

And the BBC,

Yet again, journalistic professionalism is thrown out of the window in the BBC's desperate attempts to attack and sully Israel

How?

The article states that "BBC journalists in Gaza and Israel have compiled detailed accounts of the claims." Who are these BBC journalists in Gaza? On the basis that foreign press have not been allowed access to Gaza, one can only assume that these supposedly neutral observers are, in fact, Palestinians

OMG! The BBC actually takes the word of Palestinian journalists and reports the views of Palestinian eyewitnesses. Don't they know that all Arabs are liars?

Don't you just love the smell of bigotry in the air in the morning?

Which takes us back to the white phosphorous story. HR continued by noting a Ynet news story claiming that one Hamas mortar that landed in Israel contained white phosphorous. The story quoted a 'security chief' from a regional council. Though HR hasn't the slightest doubt about the word of "this supposedly neutral observer" who is, in fact, Israeli [cue: audible intake of breath].

January 13 'Media Critique': "Media Gives Platform to Radical Doctor "

2009-01-16T15:22:00.000-08:00

HR are having a fit over Mads Gilbert, a doctor currently working in Gaza. He's given quite a few interviews, prompting HR to screech,

Why does the media continue to quote propagandist Mads Gilbert?

Probably because he's witnessing the scenes that Israel is blocking the media from seeing for themselves.

And "propagandist" - oh, HR mean that he says things that HR doesn't like.

Having no basis to criticise what he actually says, HR go for the personal attack from, can you believe it, Melanie Phillips,

He is a political activist and member of the Norwegian Maoist 'Red' party.

And HR, ever the unintentional practitioners of extreme irony, tell us about their online petition,

The petition stated, "I call on the media to provide balanced, objective coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and not rely on information from Hamas - a terrorist organization - as a source of news. I demand that the use of images and headlines that misrepresent current events to the detriment of the State of Israel be stopped immediately."

It's hilarious to see a stridently partisan and dishonest mob like HR demanding "balanced" and "objective coverage" - the very last thing that they actually want, evidenced by the attack on Mads Gilbert.

As HR consistently demonstrate, any thing that is to "the detriment of the State of Israel " is, by definition, a misrepresentation. The logic of this statement suggests that HR would be quite OK with anything that might "misrepresent the current situation" to the benefit of Israel, ie Israeli propaganda. I'm sure they didn't mean to suggest this, but it is obviously true, as they show with every 'Media Critique'.

Naturally, while Hamas is not a valid source of information, HR will continue to take the word of IDF spokesmen as the word of God.

January 11 Media Critique: "Israel at War - Day 15 "

2009-01-16T15:05:00.000-08:00

Unlike the rest of the international media, The Jerusalem Post reports that the IDF has denied firing on a UN aid truck on Thursday

That's right, the rest of the world got it wrong, only that paragon of fearless reporting, The JPost, got it right.

A pity that HR don't tell us where JPost got their truth from.. Let me - its hot tip came from an unnamed MDA source who said that an Israeli soldier told him.

OK.

Media outlets, while distinguishing between Israeli civilian and military casualties have failed to do the same on the Palestinian side

For which HR gives not a single exmaple. And that would be becuase there aren't any.

More of the usual rubbish from HR, yet again reminding us that they will complain about anything that is less than 100% in agreement with their strident pro-Israel position.

January 5 'Media Critique': "Coming Soon? Hamas' Media Massacre"

2009-01-06T15:33:00.000-08:00

"When will Hamas and the media create a new libel?"

Another compelling media critique from HR.

As abysmal as this is, HR manage to make it worse with their comments on this rather sensible BBC piece.

But why does the BBC's Paul Reynolds consider the Israeli message to be
"propaganda?" And why does he treat IDF video sources with such skepticism

Why?? Ah, let me count the reasons, 1, 2,.....etc etc

It's a measure of HRs fierce commitment to fighting bias that it is shocked that the official pronouncements of the IDF could be described as "propaganda". Don't these stupid journalists realise that only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth passes from the pure lips of IDF spokesmen?

January 1 'Media Critique': "Israel at War - Day 6"

2009-01-05T14:13:00.000-08:00

HonestReporting make much of their professed goal to fight bias and keep the media honest.

And I'm all for impartiality and fairness.

But could you take advice regarding bias and impartiality from an organisation that, without the slightest hint of irony, sends out the following as part of its 'media critique'.

As rocket attacks escalate on Israel, so does the media war

There's a 'media war'?

Apparently so, and HR sees itself as one of protagonists marshaling its on-line troops.

HonestReporting and HR UK will be combining to bring you regular Special Alerts............and how to get involved in the online battle.

Then, eschewing even the faintest pretense of subtlety,

HELP US WIN

December 29 'Media Critique': "Israel at War: A Primer"

2008-12-29T14:23:00.000-08:00

Well that was quick, though it isn’t a 'Media Critique’, but rather a pre-emptive strike. The faithful need to be inculcated on the received truth so they recognise evil media bias when they see it.

There’s a huge selection to choose from but I’ll just pick out a few of the most glaring.

Israel left Gaza in 2005, giving Palestinians the chance to run their own lives. Despite this, more than 6300 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel since then.

Just forget the fact that post-withdrawl the Palestinians announced a one month cessation of all rocket fire, in which to lift the blockade on Gaza. Israel responded by tightening the blockade. The Palestinians chance to run their lives in Gaza does not extend to control of its borders, coast or air-space, all of which are controlled by Israel.

The deterioration in the situation is the direct result of Hamas policy. It violated the calm, is firing against and attacking Israeli citizens, and is investing all its resources in arming itself and gathering power

Nevermind that during the "ceasfire" dozens of Palestinians were killed by Israel in Gaza.

If Hamas would renounce the path of terror, there would be no need for the Israeli action. Quiet will be answered with quiet, but terror will elicit a response.

Don’t expect anyone to suggest that Israel renounce the path of violence, or withdraw its illegal settlements from Palestinian territory.

The goal of the Israeli military action is to strike the growing infrastructure of terror and ability of Hamas and its allied organizations to launch missiles and mortars at Israeli citizens and carry out terror attacks

That’s why so many of the dead are police officers. One strike killed a dozen traffic police. No more parking tickets of mass destruction.

Hamas has demonstrated its increased threat as the Ashdod area was hit by rockets, marking the northernmost point where Hamas rockets have reached, more than 40km north of Gaza.

Which where launched on Dec 28, the day after Israel killed over 200 in Gaza to prevent rocket launches. Gotta love that prevention.

The terrorist organizations work out of the Palestinian population centers and cynically exploit them, so the responsibility for Palestinian civilians getting hurt rests on their shoulders. Israel, for its part directs its activity at terrorist elements and does its utmost to refrain from harming the innocent.

This is the lamest of apologetics and is in direct contravention to the Geneva Conventions. Even id these claims are true they do not absolve Israel of its responsibilities. And hasn’t anybody told HR? – the whole of Gaza is a "population centre", a very dense one and the dropping of large bombs in such areas will kill innocent civilians.

There’s much more along the same vein. I’d imagine that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been busy providing ~~propaganda~~ ~~hasbara~~ a list of talking-points to counter the natural reaction Israels spectacle in the Gaza Strip will provoke amongst normal people.

December 24 `Media Critique’: "BBC's Christmas Odyssey"

2008-12-28T15:40:00.000-08:00

It’s time for HonestReporting’s yearly attempt at the evil-media-using-Christmas-to-attack-Israel story.

It’s a very poor effort, but at least it’s a change from this regular routine .

This is the moderately interesting BBC story from Aleem Maqbool.

The gist of HRs complaint is this,

Unfortunately, he over-romanticizes the Palestinians while portraying the IDF in a sinister light, exerting a strong but subtle bias.

Which means that he spoke to real live Palestinians and heard their stories in their own words.

Maqbool was also guilty of conspiring with "extremist[s]", a certain George Rishmawi who is a co-founder of the ISM. He’s apparently an extremist because the ISM volunteers have,

placed themselves in front of Israeli Army vehicles, removed concrete boundaries from roads

That would make Gandhi an extremist too.

Then there is more on his "subtle bias",

Maqbool doesn't directly attack Israel. He doesn't have to. The bias in his diary is much more subtle

HR says "Israelis are portrayed as malevolent:", citing this example,

From al-Badhan, the "Journey of Death" trail started. It is called that, not just for its long, steep, rocky climbs, or the fact that Israeli snipers frequently use the mountain tops ...

HR don’t dispute the fact of the statement. Is it true? Yes, it certainly is. So it’s HR who designate the Israeli snipers as "malevolent". I won’t disagree.

And on and on it goes in the same tortured fashion.

I’d like to think that this is last time this year that I’ll have to wade through the sewer that is HR, but given the events of yesterday, I’m sure there’s at least one more malodorous ‘Media Critique’ on the way before 2009.

Round Up

2008-12-26T14:41:00.000-08:00

Here’s a quick review of what I’ve ignored over the past month.

On November 30 we were treated to Honest Reportings take on the Mumbai terrorist attack. It was a long- winded diatribe on one of HRs favourite subjects – demanding that the media use the ‘t’ word. ‘Militants’ and ‘gunmen’ aren’t good enough for HR.

Their stance is rather undermined by the fact that just back in October they were complaining about the media describing Israeli settlers as ‘militants’ for their politically motivated violence against Palestinians. Did it demand the 't' word? HR, being ever fair and principled in these matters, advised that they were just "young hooligans".

And on December 15 a further reprise of the monumentally underwhelming issue of the Iranian Press TV. Now it has extended its broadcasts through Sky TV.

But the real issue in this ‘Media Critique’ was a subsequent section titled "Gaza: More 'Blame Israel' ". This is quintessential HR in all its dishonest glory.

HR start with this,

While the suffering of Gaza's Palestinians is not in dispute…

And immediately demonstrate their sincerity in the very next sentence,

There have been many stories published concerning alleged shortages in Gaza….

And then,

many Gazans have become addicted to readily available prescription drugs to help them through difficult times. Is this the same Gaza that has been 'denied' medical supplies?

Not to mention the previous claims that power cuts in Gaza are actually due to Hamas conducting a media campaign.

So, to summarise, HR don’t deny that Palestinians in Gaza are suffering….........from an abundance of goods from Egypt, addiction to prescribed medications and over zealous PR.

Nov 24 ‘Media Critique’: “Alibhai-Brown's Media Outrage”

2008-11-29T06:45:00.000-08:00

HonestReporting are in a spin over this in The Independent. An accurate if somewhat mild take on the situation , which of course outrages HR into a fit of spinning.

Contrary to Alibhai-Brown's accusations, food aid and medical supplies have been allowed into Gaza

‘Have’ being the operative word. For the edification of the reader, HR direct them to a impartial observer for clarification of Alibhai-Brown's calumny – an Israeli Govt website.
Here’s the story – Israel refused all crossings from Nov 5 to Nov 16. Some trucks were allowed through on the 17 th, then closed again till “As recently as today (Nov. 24), the Gaza crossings have been reopened for supplies.” But unfortunately, as recently as the day after (25th) they closed again.

But it’s all the Palestinians fault anyway,

crossing points have only been shut due to persistent Palestinian rocket attacks

See, they fired rockets on the 5th, so Israel had no choice. Nevermind the why of it. Oh heck, I’ll tell you anyway. On the 4th the IDF invaded Gaza and killed a few Palestinians. Minor detail. Anyway, I’m sure you can see that then cuting off food and medical supplies to 1.5 million people, of about which 800,00 are children, for 11 days is quite a reasonable response. It’s not like that would be collective punishment against a civilian population, which would be a breach of international humanitarian law or a war crime.

And they let the trucks in, 33 of them on the 17th. That’s a lot. Never mind that the UN says 15 trucks are needed everyday to maintain a miniumum supply of humanitarian aid.
Let’s see, the crossings were closed for11 days up to the 17th, 11 days x 15 is...........you know, 33 is a lot of trucks.

And,

Contrary to Alibhai-Brown's charge regarding power cuts, even the Palestinian Authority has accused Hamas of staging the latest blackouts in the Gaza Strip

Contrary to HR’s unsupported assertions, Israels restrictions on fuel imports results in power outages. From Nov 9, following Israels cutting of fuel deliveries since the 5th, almost half of Gaza was without any electricity for 2 days. And in Gaza, no electricity means no water.

There was more, but it made less and less sense as it went on,

Alibhai-Brown aptly demonstrates this demonization in her concluding paragraph, where a parable with the horror of the Nazi Holocaust is impossible to ignore:

‘Parable with’? This was Alibhai-Browns ‘parable’,

Evil happens when the world says and does nothing. That a Jewish state expects no condemnation of the evil it perpetrates shows that nothing is learnt from history.

Cue: mock outrage.

Nov 18 ‘Media Critique: “CNN: One Year Analysis”

2008-11-19T01:34:00.000-08:00

There seems to be a bottom less pit of stoopid at HonestReporting.

We have yet more banal allegations of media 'bias'. Not that we should expect anything less. Some dopey sod is throwing cash at this venture, so they have no choice but to keep churning out the claims.

CNNs turn today.

I'd like to give a rational and logical rebuttal of HRs methodology, but, as usual, they don't provide one. The best we can do is to infer.

HR have looked at "hundreds of videos" from CNN, and selected 53. We don't know which ones they viewed and have little idea of the basis for choosing those selected. And HR certainly don't provide the list of those they claimed to have analysed.

They do however give a highly technical description of their video analysis. Videos are assessed as "favouring" one perspective over another. Alas, HR fail to provide a definition. HR correct for this by the careful application of very precise numbers. Hence, 67 mins of CNNs video coverage 'favours' Palestinians compared to only 31 for Israel.
This figure is arrived at via the highly sophisticated ‘stop watch’ test. In the complete absence of real bias, or any interest in doing the necessary intellectual work to do a real analysis, HR time the videos. If there's a second more footage of Palestinians than Israelis, it's biased. This is stupid in just so many ways. Remember this is TV. Visual content is priority No1. Scenes of death and destruction are visually interesting. HR are unhappy that there was more time spent on the scenes of destruction than on Israeli Govt talking heads. Balance isn't a crude measure of equal time, but about fairly and accurately presenting the various perspectives on an issue.

If I may be so cynical, can I suggest that anything HR perceives as 'favouring' Palestinians or reflecting “negatively on Israel”, is simply a failure to adhere to the 100% Israel right or wrong prejudices of HR. In which case, 70% of CNN video footage failing to meet the HR standard of compliance is probably a tad conservative.

And of course there are the usual factual errors and misrepresentations.
HR complains about the raw video CNN uses,

The viewer, however, has no way of knowing that these so-called "non-violent" Palestinian demonstrations are anything but. As we have documented, the goal of the protestors is often to use enough violence to provoke the Israeli soldiers into a response while the cameras are rolling.

Unfortunately for HRs argument, the “documented” case they link to is in their highly respected Backspin section. One example they give is a Palestinian youth who says something (yes, he said something) to an IDF soldier, who brutually assaults him and throws him in the back of a jeep. The journalist , in front of whom this occurs, speculates the youth might not have done this without him present. That is the kind of "violence" these nasty Palestinian protesters use to “provoke” the peace loving IDF soldiers. Oh the bias!

And,

an ‘expert’ falsely claims that Israel controls all of Gaza borders. In fact, Israel today has no presence on Gaza's border with Egypt. Yet the viewer would not know this from the report. Once again, Mark Regev voices Israel's position but is immediately contradicted by the "expert's" false statement.

Yes, Israel has no soldiers on the Rafah border, but it does indeed control it. Under the agreement with Egypt, Israel has overall control of crossing points. If Israel says no, Egypt does not allow border crossings.

HR need to get something into their thick skulls - news coverage doesn’t exist to satisfy the petulant demands of partisans, but to provide information that will allow better understanding by the public of the issues at hand.

Nov 11 ‘Media Critique’: “AFP's Staged Photo?”

2008-11-11T18:59:00.000-08:00

HR pines for the glory days of digitally enhanced images, circa the Lebanon War, but can only manage todays lame effort.

It's become quite an obsession, with the result that they are suffering from over reach – seeing what they desperately want to see.

Hint to HR - stop trying so hard, something might burst. Like your credibility. Actually that's not possible. HR has none.

Here's the photo,

For a change I'll also link to the ‘Back Spin' article itself. This is so funny, I wouldn't want anyone to miss out.

They're roped in some poor sucker, David Katz, to play the photographic 'expert' who sets about demonstrating that he doesn't have a clue. We're told that it's his "gut feeling" it's a fraud, but HR caution that there's "no smoking gun", which is otherwise known as 'evidence'. And that would be because it's just a straight photo. Our 'expert' tries the 'look at the light!' angle, but that just confirms the lack of evidence. The sun is high above, shining from the foreground and the right (as you look at the photo). Our ‘expert’ questions the lack of shadows on super-bunny, which is odd given presence of shadows on bunny on its left and underneath. I could go on, as there are so many stupid things said by our photographic expert, but I won’t bother, I’m sure you get the idea.

But really, what kind of fraud is this meant to be?? They have a photo of a guy standing on pile of rubble with his arm in the air and someone says 'hey I've got a great propaganda idea, let's photoshop a bright pink flying upside-down bunny in the middle of the photo'?

Huh?

Have a look here to see other photos from the same area that will demonstrate what a stunning propaganda coup the flying pink bunny is.

I don't know how stupid HR thinks people are, but this clearly demonstrates how stupid they are.

The inanity then continues with HR distress over “Occupied Jerusalem” and a few other storms in various teacups.

Nov 4 ‘Media Critique’: “LA Times Rehashes A Libel”

2008-11-11T18:47:00.000-08:00

A Palestinian journalist claims to have been beaten up by IDF soldiers. Reporting this is a "libel" according to HonestReporting.

How?

By following the HR rules of media analysis - all Palestinians lie, and all IDF soldiers and Israel-firsters are honest.

From that, that the article is a "libel" is amply demonstrated by HR referring to the evidence - namely, 2 references to itself, another to the slightly more sophisticated CAMERA and finally a large quote from the far-right UN Watch.

Case closed.

October 30 Media Critique: “Descent Into Durban 2”

2008-11-06T05:58:00.000-08:00

I’m not sure what the ‘media critique’ angle is here. There doesn’t seem to be one.

But, HR hate the UNs Conference on Racism, that much is clear.

“MORE HAMAS ABUSE OF HUMANITARIAN AID”

The Evil Hamas has abused Israels kindness in allowing some goods into Gaza by cunningly concealing items “under a surface” (?). The offending items were ”camouflage fatigues”. Also smuggled in were “coats, sweaters, hats”.

Without a hint of irony, the quote includes this from an unnamed Israeli “security official”

They choose to use the permits provided by Israel for the entry of humanitarian equipment for the organization's own needs

Indeed!

All right thinking people can see how deeply concerned Israel is for the Palestinian population by severely restricting the passage of goods to the 1.5 million people in Gaza, and how Hamas has a callous disregard for them by trying to get in more stuff than Israel will allow.

Disgraceful.

October 23 Media Critique: ” A Stabbing in Gilo”

2008-10-27T07:10:00.000-07:00

This version of outrage is about the worlds media having the temerity to mention a simple fact – that Gilo in southern Jerusalem is an illegal settlement. Gilo is situated in East Jerusalem captured by Israel in the 1967 war and annexed to Israel in 1993. No country recognizes the legal validity of this annexation.

Not that such pesky facts stop HR from engaging in some bizarre contortions.

Gilo, despite being over the 1967 Green Line, is certainly not a "settlement," in the most used sense of the word…..

Yeah, it’s that less used sense of the word, the one where a settlement isn’t a settlement.

Naturally, that’s not all.

“MORE FAULTY TERMINOLOGY”

Hold onto your hats, this is a HR special.

HonestReporting has regularly criticized much of the media for referring to Palestinian terrorists who target innocent civilians through suicide bombings or other acts of violence as "militants."

This is obsession No.1 at HR. They are very paticular that the media should always use the term ‘terrorist’.

They’ve even quoted US law in the past to argue their point,

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

But now,

The Economist features the criminal and violent activities of some young Israeli settler extremists, referring to them as "Jewish settler-militants" and a "militant hardcore group."

HR is most upset.

Is The Economist unable to distinguish between young hooligans and real bona fide terrorists thus creating a false equivalence?

The Economist, being consistent, refers to them as militants.

And very interestingly HR,

call on the media to practice greater precision in their terminology and to use the word "terrorist" where appropriate.

What a fine idea. And going back to the definition HR were so keen on in the past, what should we call groups of Israeli settlers who, yet again this year like every year before, engage in premeditated acts of violence against Palestinian civilians to push their political message?

I agree with HR! The Economist should have called them ‘Jewish settler-terrorists’.

One of the mis-understood “young hooligan” settlers wanting to go and have a nice chat with the Palestinian farmers.

Round-Up

2008-10-07T07:15:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting have been even more underwhelming than usual. The latest collection of limp offerings is testament to the absence of any real ‘anti-Israel media bias’.

On August 26 some obscure Canadian TV station ran a story about the on-going protests over the Seperation Wall. They mistakenly reported that 11 were killed, rather than injured. A scrolling caption was used to correct the error. This was “dismal” according to HR. Maybe a minutes nation-wide silence would have been appropriate?

Sadly, they followed this up on Sept 4 with a re-hash of that story, titled, “Just Not Good Enough”. Yawns all round.

Next, the dastardly Sky News used a file photo. Oh, the evil!

Then a really bizarre bit of self-indulgence – “HR Rejects Iranian Press TV Request” with the wonderfully pompous sub-headline – “No to cooperating with an Iranian propaganda tool.” Insight - zero.
I’m sure they were strutting around the office with their chests puffed out for a week after that.

And finally a pot-shot at a regular target, Johann Hari – “More Smears by Hari”.

Unlike the rubbish pedaled by HR, it’s a thoughtful piece, even though I’m not at all convinced by the ‘last chance’ argument.

In short – you’ve missed nothing.

August 13 Media Critique: “The Guardian: Promoting Online Terror”

2008-08-18T04:19:00.000-07:00

Yes, “promoting”, no less. Though I think they meant ‘promoting terror online’., unless HonestReporting think that this website will lead to bombs exploding on the internet.

Become a Hamas terrorist today with The Guardian!

Sadly, the truth is far less interesting.

The Guardian, here, includes a link (WARNING! : the following link may cause your promotion to the status of terrorist) to here.

This is commonly known as ‘information’, a strange concept much encountered in ‘news’. Go figure.

HR are mortified,

We have not linked to this site (pictured below) as we do not wish to generate traffic to a terrorist organization.

But they did provide this link to The Guardian’s page where the Hamas link is. Of course, you know what everybody reading the HR report did after clicking on The Guardian link, don’t you?

HR – promoting terror, by proxy, online!!

August 5 ‘Media Critique’: “Media Falls for NGO's 'Halo Effect' "

2008-08-06T04:30:00.000-07:00

Is there a writers strike?

The last few efforts from HonestReporting have been so dismal I’ve been unable to rouse myself to bother responding. First it was a rehash of the July 2 attack on the BCC. Then it was a call for the pro-Israel McCarthyism to be directed at local media.

Now,
"Why are an NGO's allegations against Israel accepted by an unquestioning media?”

The sheer stupidity makes me want to cry.

How does the media “accept" the allegations by NGO’s? By reporting them, apparently.

It’s back to Media Basics 101 for HR. Reporting is saying that "Person 1 said 'y is…..' ", as opposed to endorsing, which is “y is…..”.

When a media story provides an NGO statement/allegation as clearly coming from that organisation, that is reporting. Duh!

The problem really is that HR doesn’t want such perspectives aired in public.

And as always, HR are the complete hypocrites on the subject. Just a few weeks back HR was offering official IDF statements as reliable sources on incidents involving the IDF.

Independent NGOs are unreliable, but the IDF can be trusted……..only through the HonestReporting looking-glass where failure to be stridently pro-Israel is a sign of bias.

The substance of the story is that Physicians for Human Rights has alleged that the Israel security services are withholding medical services unless Palestinians collaborate. The only thing that would surprise me is if they weren’t. This is kind of what security services do. HRs 'critique' is mostly a lengthy excerpt from the mendacious NGO Monitor, whose long-winded waffle is best summed up as – ‘maybe it’s not true’.

That the Shin Bet use all sorts of nasty coercion to recruit informants in the Occupied Territories is way, way beyond contention.

July 16 ‘Media Critique’ : “The New York Times: A Year-Long Analysis”

2008-07-16T20:36:00.000-07:00

Here we go again. My last review of this is still, unfortunately, relevant.

And a NYT journalists comment remains particularly apt,

They don’t want you to be balanced in your coverage; they want you to portray the morality of the war as they see it.

There are just a few things worth noting.

In its six month ‘review’ HonestReporting complained that 60% of photos were “sympathetic” (according to HRs “objective”, but wonderfully unexplained, analysis). But now “Three quarters of these images evoke sympathy for the Palestinians”. For HR this is,

a clear case of bias

As I explained last time,

This is the hallmark of utterly vacuous faux-media analysis – that balance in reporting might be represented by the Golden Mean, a midpoint between 2 opposed positions. An objective reference point would be to look at casualties. Given that the ratio of deaths is about 4:1 in ‘favour’ of Palestinians, maybe an objective use of photos to portray reality would have 80% of photos evoking understanding of the Palestinian situation.

So maybe the NYT is becoming less biased, rather than more. (Note: I’m being rather generous given that the death ratio was more like 40:1 in 2007, rather than the 4:1 figure I used, which would equate to 98% of photos being sympathetic. An even more telling statistic might be how many dead Palestinians are never even mentioned in the news, compared to dead Israelis, the later figure being zero.)

HR then used a photo from Gaza showing a boy at a barbed wire fence to try to explain its point. They wrote,

The image is one portraying the depravation of the Palestinian people in Gaza

Hmmmm……surely that should’ve been “deprivation”. Crude error, or inherent prejudice showing through?

Update:

HR have amended the sentance, it now reads "The image is one portraying the deprivation of the Palestinian people in Gaza".

July 8 ‘Media Critique’: ”Humanizing the Murderer”

2008-07-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

I should be completely inured to HonestReportings hypocrisy and stupidity by now, but this latest ‘Media Critique’ was another WTF! moment.

HR is concerned over some media's coverage that placed,

emphasis on the attacker's motives to humanize him and "explain" his actions

It’s just that favourite old canard that media examination of motivation in such incidents is actually legitimisation of them. Given that the attacker was human, it’s hard to see the problem with humanisation, unless HR is suggesting that de-humanisation is the right approach? And of course HR are careful to restrict their sampling (ie distort by omission) of the media to suit their own ends. Exactly the same kind of coverage appeared in the Israeli media, eg. in Ha'aretz , YnetNews, and even in the Jerusalem Post, from which HR quoted an excerpt of an article that is critical of other media for exploring motives! It’s comedy (or hypocrisy) central. But you can’t sell this as ‘anti-Israel media bias’ if the Israeli media is doing precisely the same thing, so HR carefully avoid mentioning this. The HR sheep may be quite dim, but it would be too much to expect even of them that their credulity could stretch so far as to swallow that.

But nothing HR say can be taken at face value. Outraged over attempts to “explain” murderous actions today, while yesterday it was a very different story………November 2002 and UNRWA employee, Iain Hook, is killed by the IDF in Jenin.

An innocent unarmed man is killed. Knowing how much HR detest “humanizing the murderer” or even any attempt to "explain" it, their ‘Media Critique’ of that day laments that “media outlets have failed to report the Israeli side of this story”.

And remember HRs whine just 6 days ago about the BBC headline?

the latest BBC headline "Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem", is also fundamentally flawed, failing to attribute the attack to the Palestinian individual who carried it out. Instead it refers to an inanimate machine as the instigator. Of course, the bulldozer did not carry out its actions of its own free will.

So, how did HR describe the murder of Iain Hook ?

United Nations worker Iain Hook was killed by an IDF bullet

Ah, that would be the bullet of free will.

According to HRs standards of 6 days ago this was “fundamentally flawed’, “shocking” and “despicable”.

July 2 ‘Media Critique’: “Caught: BBC's Shocking First Response to Terror Attack”

2008-07-07T06:07:00.000-07:00

“We catch the BBC's despicable first headline before it gets changed”, shriek HonestReporting.

What was it?

Israel bulldozer driver shot dead

HR offer this weird explanation,

we were able to catch the BBC before it amended its headline, this example offers further evidence of the BBC's mindset - the initial instinct to portray Israel as an aggressor and a Palestinian as a victim even if that Palestinian was actively involved in a terrorist attack against innocent civilians.

“Shocking”, “despicable”……quick, someone get the smelling salts.

Where on earth they see “Israel as an aggressor” and “Palestinian as a victim” in that 5 word headline is anyone’s guess. Fevered imagination perhaps?

And of course they had the benefit of writing this ‘Media Critique’ many hours later when all the facts were known. And naturally, the updated BBC headline was also reason to complain. But, hey, that’s just what they do.

June 29 Media Critique :”Tell the Truce”

2008-06-30T06:18:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting is concerned that the coverage of Palestinian ceasefire violations since June 24 is insufficient.

In the past, the media has failed to properly report on Palestinian terror and provocations against Israel, instead waiting to report on Israeli responses and counter-terror measures, thus portraying Israel as the sole aggressor. Will the same thing happen this time?

The answer may very well be in the affirmative if the international media has failed to cover these serious violations of the ceasefire over the past few days:

The BBC,

led with alleged Israeli violations, waiting until the third paragraph to mention Palestinian rockets and mortars:

AP,

in a fit of chronological inversion, employed the headline: "Israel closes Gaza, Palestinians fire mortars"

And The Guardian,

failed to make it clear that Israeli operations in the West Bank are not in violation of the ceasefire.

What can possibly explain the BBCs and APs bizarre take on events? Maybe it is the fact that on June 23, the IDF shot a 67 yr old Palestinian farmer in the Gaza Strip. Yes, June 23 - that’s the day before June 24, when the Palestinians violated the ceasefire.

Isn’t it strange how HR has no interest in the June 23 event, preferring to ‘portray Palestinians as the sole aggressors’. Perhaps feeling the need defend against reality, HR make this pitiful defence of Israels initial violation of the ceasefire,

Irrespective of the veracity of an unnamed "UN source" (many Palestinians are employed by the UN in Gaza, including Hamas members), why will the BBC not recognize that there is no moral equivalence between rocket and mortar attacks on the western Negev and the firing of warning shots by an IDF wary of potential terrorist activities near the border fence?.

Yes, irrespective of the truth………sums up HR perfectly.

June 6 ‘Media Critique’: “BBC Reporter: Genuine Eyewitness or Palestinian Propagandist?”

2008-06-09T02:07:00.000-07:00

Yet again, HonestReporting goes for the hard news, this time a story from the BBCs ‘From Our Own Correspondent’.

HR are deeply concerned that the facts of this story were reported differently in different media outlets.

Maqbool appears to be describing the death of Palestinian terrorist Omar Abdel-Halim CAMERA, however, investigated media coverage of this incident and discovered countless contradictions between the accounts of so-called Palestinian "eyewitnesses", Palestinian NGOs and media outlets, which could not even agree on the correct name of the terrorist.

But, true to form, HR then refer to an IDF press release on the incident. I think we’re meant to see this as an injection of objectivity and fact.

Let’s just get some perspective here. This is the same IDF that routinely lies and covers-up its actions in relation to the killing of Palestinians. Israeli human rights organisation, B’Tselem, had proof of IDF mendacity mailed to it in 2001 after it had requested an investigation into the IDF shooting of 3 children (1 was killed).

B'Tselem obtained internal documents from the office of the Military Advocate General which reveal how the military cleared the soldiers who caused the death of an eleven year-old Palestinian boy, covered up the incident, refrained from opening an investigation by the Military Police, and issued a false statement regarding the circumstances of the death.

The documents that the IDF mistakenly sent B’Tselem include a discussion of the various false explanations (after discovering the IDF soldiers had indeed deliberately shot the children with a tank-mounted machine gun) they could offer B’Tselem and which were most plausible.

Lawrence of Cyberia also offered a taste of the IDFs mendacity in its ‘investigations’.

So, this is the organization whose statement HR offer for objective comparison to media reports.

Propagandists? Indeed.

May 22 ‘Media Critique’: "Al-Dura Trial: Karsenty Wins in Paris”

2008-05-26T05:31:00.000-07:00

Yet again we visit HonestReportings current favourite conspiracy – the shooting of Mohammed Al-Dura.

In what must be considered an exemplary display of mass stupidity, the story is all over the stridently pro-Israel blogosphere where a French courts over-turning of Phillip Karsenty’s libel conviction is being described as proving that “al- Dura [is] a hoax!’. No, it’s not. It’s a French courts interpretation of what constitutes libel under French law. The decision seems to be that Karsenty was deemed to have made good faith criticisms that could not be seen as libelous. Karsenty no longer has to pay his 1 Euro fine. Until the likely appeal.

Not that you can blame them. It’s certainly a good tactic to focus on a single prominent incident where doubt can be cultivated, and so ignore the pile of bodies where there is no doubt.

It’s worth remembering that Mohammed al-Dura died two days into the Second Intifada, and while HR and others like to pretend that this was the start of the violence, the truth is that by September 30, 2000, Israeli forces had already killed 8 unarmed Palestinians. Two years later the number of dead children was 270. Ha'aretz noted in October 2002,

IDF bullets killed 231 Palestinian children. That is, 85 percent of the children who were killed were shot. An accusation that has been appearing in all the reports published by human rights organizations in Israel and internationally is that IDF soldiers are "trigger-happy" and that during the suppression of demonstrations and various kinds of protest actions, in which children also participate, the IDF "employs exaggerated force that is deadly and disproportionate."

Israels apologists will continue to focus on any doubt they can, to ignore this reality. Take another uncontested example. You’ve probably never head of 7 yr old Sami Abu Jazzar. He died just 12 days after al-Dura. But it wasn’t filmed.

However, several field workers from Amnesty International did witness his murder,

On 10 October 2000 Amnesty International delegates witnessed the aftermath of a stone throwing demonstration in Rafah on the southern edge of the Gaza Strip. Israeli soldiers shot at a crowd of some 400 people, mostly primary schoolchildren, who were throwing stones at an Israeli military post. Sami Fathi Abu Jazzar was shot in the head; a live bullet entered his forehead above his left eyebrow, went through the skull diagonally and exited at the back of his head. He died the following day, on the eve of his 12th birthday. Six other children were injured by live fire in the same incident. Amnesty International delegates, including an expert in riot policing, concluded that the lives of Israeli soldiers were not in danger and that their use of lethal force was unjustified, as their position was not only heavily fortified, but there were also two wire fences between the post and the stone throwers, who were some 200 metres away. - (‘Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire” AI, 30/9/2002)

Repeatedly, Israeli forces have demonstrated their complete disregard for the lives of unarmed Palestinian civilians, including children. Mohammed al-Dura wasn’t an icon or, unfortunately, anything terribly special. He was just one of a number, a number that now stands at almost 1000 Palestinian children killed since September 30, 2000.

Update:
The tactics of the pro-Israel lobby have always struck me as a cynical public relations campaign. I was recently reading how the tobacco industry approached the thorny problem of the facts of smoking in relation to human health. The following quote from one the most infamous memo’s produced by the tobacco lobby, immediately made me think of HonestReportings “al-Dura affair” and the tactics of the pro-Israel media campaigners in general,

Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.

May 20 ‘Media Critique’: “Revising History: NY Times Op-Ed Promotes Pappe”

2008-05-22T06:54:00.000-07:00

Simple intolerance explains HonestReportings latest plaintive whines.

The past few weeks have witnessed a deluge of articles, op-eds and features surrounding the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence. Many of these have focused not on Israel itself but on the Palestinian "Nakba" or "Catastrophe"

“Many”, “focused”? Examples – 1. Which is about the only article in the NYT that does what HR claim to any significant degree, but that's proably because it's an article written about the Palestinians in relation to Israel's 60th. Elias Khoury must have had HR in mind when he wrote,

No one wishes to hear the Palestinian story.

The same day saw this published by the NYT, but the complete absence of a mention of, let alone a focus on, Palestinians is not a fact likely to perturb HR from its fictions.

Worst of all Khoury mentions the work of Illan Pappe, evoking more outraged intolerance for daring to report the views of someone HR does not agree with.

May 14 ‘Media Critique’: “Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia”

2008-05-14T06:42:00.000-07:00

Except HonestReporting manage to expose nothing.

This is really just a reaction to the self-inflicted black-eye that the other main pro-Israeli media advocacy group, CAMERA, managed to give itself.

If you haven’t heard about this, Electronic Intifada exposed a CAMERA-sponsored group that was trying to secretly infiltrate Wikipedia with the express purpose of becoming Administrators, who would then have voting rights on contentious issues relating to content. And of course, the plan was to exercise this right to ensure content was more to their pro-Israel tastes.

All very underhanded and totally against Wikipedia rules.

And according to HRs understanding of balance, a negative story about pro-Israel meddling at Wikipedia, requires the same on the other side of the fence, no matter how flimsy the attempt. The best HR can come up with is a pretty poor effort in damage control from NGO Monitor. They try to suggest that 2 publicly known groups, a Yahoo group and, even more desperately, an officially recognized and acceptable WikiProject group, where equivalent manifestations of the same problem from pro-Palestine groups.

Complete rubbish.

The Palestine groups are quite honest and up-front. The CAMERA effort was secretive (though eventually uncovered) and deeply dishonest. The group expressly discussed ways to disguise their real agenda until they became administrators and could exert their pro-Israel influence on content.

I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if there were similar elements from HR exercising their intolerance and prejudices at Wikipedia.

May 11 ‘Media Critique’: “Hari Seeks to Smear HonestReporting”

2008-05-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

How so (Hari's response here)?

HonestReporting critiqued Johann Hari's op-ed in the Independent, systematically exposing the many distortions, omissions and Hari's reliance on fringe revisionist sources and individuals.

Distortions. Nasty. Pity HR didn’t take the opportunity to explain its own monstrous distortion of Hari’s story when it fabricated this - “Hari compares Israel to excrement”.

Hari never even suggested this. HR’s silence on its own appalling transgression of basic standards of honesty says it all.

HR point to another op-ed in The Independent to defend them. Howard Jacobson writes

Indeed, accusing your detractors of carrying out a campaign often amounts to carrying out one in return - for it is a smear in itself to accuse people who disagree with you of acting out of no other motive than malice. He who says I smear him when I don't smears me.

Unfortunately for HR, Howard constructs a defence one could drive a truck through…sideways. See, Hari didn’t criticize HR for no reason other than malice, but because HR misrepresented what he wrote by falsely claiming, amongst other things, that “Hari compares Israel to excrement”, . He didn’t. That was dishonest. A fabrication. A lie.

Yes Howard, it was, by your definition, a smear. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not content with that fairly crude and transparent bit of sophistry, Howard had more pearls of wisdom,

Something else doesn't feel quite right to me about Johann Hari's unearthing of this "campaign", and that is his assertion that "it is an attempt to intimidate and silence – and to a large degree it works". To my ear, that answers intimidation with intimidation, since it impugns the intellectual honour of those of whom he speaks, and coerces us into thinking the worst of them. Furthermore, it is patently untrue that "intimidation" has worked. Johann himself is demonstrably not intimidated. Nor is it easy to see who else is.

Well Howard, if Hari had written ‘it totally works’, you might have a point.

And how dare Hari impugn the "intellectual honour” of those who fabricated the allegation against him by pointing out the fabrications, and “coerce” us into thinking that telling lies about others isn’t right. Thanks Howard, that has to be one of the biggest piles of horse-shit dressed up in pseudo-liberal garb that I’ve heard in quite some time.

Intimidation? – it’s Hari’s that seems most problematic to Howard. HR lie about Hari’s writing, asking its readers to complain based on the lies, and they oblige, sending many letters demanding Hari be sacked. Johann shame on you for your intimidation!

Needless to say, neither HonestReporting, nor its erstwhile defender, Howard, have uttered a single syllable about HRs fabrication of the “Hari compares Israel to excrement” lie.

May 7 ‘Media Critique: “The BBC's Birthday Present to Israel”

2008-05-10T07:06:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting’s whine is now about a BBC film that most people can’t even watch (it is only available in the UK).

It’s especially problematic as it was produced by the BBC’s Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen. Bowen is one of the best Middle East journalists going around. He’s knowledgeable, experienced, and worst of all from HRs point of view, he’s not susceptible to attack from partisans demanding that his work conform to their particular prejudices.

The events leading up to the creation of the modern-day State of Israel exactly 60 years ago have been examined and re-examined by qualified historians. So why was Jeremy Bowen given the responsibility of producing the BBC's one-hour documentary "The Birth of Israel" broadcast on May 4, 2008?

As usual, you only need to go back one week to see HRs flip-flopping on matters of principle. Today it wants historians, last week it denounced Johann Hari for relying on a historian. For HR it’s all a matter of which one best suits it tastes, and Illan Pappe didn't.

What follows is a HR lesson in history – the way HR would like it reported, which is from the perspective of a strong emotional identificition with Israel. Anything else is bias, of course.

Being the reasonable types they are, HR then emplore it’s readers, most of whom will not have seen the film, to “send your considered comments to the BBC Complaints website”. Those considered comments being exactly what HR have just told them to think.

And being the stupid sheep that they are, many probably will.

April 30 ‘Media Critique’: “The Stench Spreads: Johann Hari's Stinking Op-Ed”

2008-05-02T07:31:00.000-07:00

HR are in a lather over this op-ed piece from Johann Hari.

Again, HR exhibit their anti-free speech instincts by attacking Hari for expressing his opinion, based on his experience in the West Bank. Hari saw, and smelt, at first hand the settlements discharging their untreated sewerage onto Palestinian land.

HR sum it up thus,
"Using a falsified quote and revisionist history, Hari compares Israel to excrement."

HR is back to an old favourite tactic – misrepresent a story to incite it’s readers. An angry reader is an emailing reader, firing off complaint emails with a minimum of cerebral activity. And what better way to do it than with this lie – “Hari compares Israel to excrement”. No, he didn’t. There was no comparison being made, just a recollection of the smell he experienced. HR deliberately misrepresent Hari's words immediately after complaining of "falsified quotes"! They're nothing if not audacious in their dishonesty.

And onto the “falsified quote”. Hari reproduces a quote from Illan Pappe’s 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'

The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

Pappe gives 2 sources for the quote in his book. HR refer to a letter written by Benny Morris in 2006, after Hari first used the quote, to back their claim,

……is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)……..

Forgive me if I’m not entirely convinced by Morris’s assertion when he isn’t even sure of the source of the quote. Ephraim Karsh can usually be relied upon to point out any such errors by the ‘New Historians’ if they’ve been made, but I’ve seen no reference to this by him (corrections on this point welcome).

Interestingly, HR leave out the next sentence from Morris’s letter,

It is true that Ben-Gurion in 1937-38 supported the transfer of the Arabs out of the area of the Jewish state-to-be…

The real problem for HR with this article is simply the fact that it expresses an opinion that they don't agree with, and don't want to see expressed, because it is critical of Israel.

HR - enemies of intellectual diversity and free expression.

Sadly for HR, the chances of The Independent rolling over in the face of its contrived outrage are zero.

Update:

The HonestReporting zombies aren’t known for their capacity for independent thought, but the absolute disregard for fairness, accuracy and honesty displayed by HR in this case, has even been noticed by a few of the faithful. This is from HRs own comments section,

HR, you are up in arms that Hari dared to call you dishonest and fanatical, but take a look at how you've misrepresented him here, you claim he compared Israel to excrement then quoted him

‘Whenever I try to mouth these words [of reassurance for Israel], a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of shit.’

conveniently cutting out the following sentence,

‘Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.’
which clearly shows Hari was not comparing Israel the country to excrement, but was talking about the failure of Israeli settlements to deal with their sewage properly by dumping it on Palestinian land. His point was quite clear.

……………And maybe it's time HR stopped fanatically defending everything Israel does, and perhaps put some of their time and effort into holding Israel to account where need be? Maybe a communique calling on readers to write letters to the relevant authorities in the Israeli settlements to deal with their sewage problem properly? – Alex

That'll be the day Alex!

Personally, I'm offended that HR slanted its quote in that manner. It was Dishonest Reporting; exactly the kind of "reporting” I do not look for in HR's reports.

……………..If Hari has a point, REPORT IT fully. I find that clipping a quote to be as disingenuous as anything I’ve ever seen in HR. – Beverly.

April 27 ‘Media Critique’: “Passed Over: Shorts You May Have Missed”

2008-05-02T01:15:00.000-07:00

“WASHINGTON POST: PAYING TERRORISTS?”

No.

An interesting article from Mahmoud al-Zahar in The Washington Post.

HR have tried this lame angle before. Anything to throw mud at media organizations who dare to allow non-approved opinions appear in their pages.

“HAMAS CONTINUES TO SPIN FUEL 'CRISIS' "

So Israel is not restricting fuel and other suppliers into Gaza? It certainly is, but HR show that they can spin with the best,

Despite Hamas attempts to manipulate the situation, Israel continues to allow humanitarian aid and fuel into the Gaza Strip even if the media fails to report it.

Yes, obviously they should be praised for the small amounts they continue to allow in.

“REUTERS CAMERAMAN KILLED IN GAZA: ISRAEL ACCUSED”

Accused?

There is only the dead cameramans own footage showing him being fired at by the tank, so let’s be very careful and note that this is just an accusation.

In the spirit of defending freedom of the press, a principle very dear to HR, they post a long excerpt from JPost making it clear that even if it was the Israeli tank that killed the Palestinian camerman, it was actually the Palestinians who are to blame.

It was only June last year that HR was heroically defending ‘freedom of the press’,

Freedom of the press, however, is a fundamental value and essential if the media is to report on the Palestinians, free from the threats imposed by the behavior of Palestinian terror groups and their allies.

Apparently it's not so essential when it’s the IDF killing journalists.

Anyone surprised?

“FRANCE 2 RUSHES ON YOUTUBE”

And just as I predicted, the “Al-Dura Affair”………

What Next?

2008-04-27T06:15:00.000-07:00

In lieu of any activity on the HR front, I make a not-so-bold prediction that their next ‘media critique’ will mention one of their recent favourites – the so-called ‘al-Dura affair’. This is the one where some obsessed conspiracy theorists have been dragging France 2 TV into court to make them play the unedited footage of the incident (which they have, for no outcome of note except to feed the conspiracy) . The conspiracy theorist camp however remains divided over as to exact nature of the conspiracy. Is it a), Mahommad al-Dura is actually alive and well and the whole thing was a hoax, or b), he was shot by Palestinians, not the IDF?

You’d think that these would be mutually exclusive possibilities, but it seems not, as they continue to desperately gasp at these imaginary straws.

Update: Snap! Just after posting this I checked back at HR and guess what – the lastest ‘Media Critique’ is there, and, the ‘al-Dura’ affair is in it.

I swear that I’d checked just minutes before writing this, and there was no April 27 ‘media critique’. Honest!

April 16 ‘Media Critique’: “Abbas: A "Moderate" Honoring Terrorists”

2008-04-21T05:57:00.000-07:00

HR is in a flap over this story, alledging that Mahmoud Abbas was going to bestow an award on two Palestinian women prisoners who are in Israeli jails for assisting in terrorist attacks.

HR demand to know why it isn’t covered in the mainstream media. Perhaps because it may not be true, given this in the last paragraph of the story,

PA Minister for Prisoner Affairs Ashraf el Ajami told Israel Radio on Wednesday that his ministry gave Abbas a comprehensive list of prisoners and his office chose the nominees from this list.

April 15 ‘Media Critique’: “Israel 60: The Demonization Begins”

2008-04-17T06:46:00.000-07:00

Hasn’t it just.

And in those leading media outlets, The Charlotte Observer and Bangor Daily News, of all places.

HR seem especially upset by this article, which gives a quick run down of some (just some) of the most significant Israeli misdeeds. HR try to offer some ‘explanations’ for what it describes as “supposed….criminal acts”, but it’s a pretty poor effort. The best one was the link that tried to defend the Qibya killings in 1953. It starts by referring to the killings as just a “claim” but ends by confirming the event. The ‘explanation’ is that Ariel Sharon forgot to check the houses for occupants before blowing them up with dynamite. Could happen to anyone.

The “supposed” Sabra and Shatilla – the HR link only confirms the statement in the article that Israel was guilty of “Abetting the 1982 Lebanese militia massacres”.

Mentioning Israeli misdeeds is “demonization”. I thought it was criticism.

April 7 ‘Media Critique’:”Success: Times Acknowledges Photo Gaffe”

2008-04-16T07:04:00.000-07:00

Success! Another evil media conspiracy thwarted. The Times of London says it should have put the date on the photo. A stunning victory against ‘anti-Israel media bias’.

Can you smell the delusion in the air?

What this tells us, is the true extent of media bias against Israel – there isn't any. HR has to trawl the media of the world to find a date missing on a photo.

What is much more interesting is the missing news on that same day.

The Times covered the story about a possible compensation plan for West Bank settlers located east of the Wall. But not the Peace Now report, ‘The Death of the Settlement Freeze’, that showed an increase in Israeli settlement activity since Annapolis. Nor the killing of 2 Palestinians in Gaza or the arrest of 7 others in the WB, by the IDF. Not even the commemoration of “Land Day” (the day in 1976 when Israeli security forces shot dead 6 unarmed Palestinian-Israeli protestors) to protest Israeli theft of Palestinian land. The re-confirmation of the Arab Peace Initiative only got a mention in the last paragragh of the story on the West bank settlers.

Yes, the real problem with media coverage of Israel-Palestine, is that they don’t put dates on photos and someone might get confused.

April 1 ‘Media Critique’: “Out of Context: The Times's Image of the Day”

2008-04-16T06:15:00.000-07:00

Apparently, The Times of London has a daily feature “Image of the Day” where they stick in some picture they’ve dug up from somewhere. Could be anything.

On March 31, it was a photo of a Palestinian boy in Jenin. Enough said. The usual hysterics from the HonestReporting McCarthyists follows. There is no date, so someone might think it was today!

The date of this ‘media critique’ says it all.

18/4: I should have noted this at the time, but this and the previous HR 'Media Critique' are a perfect paried example demonstrating the idiocy and cynicism of HR. The Times has erred with this photo, in it's lifestyle supplement, because it isn't dated or identified as file photo, but in immediately preceding 'Media Critique' HR make a very similar complaint about an AFP photo, even though it is clearly identifed as a "File Photo". Don't label the photo correctly - HR complain. Do - and they still complain.

I'm quite sure that even if The Times of London had labelled the photo as file footage or dated it, HR still would have complained about it. They had their back-up complaint already formulated,

Putting aside whether such a politicized image belongs in the company of cats.....

The issue isn't ethics and standards in the media, HR obviously couldn't care less, it's about attempting to fabricate an illusion that any negative perception of Israel is not a result of Israeli actions, but is a result of biased media coverage.

March 27 ‘Media Critique’: "Success: Reuters Removes Anti-Israel Blog"

2008-03-28T05:12:00.000-07:00

I almost feel happy for the poor deluded fools.

Reuters,

We use an automated “widget” that pulls in text from related blogs not published by Reuters, as a service to readers seeking a variety of views on the news. There is a disclaimer at the top of the page saying, “The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.”

No such program is perfect, and there is precedent for our removing some blogs that we don’t believe are constructive in tone. We removed this post yesterday. This is analogous to the way in which we handle some reader comments, as well. GBU Editor

HR – outraged by a widget!

But there’s more.

“REPORT ACCUSES BBC ARABIC OF ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS”

HR link to a ‘report’ on BBC Arabic by Trevor Asserson. If you haven’t had the highly questionable privilege, Trevor is the author of the ludicrous BBC Watch. As hard as it is to believe, BBC Watch is stupider than Honest Reporting.

HR and Trevor – dumb and dumber.

“AFP'S INCITEFUL PHOTO”

Whenever HR start whining about photos I get a chill. Their normal level of obtuseness is, for some strange reason, multiplied when it comes to pictures.

Here’s the AFP story.

You need to look at it to get the full impact of HRs dopiness. At least we know that HR aren't insightful.

The photo has this caption, which HR even reproduce,

File photo shows a trench being dug as part of an archaeological dig in the Al-Aqsa mosque compound

But HR then say,

AFP thus falsely gives the impression that Israel is conducting digging on this most sensitive of religious sites - a charge that has previously been used by extremists to incite Muslim violence against Israel.

Hello! “File photo”! Thick as two short planks.

“File photo” is media speak for – this is a generic photo on the topic, please don’t bother complaining, we know that the accompanying article is not in explicit reference to this photo.

Yet complain they do!

Perhaps HR didn’t notice that it's actually a series of photos . Check the second one – it’s Ariel Sharon at Al-Aqsa in 2000. Hey HR – why not complain that AFP is falsely giving the impression that Ariel was digging the tunnel ?!

Prize idiots.

March 24 ‘Media Critique’: “Reuters Promotes Anti-Israel Blog”

2008-03-28T03:17:00.000-07:00

“Why does Reuters give credibility to a one-sided and hateful blog story?”

A more relevant question is why do I subject myself to such regular doses of HRs foetid rubbish. I always feel like I should shower afterwards.

Reuters have a relatively new blog feature, that’s pulls in a range of blog posts for display on Reuters site. I think we can assume that the monkeys at HRs office have been trawling it for months looking for something to be offended by, and they’re finally struck pay-dirt. HR are outraged (as is their want), by this. Which was based on this with a few innovations like “Zionist regime” and "Apartheid wall" thrown in for good measure.

It’s “hateful and one-sided” of course.

It takes a touch of the totalitarian to be so exercised by other people’s opinion.

Nevermind that Reuters clearly identify this as a blog section and prominently display this,

The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com

HR even acknowledge this.

Never mind that HR says,

The Blogosphere contains a wealth of opinions and claims, some of which contribute to a rational debate and others which may be the personal rantings of a deranged individual

(and we know where HR stands on that continuum don't we!)

And never mind that even HR concedes news is something quite different,

While freedom of speech requires a degree of responsibility that is sometimes lacking in blogs, reputable news services are compelled to comply with much higher standards.

Despite all that, HRs criticism is,

While Reuters may not endorse the sentiments of the blog posting, it still decided to publish them on its own site, therefore giving it unwarranted credibility as a news source

You idiots, you just said blogs and news are different!

HRs tiny tantrum is really just about 2 phrases – “Zionist regime” and “Apartheid Wall”.

Notice they don’t much bother with the central claim of the blog post, the one that would concern most normal observers – that the IDF was going to use live fire against unarmed protestors. Like China does in Tibet.

But, let’s face it, that isn’t controversial. Live fire, particularly from Israeli border police, towards unarmed Palestinians is nothing new.

March 11 Media Critique: "Ending the 'Cycle of Violence' "

2008-03-19T06:45:00.000-07:00

HR suggest that the “cycle of violence” statement has been popping up in the media. I don’t much like it either, as it doesn’t explain much at all. But as is often the case when HR has a weak case, they provide no examples. All we get is a lengthy excerpt from the Jerusalem Post on the subject, also minus any examples, followed by its totally unbiased explanation of the conflict,

on the one hand, is a sovereign nation's desperate effort to live in its homeland, seek peace with those of its neighbors who will partner it,................ And, on the other, we have the forces of militant Islam, firing rockets across Israel's sovereign borders, murdering Israelis wherever they can be found vulnerable, indoctrinating their people with a vicious intolerance of Jewish historical rights in this region, and simultaneously spreading a perverted interpretation of Islam.

HR have been so uninspiring with their media whining that I couldn’t be bothered doing separate posts for these latest two. This is the March 17 version,

“Video: Islamic Jihad's Insight into Pallywood”

Islamic Jihad claim that another group has falsely taken credit for their work. The ‘media critique’ angle? Who knows.

Moving onto other ground- breaking media analysis, HR note that on Facebook (no, I’m not kidding) there is a group praising the recent Jerusalem attacks, and that members living in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank were not listed as living in Israel, but in Palestine. That’s a truth far too close to the bone.

Given that HRs output at the moment is almost coma-inducing, here’s an interesting quote from the outgoing editor of Ha'aretz, David Landau, on the issue of pro-Israel media pressure groups. He may well have had HR in mind when he said this.

In my opinion its high time that the Anglo-Jewish community in general, and the Anglo-Jewish intelligentsia, should stop devoting an inordinate amount of its pro-Israel energies to minute parsing of what the BBC or The Guardian wrote about Sderot today or yesterday or last year……….rather than helping us, Israelis, solving our existential dilemmas. The problem of Sderot and Gaza is that Israel is mortally existentially threatened - it has no long-term future - if it can’t solve the conflict with the Palestinians. Here we have a community, albeit not a large community, nevertheless a very solid and important community, in terms of Jewish life and Jewish history and Zionist history, which I think is, as I say, is being led or mis-led, to believe that if only they can impact on Alan Rushbridger [Editor, The Guardian] or the Director-General of the BBC sufficiently, they will have done something good for Israel.

March 6 Media Critique: One Year Analysis: "Reuters 2007 'Pictures of the Month' "

2008-03-09T07:15:00.000-07:00

The rocket-scientists at HR have been busy looking at pictures and they are not happy.

Having previously challenged Reuters for its objectivity in a subjectively selected group of images.....

And what a fine basis for challenge that is!

Yes, having done so with such spectacular stupidity last year, HR decided once again to assess the "objectivity in a subjectively selected group of pictures”.

we were interested in seeing if that case represented a one-time aberration, or if Reuters has a serious bias problem in its coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Really, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

62% of images provoke sympathy for the Palestinians.

But HR do just make this stuff up.

So, let’s objectively (and subjectively) look at HRs subjective assessment of the objectivity in a subjectively selected group of photos.

62%. Oh. What does it mean though? HR don’t really say. Why is 62% not OK, and what would be OK? Again, HR is mute on the subject. Let’s assume, being complete idiots, HR think 50% would be “fair and balanced” (note: this is where I get all objective.) While HR get all heated up about a simple-minded notion of balance, the real issue is representation. Is the photo selection process representative of the pool of photos Reuters had to choose from, ie did Reuters only have 15 photos of Palestinian funerals to choose from or did they have 10,000? In case anyone from HR is reading, I’ll explain it simply as possible, with the classic example from statistics; green and red coloured marbles in a jar. We grab a handful of marbles and find we have 1 red and 4 green. In this explanation of probability, the more ‘trials’ of grabbing a handful of marbles we make, the greater certainty we have of knowing what is the actual proportion of red and green marbles in that jar. If we really want to know, we’d just pour the marbles out and count them and perhaps see that the ratio was indeed 1:4. For HR, the 62% figure indicates the selection is “unbalanced’. The only thing a figure like that can tell us is if the pictures chosen are representative, and HR could only do that by viewing all the photos in the pool, which they can’t because they only have the end result, ie. the handful of marbles and no access to the jar. Perhaps in the the pool of photographs, 80% of them "provoke sympathy". We can't know.

At a subjective level, we have HRs “unbalanced” claim. They don’t tell us what is ‘balance’ so it’s a little hard to comment on, but I’ll do my best. HR uses the photos of Palestinian funerals to try and make this argument. There were 15 photos of Palestinian funerals and none of Israeli funerals. Would ‘balance’ be 7 of each perhaps? But would this be “balanced”? Let’s return to a far more useful and objective criteria – representative. We can get some of idea of this by first looking at the number of funerals. For 2007 there were 373 Palestinians killed by Israel and, I’ll assume 373 funerals. 15 photos from Rueters, makes that a photo for every 24 Palestinian funerals. And there were 7 Israeli funerals, which is less than one-third of the ‘quota’ for a Palestinian funeral picture. So while we can’t see the pool of photos that were chosen from, we can see that, objectively, the funeral photos are representative of reality. HR, not being big fans of reality, don’t see this. If we followed their assumed notion of balance and included 7 of each, photos of Israeli funerals would be over-represented 24x. Is that “balance”? For HR, the answer would probably be yes.

Which leads us on to yet another subjective question, sympathy, and a quick review of HRs highly detailed and sophisticated methodology on the topic. How do they define sympathy? They don't. What are the criteria for determining that a photo “provokes” it? They don’t say. Who made the determinations? HR are silent . I can only assume it wasn’t any of the HR staff, because being such one-eyed pro-Israel partisans, a photo of dead or crying Palestinians would elicit exactly nil sympathy. The corollary of this is that we’ll have to assume that HR guessed as to whether or not a photo “provokes” sympathy, hence the 62% figure is 100% subjective.

Brilliant work.

I think it’ fair to say that subjectively……no wait, I‘ll go out on a limb here……. that objectively reviewing HonestReportings subjective assessment of the objectivity in a subjectively selected group of pictures -

It’s 100% horseshit.

March 2 Media Critique: “Special Report: Gaza - Israel Responds to Hamas's Escalation“

2008-03-04T15:44:00.000-08:00

We know that HR are blindly pro-Israel partisans without the slightest interest in the ethics of news standards except as a tool to push their own partisan perspectives. Even so, this is an outrageous piece of utter cynicism.

Remember just 3 ‘Media Critiques’ ago? HR was on the war path because The Guardian posted a short video which included 2 statements from Palestinian spokesmen after the Dimona suicide-bombing that killed 3 Israelis. That was “one-sided” according to HR because the focus should have been on the victims and Israeli perspectives. It was also an example of “media bias” said HR.

And now that there are 112 dead Palestinians?

However, the focus on Palestinian casualties ignores the context behind Israel's actions and only tells a part of the real story.

Now the media’s flaw is that it focuses too much on victims!

You could not get a clearer picture of HonestReportings utter contempt for fairness and accuracy in reporting than this cynical flip-flopping. Now HR wants “context” and “the background”, but only the part that details “Hamas's responsibility for the violence and Israel's responsibility to defend her citizens” Of course.

There are 2 situations that are particularly prone to PR spin; complex situations and political interests. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a confluence of the two. High profile events like the situation in Gaza exacerbate this even further with the result that pressure groups like HR have their spin control set at ‘turbo’ and their interest in consistency in news coverage set at zero.

Correction: Only 1 Israeli was kiled in the Dimona bombing.

February 28 Media Critique: "LA Times 'Parallel Protests' "

2008-03-04T15:12:00.000-08:00

"Paper cannot see the difference between legitimate protest and Qassam firing."

How stupid are HonestReporting? Very. HR cannot see the difference between honest criticism of the media and blindly partisan advocacy in spite of the facts.

HRs latest complaint is based on their poor comprehension (or grasping malicious opportunism) of the grammatical rules of the English language.

As Israelis watched nervously from across the border, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip staged parallel protests Monday against the Jewish state, placing a few thousand placard-waving demonstrators along the main highway and firing 11 rockets into Israel.

Yes, it’s just this single sentence that HR is whining about. Clearly the LA Times is referring to the fact that the peaceful protests took place in several locations, ie. in parallel, at the same time, etc etc etc. For the sentence to mean what HR suggest, the LA Times would have written – ‘..staged protests in parallel with firing 11 rockets into Israel’.

Which it didn’t. This line makes it quite clear what was “in parallel”,

....the demonstrators gathered in five locations along Gaza's north-south highway.

Not that HR ever let the facts get in the way of a convenient lie.

February 20 Media Critique: ´Palestinians Living in Fear´

2008-02-20T13:48:00.000-08:00

"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”

2008-02-17T14:19:00.000-08:00

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”

2008-02-06T05:39:00.000-08:00

“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.

January 28 Media Critique: “Special Report: The Hamas Propaganda War”

2008-01-29T05:28:00.000-08:00

“How the MSM handed Hamas a PR victory.”

This is the problem with fanatical partisans like HR, they simply can’t accept that media coverage which creates a negative impression is a function of the events themselves, rather than media perfidy. Hence the following contortions as HR desperately tries to shoot the messenger.

"A 'cycle of violence'?"

I’ve no idea what the quotes are meant to indicate as HR attribute the quote to no-one.

HR attack AP for a summary of recent events that begins,

It started last week with what Israel says was the inadvertent killing of a son of Gaza strongman Mahmoud Zahar in an Israeli arrest raid.

HR fume,

Why did the media fail to add the vital context? Since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in mid-June 2007 until the end of December 2007, 475 missiles and 631 mortars were fired at Sderot and the surrounding region

But as usual, HR were being very careful with the editing to fit the story they want to tell. These are the 2 preceding sentences from the AP article that HR conveniently omitted,

Yet, a more relaxed Gaza border regime could entice Hamas to halt rocket fire, and this in turn could buy Abbas and Israel the necessary calm to make progress on a U.S.-backed peace deal. The current border crisis developed at breathtaking speed, typical of Gaza's volatility. It started last week with what Israel says….

"Who turned off the lights?"

And this is just rehash. HR can’t even find any evil media stories to demonstrate this, but just quote the esteemed Jerusalem Post ruminating on the blackout conspiracy.

Again, HR seek to strenuously avoid the basic facts to look for storms in tiny tea cups. And the basic fact is that Israel cut fuel supplies which led to the shut down of the only generator in Gaza which supplied much of the electricity to Gaza City. And Israel did this as a form of collective punishment against a civilian population, a crime under international law.

"A 'spontaneous breakout'?"

The confected allegations are now straining credulity, even for the idiots at HR.

Again we have quotes in the headline from HR, but the phrase “spontaneous breakout” doesn’t appear in the Telegraph story HR is criticising, which is about a betrothed couple who can now wed. They had been separated due to the closure of the Rafah crossing. Good to see HR tackling hard-nosed journalism in its media ‘critiques’.

That’s hard to beat for dishonesty. If any of the media that HR likes to criticise tried a stunt like that, HRs shrill denunciations would be long and loud.

" 'Starving' Palestinians and a humanitarian crisis?"

Hamas and the media conveyed the distinct impression of a humanitarian crisis as Gaza's Palestinians 'starved'.

So how many examples does HR provide of media reports claiming that Palestinians are "starving”. Zero. I think it’s safe to assume that is because that's how many they could find.

What crude sophists this lot are. Even Orwell would have trouble believing the extent of their mendacity.

To cap it all off, HR amazingly ask,

"Will the media relent?"

From what exactly, is not clear. Perhaps from not saying the kind of things that HR would wish they would say so they could accuse the media of anti-Israel basis, and so forcing HR to make it all up?

Jan 21 Media Critique: “Lights On, Nobody Home”

2008-01-24T05:09:00.000-08:00

“The media leaves the false impression that Israel has completely cut Gaza's electricity.”

Does it?

HR says so,

Today's headlines include the LA TIMES's 'Gaza dark amid Israeli blockade' and The Guardians's 'Gaza plunged into darkness as Israeli fuel blockade takes effect'. Similar headlines appear in many media outlets. You could be forgiven for thinking that Israel has cut off the entire electricity supply to the Gaza Strip.

The first 3 words of The Guardian story that HR link to suffice to demonstrate the total dishonesty of their allegation,

Parts of Gaza…..

“You could be forgiven for thinking that Israel had cut off the entire electricity supply”, but only if you are a complete idiot (or shameless liar) and don’t understand what “parts” means.

And the LA Times story,

GAZA CITY -- The Gaza Strip's only electric power plant shut down Sunday evening after Israel halted the shipment of diesel that fuels it, plunging most of this city into darkness…………….The power plant supplies electricity to 70% of Gaza City and about one-third of the Gaza Strip, which has a population of 1.5 million. ……. Officials in Gaza said as many as half of Gaza's homes were hit by blackouts Sunday.

Yes, you could be forgiven for believing what you want to believe so that you can fabricate allegations of media bias. That’s another 2 lies from HR.

And this is just plain sneaky,

Despite ongoing Qassam attacks from the territory, Israel has not switched off the electricity. In fact, Hamas itself shut down Gaza's only power station after inviting the media to watch it do so.

Nothing's wrong, Hamas just shut down the power plant for a photo op, or so HR would have its dim-witted readers believe. Yes, the power plant was shut down – before it stopped due to lack of fuel, a necessary move to prevent ‘brown-outs’ that occur as the power falls while demand doesn’t, a situation that can damage electrical equipment. (And why would it shut off the electricity? Israel sells the power to Gaza.)

HR then uses this deliberate misrepresentation to criticize other media stories for having failed to mention this alleged “fact”.

It’s a non-stop feast of self-serving fantasy from HR,

While Gazans are undoubtedly suffering, the dark picture painted by the mainstream media is different from the reality.

Perfectly reasonable, as long as you avoid actual reality, which is that the various media agencies quoted by HR have covered the story accurately by noting that Gaza receives 75% of it’s power from Israel and Egypt. HR can only make this bizarre statement by completely ignoring the content of the stories.

HR again trips over itself, and casts the truth aside, in its rushed attempt to draw attention from what Israel does, to how the media reports what Israel does. The constant refrain from HR is that there is no blockade/siege/humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by Israeli actions, it's all media bias.

Read the latest UN report and see otherwise.

January 16 Media Critique: “A Barrage of Bad Reporting”

2008-01-17T05:36:00.000-08:00

“Many media outlets fail to add significant context to a day of violence.”

A barrage of bad behaviour is more like it. HR is up to it’s old tricks, resorting to blatant lies to fabricate charges of bias.

HR says,

Too often, major media outlets downplayed the salvo of more than 40 missiles that hit Sderot that day and wounded four people.

It links to a Ynet news item which actually says,

More than 40 rockets were fired at southern communities Tuesday afternoon and evening….

Only 4 rockets hit Sderot. Lie No.1

HR then provide a list of what it calls the “worst offenders”,

Incredibly, The Scotsman failed to acknowledge the latest Qassam barrage at all, while at the same time omitting the crucial detail that the majority of those Palestinians killed in the Israeli raid were armed Hamas terrorists.

Here’s The Scotsman story doing both,

Hamas immediately stepped up its involvement in the daily barrage of rocket and mortar fire on southern Israel. While allowing other militant factions to attack southern Israeli communities with impunity, the Islamic militant group has not taken the lead in the assaults in recent months……The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said that five civilians were among the dead.

Lie No 2.

The Times of London,

muddied an otherwise good piece of reporting by not giving enough detail regarding the nature of the Palestinian casualties.

Not enough like this?

Israeli troops targeted the Hamas units that operate close to the border fence as a first line of defence. As they fought them, more Hamas fighters rushed to the scene and the fighting spread….

Clutching at straws. Lie No. 3.

Then,

in a dreadful case of moral equivalence, The Daily Telegraph's Tim Butcher makes it clear just how lightly he perceives the suffering of Israeli civilians targeted by Palestinian missiles:

It simply won’t do to note basic facts, such as that less than a dozen Israelis have been killed, while hundreds of Palestinians have. Apparently that is “moral equivalence”, which following from HR’s use, must be the assumption that an Israeli and Palestinian life are of equal worth. HR seems to think this is “dreadful”.

And AFP “barely acknowledged the issue of Qassams”. Which means that it did just that,

Hours after the operation Hamas claimed for the first time in several months that it had fired rockets into Israel, saying it had fired 11 rockets and lightly wounded eight Israelis.Witnesses and the army said one projectile had landed in the coastal city of Ashkelon and several in Sderot, without causing casualties.

Lie No. 4

And the BBC,

muddled the situation even further, leaving the mistaken impression that Sderot had been spared from attack for many months:

Well, not really. HR “muddled” the situation by displaying a total failure of reading comprehension. The BBC made it quite clear that it was saying that this was the first time Hamas had targeted Sderot, not that Sderot had not been free of rocket strikes,

the first time in several months that Hamas has targeted the town.

Disingenuous and Lie No. 5.

For some obscure reason Britian’s tabloid wastepaper the Mirror was deemed to be the absolute worst for a tiny 3 para item that is typical of its almost non-existent international coverage.
“Media distortion” screamed the twits at HR!

And after HRs five lies noted above, criticising others for "distortion" takes the prize for audacity.

A striking feature of HRs ‘media critique’ is how it carefully avoids explicit mention of the chronology of events on Tuesday, only hinting at it by the repeated calls for “context”. The sequence of events were that an undercover IDF unit (“cowardly blending” anyone?) was spotted inside Gaza. The IDF then sent the tanks in to support them which left over 20 Palestinians dead. Hamas then launched its barrage into Israel. The only “context” HR wants is that the IDF unit was targeting Qassam launch crews. But as usual with HR, calls for context are strategically limited. The context of Palestinian groups vowing to continue rocket launches while Israel maintains its siege of the entire population of the Gaza Strip cannot be mentioned. That would be too much context.

January 10 Media Critique: “One Year Analysis: The BBC in 2007”

2008-01-11T06:34:00.000-08:00

New year, same old shit.

HonestReporting have decided to extend the pretence of serious media critique by subjecting us to an extension of their 6 month “study” of BBC coverage.

The last one was a scream. My favourite part was the penetrating analysis of headlines. HR was claiming that BBC stories on Palestinian violence used “softer” language in the headlines. One of the examples they gave was this headline, “Fresh Violence hits the Gaza strip”, but the violence in the story was that Israel had killed 8 Palestinians in a bombing! HR, in their earnest pursuit of accuracy, claimed this as an example of the BBCs bias against Israel.

So what can we expect from the year long study? More of the same………..rubbish, that is. And they don’t disappoint.

“Balance"

It’s always wrong, of course. But it is a great demonstration of HRs disdain for accuracy.

Did you know that, “the IDF recorded almost 1,500 separate rocket and mortar attacks for the year”?

Separate attacks?? Or did they mean 1500 individual rocket and mortars? 1500 attacks sounds much more ominous though. The attacks actually often consist of several, sometimes many, rockets/mortars falling in a single “attack”. The IDF, where HR got the stats, is a bit more accurate in its description of the situation,

During the year there were almost 1500 impacts of Qassam rockets and mortars

Yet there were only 6 BBC stories about Qassams. HR can smell the bias in the water,

It would be reasonable to expect that more than 0.4% of the rocket attacks and resulting damage would receive the BBC's attention.

We could apply similar logic to the attacks on Palestinians, except that while the number of rocket attacks on Israel are relatively low enough that they can be counted, we have no idea of the number of projectiles fired by Israel into Palestinian areas. I’d suggest it would be in the tens of thousands, but the IDF, who so carefully count and publish the Qassam figures, aren’t telling. And remember, every single Israeli tank shell/mortar/bomb is, according to HR, a “separate….attack”. If it's around 14,000 do you think HR will 'expect that more than 0.4% of attacks.....would recieve the BBCs attention'?

So we’ll go with the other figure we have. We know that 2 Israelis were killed by Qassams in 2007. So that’s 3 BBC stories for every dead Israeli. 373 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces, and HR tell us that 56 BBC stories covered these operations. That is 0.15 stories for each dead Palestinian. Or put it another way, it takes 20 dead Palestinians to elicit as much BBC coverage as one dead Israeli. Let’s call it the BBC Pro-Israel Bias Factor – and it’s 20. Not 20%, or 20 items, but a factor of 20, ie. the BBC is 20x more sensitive to Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths

Yeah, I know , all this moral calculus is crude bullshit, but it just goes to show what a pile of crap HR is.

“Headline Style”

They stuffed this up last time, so I have great faith that they will again.

Same argument as last time – Palestinians not named in the headlines as the agents of attacks.

And what a mess they make if it, again. This headline, “West Bank clash leaves three dead” is one of the examples,

This one was extremely egregious since it was describing the ambush and murder of Israeli hikers by Palestinian terrorists. Since terrorist groups took responsibility for the attacks, why weren't they named in the headline?

Why indeed? Perhaps because the only thing “extremely egregarious” about this is HRs mis-representation of the story.

The two “Israeli hikers” were actually 2 off-duty IDF soldiers in the occupied West Bank who went for a walk, HR strangely leave this bit out, with their IDF-issue assault rifles. Armed soldiers, albeit off-duty, were attacked by armed Palestinians. The BBC could have called them terrorists in the headline, but it would have been entirely false to do so .

Again, this is the kind of thing that HR presents as ‘proof’ (an "extreme" case, no less) of the BBCs “anti-Israel bias” – that the BBC won’t lie in its headlines!

Tell me, are they utterly and comprehensively dishonest, or just totally imcompetent?

Dec 26 Media Critique: "Pallywood Xmas Special"

2007-12-26T16:45:00.000-08:00

"Wire service photos demonstrate the distortions of the media."

Of course they do. Like this .

The photo caption says “tackles” which is the evil media distortion.

Pretty lame huh?

HR’s preference is another caption which uses the word “blocks” instead of “tackles”. The imbeciles at HR should take a look at a thesaurus.

But that’s not all folks,

Nowhere are you able to get an accurate picture of the size of the demonstration or otherwise. Photos of the event, such as the one below from Reuters are framed as close-ups giving the impression of a large turnout even when closer examination, such as the previous photos, may suggest the opposite

No. No picture, the articles just tell readers the size of the gathering,

About 50 Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists attended the rally in the village of Um Salomona, near Bethlehem…

It’s all an evil conspiracy,

A good example of how the news can be distorted by photographers comes from a demonstration staged by Palestinians near Bethlehem on 21 December 2007. Pallywood has signed up one of the most visible and loved symbols of the holidays - Santa Claus. Wait until the cameras are in position and then confront Israeli soldiers.

Um, it’s a protest, as all the stories made that perfectly clear, even in the headlines.

This is pathetic stuff, even by HR’s appallingly low standards.

And to top it off,

Also notice how the Palestinian Santa appears to be well trained and media savvy - while managing to instigate dramatic photos of being "tackled" by Israeli soldiers, Santa suddenly becomes an advocate of peace and hope when interviewed by a Reuters cameraman. Such is the sophistication of the Palestinian propaganda machine that Santa is able to provoke violent confrontation while, at the same time, talking about peace.

Smell the desperation?

Horrible ‘Palestinian Santa’ stood in the way of peace-loving IDF soldiers armed with M-16s. Oh, the violence! After this shocking rampage he then had the temerity to speak of “peace and hope”. Beware the “sophistication of Palestinian propaganda machine”. Thankfully we have the totally objective HR to tell us what is really going on.

Can I laugh now?

This is all about the unsophistication of the blindly pro-Israeli hasbara machine. Focus on a tiny element of a story over which you can confect some controversy to distract from the larger story – peaceful Palestinian protests being conducted on their own land against an Israeli constructed wall that had been found to be illegal under international law.

Which is why they so desperately scramble to construct these ‘media critiques’, even if they are embarrassingly stupid. Anything to muddy the waters.

Dec 12 Media Critique: "The Grinch That Destroys Christmas"

2007-12-19T17:10:00.000-08:00

And who would that be? Ah yes, the evil media.

HR are decrying what they say is the yearly assault on Israel over the plight of Christians in Bethlehem. It's all a media conspiracy you know.

"CHRISTIANS IN THE HOLY LAND - THE REALITY"

HR link to 3 articles to prove their "reality", that it has nothing to do with Israel. In their typical regard for honesty they seriously misrepresent 2 of the 3 articles.

The first is about a Christian TV station that has closed down. HR imply that is was purely about anti-Christian sentiments, but in a reflection of the general economic crises caused by the occupation the article cites "overwhelming financial debts" as a cause for the closure. And the second is a story about a Christian pastor threatened by a Fatah security officer. Again, HR imply this is a religious issue, but the article itself makes it clear that this is not necessarily the case,

It was not immediately clear Wednesday if the pastor was threatened specifically because of his missionary work among Muslims or as a result of the land his family owned in the city, or a combination of the two.

The same article links to another that provides a different perspective on the situation, though not one HR would like to draw attention to,

Socioeconomic hardships caused by the West Bank security barrier are contributing to the decline in the Christian population in the Holy Land, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

Such balance, honesty and fairness from HR.

Christians are over represented in the number of Palestinians leaving the occupied territories. But for a much simpler reason than the one HR push- they are much more likely to belong to the Palestinian middle-class, who as a group, are most likely to emigrate in difficult times. There were also outflows of Palestinian Christians in 1947-48, and again after 1967.

"REPORT: CHRISTIANS TO DISAPPEAR FROM PA IN 15 YEARS"

And every year HR, and the usual pro-Israel fanatics, drag out the same bedraggled corpse in the form of Justus Weiner to spruik the same message as every other year - the reasons Christians are leaving the Palestinian territories is because of the Muslims, not because of the brutal Israeli occupation that is destroying the possibility of normal life for Palestinians (see the Red Cross report in the previous post).

If you want a real look at the causes of the decline of the Palestinian Christian population, read this. The basic message is that 80+% of Christians seek to emigrate for work and economic issues, and 8% because of religious extremism.

Weiner is so predictable that it's enough to reproduce a 2006 quote from the 'Churches for Middle East Peace',

....Professor Justus Weiner, an American/Israeli academic [who] is a scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in Israel. His research includes little or no input from the local indigenous Palestinian Christians--- Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran communicants, and has significant inaccuracies, exaggerated conclusions and major omissions.

Weiner is also infamous for his thoroughly dishonest and shoddy attack on Edward Said a few years back. Weiner has adopted the Alan Dershowitz approach to 'Lying For Israel' - dress it up in legalese or academic garb. My favourite contribution from Weiner was a book on illegal construction in occupied East Jerusalem where he made the stunning discovery that the primary illegal construction problem is caused by Palestinians.

For balance we get to hear from Weiner, Weiner and Weiner. Any voice for Palestinian Christians? No way, because, as we are helpfully told, "church representatives 'sing the PA's tune' and are quick to censure Israel for everything". Impossible that this could simply be true. Heaven forbid that Christian Palestinians' thoughts on the subject should be noted.

Which leads nicely and oh-so predictably into HRs next section.

"THE ROLE OF SABEEL"

Sabeel is one of the most active Palestinian Christian groups in the OTs. So despite the crocodile tears over the plight of Palestinian Christians, HR proceed to enthusiastically lay the boot into Sabeel (it's "extreme" and "anti-semitic") because it's a Christian Palestinian group exposing HR's highly partisan and dishonest portrayal of the situation.

So let's finish the year with a Christmas message from the people whose plight HonestReporting wants to use for it's own ends, while simultaneously denying them their own voice,

Ultimately, peace will come not from the Caesars and all those who trust in their military might and in the arrogance of their power but from the meek that put their trust in God. It is the meek who will inherit the earth. Peace will come from the labor, toil, and hard work of all those who do not glory in their riches or in their power but glory in their love and service of God and in their love and acceptance of others. God’s message of peace still rings true, not from Annapolis that represents empire, but from the small town of Bethlehem, Palestine that still suffers under occupation. The peace that the Caesars of the world give is largely false and deceptive, and it cannot last. Only the peace that God gives, the peace that is based on justice and truth will survive and prosper. In the midst of these uncertain times, Sabeel wishes all its friends a joyful Christmas. May the New Year bring us closer to the peace we hope for; and let us continue the struggle together for the achievement of God’s peace for all the people of Palestine-Israel.

December 6 Media Critique: “The Post-Annapolis Blame Game”

2007-12-16T05:47:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been trying to get through this one, but kept falling asleep before reaching the end.

HonestReporting don’t like this. That’s about all there is to it. Despite the endless claims of “anti-Israel media bias” HR have to content themsleves with one opinion piece in a paper half-way around the world.

HR do demonstrate their sick humour with this,

Shaik and Lowenstein also ignore Israel’s concern for the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, where all the essentials continue to enter the territory despite claims of a "blockade."

By a curious coincidence that highlights HR’s extreme bias, just a week after HR made this disgracefully dishonest claim, the Red Cross issued a rare public statement about the terrible humanitarian situation caused by the Israeli occupation,

Throughout the occupied Palestinian territories, in the Gaza Strip as well as in the West Bank, Palestinians continuously face hardship in simply going about their lives; they are prevented from doing what makes up the daily fabric of most people's existence. The Palestinian territories face a deep human crisis, where millions of people are denied their human dignity. Not once in a while, but every day.

Read the full report here.

November 28 Media Critique: 'Annapolis And The Core Issues"

2007-12-01T06:35:00.000-08:00

A primer on the core issues confronting world leaders and the media.

This ain’t no ‘media critique’. A primer? Yes. And what a primer it is. Priming the faithful to be ready to decry anything outside of HRs positioning of the issues as “anti-Israel media bias”.

HR set the core issues outside the parameters of either international law or the international consensus of a just solution.

The Jewish State
One of Israel’s most fundamental demands is Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Well, almost. It’s actually one of the 'most fundamentalist demands' you could hear.

Don’t expect HR to advocate that Israel must recognize Palestine as a 'Muslim State'.

Lawrence of Cyberia notes the history of this escalating ambit claim: first it was simply recognition of Israel (which the PLO unhelpfully did), followed by the demand that Palestinians recognize its' “right to exist”, which has morphed into its' “right to exist as a Jewish state”. Each development is meant to be unacceptable to Palestinians so that Israel can portray them as intransigent.

Jerusalem
What the media often call "Arab East Jerusalem" usually refers to areas temporarily under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967 and restored after the Six Day War. Those areas include the Old City and Judaism's holiest sites, the Temple Mount and Western Wall.

Israel

has absolutely zero legal claim to East Jerusalem under International Law. HR attempt to blur the clear distinction between what Israeli is entitled to under law, with what it wants. And it wants East Jerusalem, so, hey, what’s the problem?

In addition, Israel has a proven track record of ensuring full access to the city's holy sites

And a few little lies never hurt. Israel routinely prevents Palestinian access to the Haram al-Sharif for “security reasons”. Not to mention incidents like the wholesale Israeli bulldozing of the Palestinian Mahgrebi quarter in East Jerusalem in the first weeks of the occupation in June 1967.

Borders
For many Israelis, final borders are ultimately a question of security……In contrast, the Palestinians demand an independent state in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The beastly creatures! They want the ENTIRE West Bank and Gaza Strip!! As they are entitled to under international law. Again, Palestinians legal entitlements are nothing compared to what Israel says are its’ needs. If Israel says that parts of Palestinian territory are “vital” to it, well, surely that settles the matter?

Refugees
…..Not surprisingly, Israel rejects Palestinian return as non-starter.

No surprise at all, given that the return of refugees to their former homes, should they wish to, is a right under international law.

HR however, are much more attuned to more important principles – “Israel’s Jewish identity”. Ethnocracy vs. legal entitlement? It’s no contest.

And we urge readers to monitor their local coverage and make their voices heard.

Yes indeed. Having been primed by HR to prioritize Israeli wants over international law and Palestinian rights, all the good HR sheep will be able to send outraged emails about “anti-Israel bias” to media outlets when they dare to stray from the acceptable narrative, into the bizarre world of law, rights and justice.

November 21 Media Critique: “New York Times 6 Month Study”

2007-11-23T06:25:00.000-08:00

Once again we are treated to the spectacle of HR trying to dress up their preconceived notions in the garb of objective analysis. Remember their last dismal effort?

BALANCE:
An important indicator of bias, balance means the news source gave equal weight to conflicting claims over a period of time. Both subject matter and style are important factors in weighing bias.

I can feel a HR moment coming on. This is the concept most abused by the partisans who scream “media bias”. You may be slightly surprised that HR,

found that reporting favored the Palestinian side through both text priority and selection of images.

“Text priority”?

This is the story.

HR’s problem with this is that the Israeli bombing got the first mention (that is the story you dimwits!), and the earlier Palestinian rocket fire is mentioned later. This argument only begins to make sense if the earlier Palestinian rocket fire was unreported. Was it? No, the previous days story from the same reporter mentions the Palestinian rocket fire. HR are concerned that the ordering of elements of the story fails to give sufficient “justification” to Israeli actions, highlighting HRs total commitment to objectivity. The article also quotes the Israeli spokesman first. Is this “text priority” indicating bias?

Photographs
Editors have many choices which photographs accompany news articles. We looked at the photographs that ran with the New York Times' articles and found that there seemed to be an inappropriate and unbalanced emphasis on either Palestinian suffering or Israeli military operations.

Now we lurch into crazy territory. Despite HR’s best intentions to apply a veneer of objectivity to their partisan opinions, they just can’t keep it up.

Graphs and charts are good for such purposes, hence HR throw up one which purports to show “Proportion of Images Sympathetic to Israeli or Palestinian View”. Let’s ignore the crude simplicity of the entire idea and run with it for a second. Firstly, HR mention this story as an example of the problem. It’s a story primarily about the in-fighting in Gaza, but has a photo of an Israeli air-strike. HR include 2 other photos “sympathetic” to a “Palestinian view” - but they aren’t even in the NYT story. Just added for dramatic effect I guess. HR also fail to mention that there is one other photo in this story they claim is an example of pro-Palestinian “bias” – but it’s a photo of Israelis after a rocket attack on Sderot. Isn’t it great how completely ignoring certain facts that undermine your argument, makes your argument appear stronger? HR are masters at this kind of self-delusion. No doubt if pressed on the point they would argue about the size and position of the photos. Just goes to show that if you are determined enough, you can find bias everywhere.

Of the images showing one point of view or the other, over 60% were pictures that evoke more understanding or sympathy for the Palestinian side. The viewer thus gets the impression that there are far more Israeli military strikes against Palestinian civilians than Palestinian rocket attacks.

So, if 60% is too much “understanding”, what does HR suggest? Nothing. They just know that 60% is too much. Perhaps by some unexplained mathematical miracle, 50% is OK? This is the hallmark of utterly vacuous faux-media analysis – that balance in reporting might be represented by the Golden Mean, a midpoint between 2 opposed positions. An objective reference point would be to look at casualties. Given that the ratio of deaths is about 4:1 in ‘favour’ of Palestinians, maybe an objective use of photos to portray reality would have 80% of photos evoking understanding of the Palestinian situation. Now where’s the bias? Of course, HR could not even begin to contemplate such an idea. It has the wrong outcome.

CONSISTENCY:
Style can have a significant impact on how news events are perceived.

Now this is something that HR has in spades – consistent pro-Israel partisanship, no matter what.

HR contrast 2 headlines – “Israeli army Kills 3” and “Rocket injures 40 Israeli soldiers”. That the Israeli army is named seems to be the entire point of this secton. The “rocket” headline is “neutral” according to HR, as “we do not know if anyone fired the rocket or if it went off accidentally”. The first sentence of the story might help the poor fools at HR,

A Palestinian rocket fired from Gaza early Tuesday wounded some 40 soldiers….

There is quite a simple explanation for what HR sees as a conspiracy. Actions by the Israeli army are usually clearly attributable to the Israeli army, which is not the case with Palestinian rocket fire, where exactly which group was responsible is often not known immediately. The alternative headline to satisfy HR would have to have been – ‘Hamas/PFLP/Al-Aqsa? rocket injures 40 Israeli soldiers”.

ACCURACY AND CONTEXT:
We looked at examples of articles that were less than accurate or lacked important context.

HR and context. Always good for a chuckle.

HR give a few trivial examples which don’t illustrate much at all, let alone bias. Their major contribution to the field of accuracy and context is that the term “disputed territory” is much better than “occupied territory”. Not even Ariel Sharon would agree with them on that. How’s that for accurate!

Yet in terms of balance, consistency and context, we found that the coverage is more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

It’s a fact free environment at HR. Applying the same kind of junk-media analysis to NYT coverage of a concentration camp, HR would find the NYT was not fair and balanced because it was more sympathetic to the victims. The objective reality of the situation is of no concern to HR, only that a sterile and confected “balance” be achieved that might serve to reduce critical reporting of Israeli actions.

One journalist from the NYT might have had HR in mind when he made this comment about those who accuse the paper of bias,

They don’t want you to be balanced in your coverage; they want you to portray the morality of the war as they see it.

HonestReporting are a case study of the phenomenon known as the Hostile Media Effect. Put another way, the amount of media bias perceived is directly proportional to the degree of partisanship of the media consumer. Which in HRs case, is a whole lot.

Update:

Thanks to regular commentor Phillip, for reminding me of another study of the NYT coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It serves as an interesting comparison to HR, both in conclusions and methodology (if HR can be said to have one).

Nov 1 Media Critique: 'Guardians One-Sided Analysis"

2007-11-03T22:05:00.000-07:00

Same old same old.

And a rather inauspicious start,

HonestReporting has previously debunked the misleading charge that Gaza is 'under siege'.

Yes, and wasn’t that just hilarious.

So why are HR in a flap this time? It’s over an excellent piece from the Guardians’ Seamus Milne, ‘The siege of Gaza is going to lead to a violent escalation’.

For starters it’s “one-sided”.

A classic case of projection. HR, being such one-eyed partisans of a pro-Israel nature, assume that everyone else shares their motivation - to be a cheer squad for one side against the other. Milne’s piece is a fair and reasonable analysis of where the conflict is headed. HR see a conspiracy lurking in every word, ie use of the word “resistance” means that Milne “reveal[s] where his sympathies lie”.

And of course it is “littered with bias”, ie. it mentions facts that HR don't like.

Milne refuses to hold Hamas responsible for the situation in Gaza. Instead, in a perverse inversion, an increase in Qassam attacks is blamed on Israel.

And why not. Hamas are surely responsible for the 40 yr occupation of Gaza, aren’t they?

Milne also refuses to hold Egypt responsible for restricting access to its border, stating, incorrectly, that "Israel continues to control all access to the Gaza Strip". In any case, Israel, like any other state has every right to exercise border controls, particularly when its neighbor represents a serious security threat.

Oh dear, they are in a muddle. Having just said that Israel has a right to control it’s borders, HR want Milne to lay that same criticism at Egypt as well. Small problem. The Rafah crossing with Egypt is the best access to the outside world the Palestinians have. And Egypt control it at Israels insistence. And the control over borders far exceeds that of normal border control . Israel controls the airspace over Gaza and prevents the Gaza port from operating. That is Occupation, not border control.

Engaging in appalling moral equivalency, Milne states: "Unless Hamas recognised Israel, renounced violence and signed up to agreements it had always opposed, the western powers insisted, the Palestinian electorate would be ignored. No such demands, needless to say, have been made of Israel."

Ah, “moral equivalency”, that meaningless phrase to be deployed whenever you do’t like something but can’t come up with any rational objection.

How “appalling” that Israel might be required to renounce violence and recognize a sovereign Palestinian state. How could anyone imagine that Palestinians are equal to Israelis?

Again, ignoring Palestinian responsibilities and obligations, Milne states that "the Israeli government is resistant to any timetable for statehood - let alone serious negotiation on Jerusalem, refugees and final borders". This, despite increasing controversy within Israel over the concessions that Israeli government ministers have suggested may be on the table at the forthcoming Annapolis conference, particularly relating to the status of Jerusalem.

Yes, there is huge debate within Israel about Jerusalem. The hardliners say ‘an undivided Jerusalem forever’ and the moderates want an undivided Jerusalem, but offer the “concession’ that the Palestinians can have the small suburb of Abu Dis on the outskirts of East Jerusalem as their capital and they can call that ‘East Jerusalem’.

“MORE "BAD NEWS"”

Following on from ‘Bad News from the Netherlands’, there is more delusion from our pro-Israel fanatics that Israels’ problem is not its’ behaviour, but the media reporting of its’ behaviour.

All you have to do is to compare them with 'Bad News From Israel' and you’ll see the reality. On one, you can read stories of drunken Uni students, poor parking, and over tested school children, and on the other discriminatory land laws, an army shooting 8 yr old girls dead, and soldiers telling of how they enjoy beating up women. Can you guess which stories come from Israel and which from the Netherlands?

Oct 24 Media Critique: "A One-State Solution: Advocating Israel's Destruction"

2007-10-25T04:05:00.000-07:00

Is this thinly veiled strategy for destroying the Jewish state resurfacing in the mainstream media?

Well, it wouldn’t be HonestReporting without a good dose of hysterics. The source of this weeks edition of confected outrage is an Op-Ed in an Australian newspaper by the president of Women for Palestine, Sonja Karker.

While there is a virtual consensus among world leaders for a two-state solution, another "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, insidiously sold in the language of peace, is the "one-state solution" or "bi-national state", as laid out in the op-ed columns of Australia's The Age.

Yes, it’s just that Israel seems to have little interest in the solution being applied in any meaningful way. At any rate, the one-state solution is simply the most egalitarian and democratic of all possible solutions. No wonder HR hate it. That said, it isn’t terribly practical at this time because of the lack of support for it.

HR then bore us to death with several of the usual suspects claiming that this is an evil conspiracy to destroy Israel. Chief amongst them is the ubiquitous apologist for Israeli crimes, and serial liar, Alan Dershowitz, who blabbers on quite stupidly,

The one-state solution proposal now being made by Palestinian lawyers and some anti-Israel academics is nothing more than a ploy…… to destroy the Jewish state of Israel…

It even gets a bit bizarre,

But, in a world where ethnically mixed states such as Yugoslavia have broken down in bloodshed, and Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia claim Muslim Arab exclusivity, why does the only Jewish state have to be the test case for a far-fetched utopian experiment?

HR draw a parallel between Saudi Arabia and Israel! OK, I guess they both have a bent for religious extremism.

The attempt to label a democratic solution to the conflict as destroying Israel is as predictable as it is lame. Afterall, you can’t vociferously claim to be the only democratic state in the region and also reject a principled democratic resolution. It needs to be dressed up in much nicer sounding terms, like this,

Why is Jewish self-determination in a state of their own illegitimate?

Ah, self-determination! Such champions of it in Israel – for Jews, that is.
The 20% of Israeli’s who are Palestinian? –sorry, self-determination in Israel is only for Jewish Israelis.
The millions living the Occupied Territories for 40 yrs under Israel oppression? - well, maybe they can have a little bit, as long as it suits Israel.
Self-determination expressed at the ballot box in free and fair elections (as far as is possible under foreign occupation)? – nothing wrong with using bribery, coercion and blackmail to destroy that.

So what is the problem? Where is the media bias? There isn’t any, it’s just the usual HonestReporting problem of being unable to tolerate different ideas.

October 18 Media Critique: "Bad News From the Netherlands"

2007-10-21T07:18:00.000-07:00

A project sets out to prove that any country can be made to look like a pariah.

This is the epitome of HRs ‘confusion’.

HR is referring to a project by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs that does what the title of this latest embarrassment from HR suggests. And so what? We now know that there is crime in the Netherlands. Is that really news to anyone?

There is something that you won’t read about in the JCPAs bizarre little ‘project’ (read it for a good laugh); and that is stories about the Dutch occupation and settlement enterprise. That’s because there isn’t one. You could report every single piece of “bad news” from the Netherlands, and it still wouldn’t be a “pariah”, because it would simply be the kind of news that one sees in every newspaper. However, if they were to start expropriating land outside their internationally recognized borders and started to expel the locals and build Dutch settlements, then it would be a very different story.

Perhaps HR are alluding to the media penchant for ‘if it bleeds it leads’. According to HRs logic, news organizations must be biased against the entire world – they're always reporting the "bad news".

HR’s problem is one of bias – its' own. Being the strident and extreme pro-Israel partisans that they are, they can’t tolerate reporting of Israel that produces a negative impression. Unfortunately for HR, it only requires reporting of the facts to create a negative impression. Perhaps HR and the silly JCPA think that media reporting about the conflict in Sudan is an example of bias? – after all it creates a very negative impressions of Sudan, making it a “pariah”. I strongly suspect that their ‘bias’ theory wouldn’t be applied in this case.

HRs problem is that it views media reporting through the prism of its’ own partisanship, and anything that is “bad news” is not factual reporting about a bad situation, but is bias. Hearing something that you don’t like does not make the source of that information biased - unless you are a fanatic.

Like HonestReporting.

Update: Here’s another ‘bad news’ site, which you can compare with Bad News from the Netherlands and judge for yourself whether the obvious differences stem from ‘bias’ or just reflect a different set of facts.

October 11 Media Critique: "Failure to Disclose"

2007-10-20T06:50:00.000-07:00

That can be a serious problem, removing information that might assist readers to make a judgement about the motivation and perspectives of the person quoted. It would have been better to identify Jeff Halper as a co-founder of the excellent ICAHD, as well a geographer specializing in Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements. Though there is certainly nothing distorting about the omission, despite HRs painful labours to suggest so.

But, as usual, HR ignores the log in its’ own eye while complaining bitterly of the speck in anothers.

How can a journalist "forget" his interviewee's position at the head of an anti-Israel NGO?

Indeed. It’s just shocking.

And an “anti-Israel NGO,” no less. Halper must be a remnant from the Third Reich, or maybe from nasty evil Iran? No. Jeff Halper is from Israel, as the name Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions might suggest.

Shocking! How can HR “forget” to mention that the “anti-Israel NGO" is an Israeli NGO? Failure to disclose!

But it’s not just “anti-Israel” Israelis who are on the menu.

Many times, media outlets and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) rely upon unsourced and uncorroborated Palestinian "eyewitnesses" to back up their stories, despite the unprofessionalism that lies behind this sloppy form of investigation.

Unbelievable. Journalist just go and talk to Palestinians eyewitnesses (sorry for leaving out the scare quotes) and report what they say. How could they? Professional journalists understand that "Palestinian" and "eyewitness" are mutually exclusive categories.

Sometimes the bigotry seeps through despite best intentions. Well, you know what they say – you can’t polish a turd.

HR suggest the Guardian article might be misleading by omitting metion of ICAHD, and hence, Halpers’ “agenda”.

ICAHD partners with radical NGOs to campaign against the two-state solution

Hhmmm….they are against peace. Evil Guardian.

But, let’s just check with ICAHD themselves to see if HR may not have made an inadvertent error and mistakenly misrepresented ICAHDs “agenda” as being "against the two-state solution".

As Israelis, we believe that the only chance for a genuine peace is one that enables the Palestinians to establish what we have, a viable and truly sovereign state of their own.

Another turd from HonestReporting.

Oct 3 Media Critique: “Israel Finally Refutes Al-Dura”

2007-10-20T02:01:00.000-07:00

“Refutes”?

Refutes, as in, to prove a claim is false? No, not at all. HR is just doing what comes naturally – being dishonest.

Despite the headline, even HR have to ‘fess up to the reality,

Israel has finally officially denied responsibility

OK, so it’s just a denial released, purely by chance of course (7 years later), to coincide with the court action by the ill-fated conspiracy theorists who are trying to sue France’s Channel 2. They lost round 1 and are very likely to lose round 2 as well.

Not content with just denying responsibility, a group in Israel are claiming that the death was “staged”. I’m not exactly sure what they mean by this, but no-one is actually taking this seriously, not even the Director of the GPO, Daniel Seaman, who is an enthusiastic supporter of the conspiracy.

So, are they going to charge the Channel 2 journalists with 'staging' the death? No.

Or even revoke their GPO issued permits to work in Israel? No.

Beat-up for the faithful? Oh yeah!

Sept 18 Media Critique: "Reviewers Reject ‘The Israel Lobby’"

2007-09-19T06:32:00.000-07:00

And HonestReporting reject rational debate.

The basis of this is that HR quote 6 reviews that they agree with.

It would be easy enough to trawl the internet and find reviewers who agree with the basic ideas in the book. Should HR then, for the sake of ‘balance’, say that "Reviewers Accept ‘The Israel Lobby’"? We all know what the likelihood of that is.

Though it is funny to see HR, the promoter of the world-wide anti-Israel media conspiracy, pointing to the same media to support its’ views of this book.

This is the HR Law of Media; agree with us and you are purveyors of the truth, disagree and you are anti-Israeli hacks peddling hatred and lies.

“THE REAL TERROR”

HR is still whining about this New Statesman story.

It’s basically a rather overdone ‘HOW DARE YOU’ from HR.

Sept 6 Media Critique: "Durban Revisited?"

2007-09-19T04:02:00.000-07:00

"Will a UN "anti-racism" conference become another anti-Semitic and anti-Israel parley?"

Ho hum. Next.

“JEWISH YOUTHS = MUSLIM TERRORISTS”

the New Statesman has falsely equated Jewish teens volunteering on IDF programs and Muslim youths taking part in terrorist training camps

Well, it has drawn attention to the parallels. And quite rightly. Here is the article, it’s well worth a read.

HR are outraged (as usual) that anyone could question why British teenager who are Jewish would head off to Israel to do an IDF camp, dressing in fatigues and learning to shoot military rifles. Really, what could be more natural?

Totally harmless say HR, it's

designed to foster an understanding of the IDF, its role in Israeli society and to connect with Israelis doing their compulsory army service.

The New Statesman article finishes with this question,

If these were British Muslim 19 year-olds firing machine guns and running assault courses in Pakistan or Yemen, would we not have them all arrested at the airport?

Which of course HR finds “shocking”. Poor darlings.

While HR are happy pretending, for dramatic effect, that the article is saying “Jewish youths = Muslim terrorists”, that wasn’t the point being made (and it goes without saying, for HR at least, that Muslim kids at a Hamas camp are automatically ‘terrorists’). Of course there are some differences between the situations. The kids going to the camps in Gaza are kids from Gaza, not the US or Britain. A better question to end the article might have been to speculate the reaction to 18 yr old British Muslim youth going to Lebanon to train with the Lebanese army, just to “foster an understanding of the Lebanese army”, of course. What could be more natural?

The article really needs to be placed in some perspective (aside from HR’s shrill hysterics). And this is it – Child Recruitment in Israel .

Read it, and you’ll see that the New Statesman article is just a small piece of the overall picture, and a rather disturbing one at that.

August 27 Media Critique: "CNN's 'God's Warriors': Hard on Jews, Soft on Islam"

2007-08-28T06:06:00.000-07:00

We must be thankful for small mercies.

At least this is not another interminable whine about the BBC or The Guardian. No, it’s an interminable whine about CNN.

To be fair, HR haven’t actually bothered boring us with their views, but reproduce someone else’s take on it, as well as providing a link to CAMERA. HR post some drivel by a bloke called Maurice Ostroff. Here are a few examples,

Amanpour does not hesitate to inject her own views, demonstrating occasional lack of knowledge. For example when an Israeli settler said God says Jews must live in Hebron, Amanpour interjected that the West Bank was designated by the UN to be the largest part of an Arab state. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, it is out of context.

Err…that is completely factually accurate. All one has to do is too take a look at a map of the UN Partition Plan. Ostroff waffles on about the British Mandate and Balfour, neither of which alter the factual accuracy of Amanpours’ statement.

One of the most misleading aspects of the program, was the use of the very few isolated incidents of Jewish terror attempts over the past 15 years, to create the false impression that a Jewish terror movement exists on a par with the violent worldwide jihadist phenomenon of indiscriminate death and destruction. For example she interviewed Yehuda Etzion who was convicted and imprisoned for involvement in a foiled bomb plot way back in 1984.

I believe that CNN wanted to interview Baruch Goldstein, but he was unavailable. Ariel Sharon was also too busy to appear to discuss his 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the killing of thousands of Lebanese civilians, not to mention minor incidents like Sabra and Shatilla. Maybe the complaint is that CNN should have probed later incidents like this, this, this, or these?

August 23 Media Critique: “The Independent's Foul Play”

2007-08-25T06:57:00.000-07:00

“Criticism of a UK Foreign Office decision turns into an excuse for hateful Israel bashing.”

When it’s not the evil BBC, it’s the evil Independent. What is it with those Brits??

Writing in the UK's Independent, Mark Steel criticizes the British Foreign Office, which is his right, before launching an astonishing diatribe against Israel, based not on facts nor reason, but on overt hate and disinformation.

The usual measured response from HR.

What indicates his “overt hate” for Israel? It’s Steels' suggestion that the Israeli Foreign Ministry might have pressured the UK to refuse the visa’s. I think it unlikely, but as Steele pointed out, the British FO initially supported the tour, so it is a little odd that they would then change course. HR seem to find it difficult to believe that Governments attempt to influence each other. Such wondrous naivety.

All Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip may encounter problems exiting crossings at Israeli and Egyptian borders, particularly following Hamas' violent takeover of the area.

Ah, the joys of the deletion of the active agent.

Palestinians simply can’t find the doors, that’s why they “encounter problems exiting crossings”. And it has been a little worse since Hamas won democratic lections, but Israel has been making it increasingly difficult over the last 15 years. It’s nothing new, just the continuation of the trend.

the latest incident is simply part of the process of petty vindictiveness that occupying forces often dish out. Even if there's no obvious military or political advantage to be gained, you can imagine them passing a law that no one in Gaza is allowed to hum, or on Mondays everyone has to speak in a Geordie accent.

HR remain suitably calm and objective by describing this quote from Steels' article as “simple hatred and demonization of Israel”. Conveniently, they miss, or ignore, Steels’ completely reasonable observation that this is typical of “occupying forces”, the plural form obviously referring to all occupying forces, hence not ‘demonizing’ Israel but being appropriately critical of occupying powers. To enhance the effect of this lie, HRs quote leaves out the preceding sentence which provides the context and background for Steels’ observation. The phrase “latest incident” gives it away, but HR readers are probably beyond such critical appraisals,

And during the Asia Cup, which the Palestinian national team had started with an 8-0 win, the Israelis detained the five players who came from Gaza so they couldn't get to their match against Uzbekistan

Oh, so it’s happened before!!

And it’s not just in sport that Israeli vindictiveness can be witnessed. Remember the saga of the greenhouses in Gaza? The wingnut-o-sphere frothed at the mouth over the destruction of greenhouses after the Gaza ‘disengagement’. Only 20% were affected, but they had a lovely time vilifying all Palestinians over the incident. It was a major economic goal to get the horticultural industry going. There were problems but crops were raised and goods set to be exported. But in the first season only 10% could be exported due to repeated Israeli closures of the Karni crossing for 'security' reasons. Never happened when the goods were Israeli.

Just bad luck I’m sure, and anyone who suggests otherwise is guilty of “overt hate”.

“Cooked To Imperfection”

And they don’t like Jonathon Cook for writing articles like this .

They particularly don’t like him saying this,

a relentless campaign to target, discredit and silence critics of Israel.

The existence of HR makes that just a statement of the bleeding obvious. But not for HR, who indulge in the routine piece of sophistry that greets this observation, namely that since critics like Cook “are able to spread their flawed charge” the claim “that their voices have been silenced” is simply untrue. The sophistry comes in with the assumption that critics are saying that this has been 100% successful. But as Cook says, the pro-Israel partisans like HR have a “relentless campaign” to try and achieve this. The degree of success is not the issue.

Then it gets truly comical,

Jonathan Cook's agenda and that of others, it seems, is to delegitimize and silence the very legitimate opinions held by those in opposition to theirs

Now it’s all clear: Cook, and “others” in the media, have an agenda to “silence” HR, who are valiantly fighting to simply express an opinion the opposite of Cooks, which they do by attacking Cooks opinions. Makes sense doesn’t it? Jonathon Cook and “others” are anti-Israel partisans who, almost every week, write articles asking readers to send “informed correspondence” to HonestReporting in order to balance the one-sided debate in the media.

One wonders if even the script-writers at HR believe this stuff.

August 2 Media Critique: “Gaza 'Under Siege'?”

2007-08-15T07:11:00.000-07:00

“Is the Gaza Strip really under siege or is the reality quite different?”

Of course not, HonestReporting is quick to tell us. To say so is “somewhat misleading”, while quietly acknowledging that Israeli restrictions on goods entering Gaza are killing patients there.

But what are a few dead Palestinians when there are bigger fish to fry?

“False claims” of a siege are the real issue.

Who’d make such a wildly inaccurate claim? HR directs us to a dictionary definition to prevent confusion. And to the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry for an independent opinion on the wonderfulness of Israeli support of Gaza. If that isn’t quite independent enough for you, try this.

Imagine if someone was to say that Israel was under siege. Something like this perhaps,

……Israelis who are under daily siege…..

Misleading, false, I hear you cry. Who would say something so obviously…..err……dishonest?

Why, it’s HonestReporting of course!

July 26 Media Critique: “Terror Propaganda: LA Times Publishes Responses”

2007-08-05T07:15:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting continues with the recent fight against free speech and the role of the media to report. Of course HR are all for free speech and ‘honest’ reporting’ as long as that excludes views that it doesn’t like. This time it’s the evil Washington Post upsetting HR by publishing the writing of Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Shi’i cleric, in its ‘On Faith’ section.

This is a “soap box to terror” gasp HR. Someone get the smelling salts!

Why won’t these media types censor themselves more effectively? Don’t they know how delicate sensibilities may be offended by the wrong thoughts?

But, as usual, HR is deceptively selective in how it reports this single item. It was, in fact, part of a week long series called “Muslims Speak Out: What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions”, where Newsweek and the WP invited over 50 Muslim scholars and clerics to discuss the issue. It’s well worth a read, giving a broad range of opinions and ideas that the bigoted idiots at HR would benefit from reading in its' entirety.

“BBC: MORE SUBTLE BIAS”

Oh, do tell.

we have to ask why the BBC has given prominence to a feature "In pictures: The work of Naji al-Ali.

Maybe it was something to do with the 20th Anniversary of his assassination?

But no, for the paranoids at HR, there is a world-wide anti-Israel media conspiracy that explains every mention of a Palestinian by the BBC.

Does the BBC pay as much attention to prominent Israeli cultural figures, scientists, musicians, innovators and Nobel Prize winners? Why then does Naji al-Ali warrant the BBC's attention other than to promote his political cartoons (which may fit the BBC's political worldview)?

They really are a bit thick.

Al-Ali’s murder is unsolved, but most people think he was killed for his political cartoons, which were highly critical of Arab regimes and leaders. An agent of one of them is the most likely culprit.

But to answer HRs question, does the BBC pay as much attention to prominent Israelis? Well how about a 3 part series on “Israel’s Generals”? Or a profile of Tzipi Livni? Or music in Israel?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

July 19 Media Critique: "6 Month Analysis of the BBC: The Subtle Bias"

2007-07-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

Anything has to be better than the last couple of miserable efforts (even by their low standards) from HonestReporting.

This time we are treated to a “long-term analysis”. I’m almost excited.

It doesn’t start too well. HR sets the scene by telling us that the BBC is at its “lowest ebb” and gives a series of horrifying examples; a commenter on a Radio Five blog says that the Talmud permits Jews to lie to non-Jews, a phone-in competition was not above board, and the Queen was unfairly edited. I don’t know about you, but my trust in journalism has just hit rock-bottom.

And HR sum it up perfectly,

If the organization [BBC] is capable of showing such little respect for the British monarch ………….. is it any surprise that it consistently treats Israel with utter disdain?

Indeed! Israel…the Queen.....they’re both royalty and expect to be treated as such. Mess with us and we’ll set the corgi’s on you!

This is HRs overall point,

What we saw was a clear pattern of showcasing the Palestinian perspective, at the expense of Israeli voices.

Ok, let’s put aside their history of outrageous dishonesty and strident pro-Israel partisanship and give HR a chance to show that they have done some serious media analysis.

“Headlines and Grammatical Style in "Hard News" Articles”

Finding: BBC headlines and text tend to use a style that describes Palestinian violence ambiguously (only naming the aggressor 15% of the time) while being much more direct in cases where the Israeli military is involved (Israel is mentioned in 60% of these cases.)

We aren’t given the whole sample so there is no way of checking their 15% figure. But we can look at the examples they provide. First, it’s a story about an Israeli airstrike (“Israeli Airstrike Hits North Gaza”) in Gaza that injures 1 Palestinian. HR says this is an “active” headline, and complain that the Qassam launch that “precipitated” it (according to HR) wasn’t mentioned till the forth paragraph. Funnily enough, the killing of 3 IJ members in the West Bank a few days earlier that 'precipitated' the 11 Qassam launches wasn’t mentioned till the 6th paragraph, but HR fail to notice a detail like that.

But, as HR ask “Is there consistency”?

Rather than a headline similar to the one from May 7, the BBC employed a softer approach….

Oh, really? HR are referring to this story “Eight killed in ‘ambush by Hamas’”. Well, that’s the “hard”, “active” headline – Hamas kill eight. Bizarrely, HR try to argue that this is “softer” than the first example! Let’s just try to understand this HR logic; ‘Hamas kill eight’ is “softer” than ‘Israel hits north Gaza’??

In isolation, the use of the active tense does not indicate any sort of bias….

No, but ignoring its use in a story about Hamas to try to falsely criticize the BBC screams bias long and loud.

Well, I gave them a chance, but it’s the same old distortions and lies.

HR goes on to claim that stories on Palestinian violence are “either written without naming the aggressor at all, or written in the passive tense” and gives 4 links as examples, 25% of which (ie 1) HR manage to get completely wrong. In the story titled “Fresh Violence hits the Gaza strip”, the primary violence in the story is the killing of 8 Palestinians in Israeli air-strikes. The Palestinian violence for that day was 1 Palestinian injured in a gun battle. So yes, that was the use of the passive voice but it was precisely the opposite of what HR were claiming.

As you can see, HR make some rather convenient ‘errors’ in constructing their media “analysis”, which is why it’s best to take HR’s claims with a very large dose of salt.

“Selection of Perspectives in "Soft" News”

HR think they are on to something,

Finding: The BBC consistently highlights Palestinian perspectives at the expense of Israeli voices. In twenty-three articles containing pictures and interviews of random subject, nineteen were of Palestinians.

HR have conveniently short memories. Last May the BBC released its’ report of the review of it’s Israel-Palestine coverage, a review that groups like HR had long demanded. HR were quick to note this part of the report,

In summary, the finding is that BBC coverage does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.

But completely ignored the detail of the finding as to which “important aspects” where missing,

there was little reporting of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in their daily lives…
failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation…

So, HR is right that it there has been a greater number of Palestinian voices in this “soft news” category, but this is in response to an identified problem in BBC reporting.

More Palestinians being able to speak for themselves. No wonder HR don’t like it.

July 11 Media Critique: “LA Times: Giving a Voice to Hamas”

2007-07-13T07:35:00.000-07:00

More extreme intolerance from HonestReporting.

And again it brazenly asserts its anti-free speech credentials, suggesting that the LA Times be prosecuted for reporting the views of a member of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook.

It’s also full of the usual distortions we’ve come to expect from ‘Honest'Reporting. One example will do.

Marzook claims the right of resistence from the Generva Conventions. HR say,

However, even Human Rights Watch, an organization not regarded as friendly towards Israel, clearly stated: "Hamas has repeatedly failed to respect a fundamental rule of international humanitarian law by attacking civilians and civilian objects."

Yes, HRW did say that regarding specific Palestinian actions, but that does not magically negate IHL.

It’s a bizarre situation where anyone would suggest that truly honest reporting would be served by media organizations self-censoring views that some might not like to hear.

But that is HonestReporting for you. They’ve moved on from simply making hysterical claims of anti-Israel bias, to demanding that views and opinions they don’t like should not be reported.

July 6 Media Critique: "Barghouti is no Mandela"

2007-07-11T05:20:00.000-07:00

The relentless anti-Israel media bias conspiracy is a little slow at the moment, so HonestReporting need to borrow from HR-Canada for this weeks dose of stupidity.

A Toronto Star article simply puts forth the fact that some consider Barghouti the “Palestinian Mandela”, and also the fact that some don’t.

Another example of how HRs' perspective is distorted by its’ strident pro-Israel partisanship (ie. bias). An article that simply reports the fact of the existence of particular views about Marwan Barghouti and notes a few specific similarities is attacked as if it has endorsed the view that Barghouti is exactly like Mandela. Yet further proof of the intolerance of differing opinions that is the underlying motivator for all of HonestReportings’ mendacious and mean-spirited rubbish.

June 26 Media Critique: "Attorney: NY Times and Washington Post Legally Complicit in Terror"

2007-06-27T03:51:00.000-07:00

Sure it is.

The thrust of this utterly stupid 'Media Critique' from HR is that news organizations, by reporting the views of groups like Hamas, might be ”guilty of providing material support for a terrorist organization”. Both the NYT and the Washington Post published an article by an advisor to the Palestinian PM, Ishmail Haniyeh. This is it.

Publishing the words of a Hamas spokesman is supporting terrorism? Of course HR don’t really believe this. They are perfectly happy for the media to report what Hamas says, as long as it fits in with HRs views. Immoderate statements are fine, in fact HR wants them highlighted. In previous 'media critiques' HR has happily linked to articles quoting Hamas claiming responsibility for attacks on Israelis, and with the ‘Hamas Mickey Mouse’ story, HR couldn’t quote them enough. So, what’s the problem with Ahmed Yousefs’ op-ed? I assume it’s statements like this,

It has consistently offered a 10-year cease-fire with the Israelis to try to create an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences.

Now that just won’t do. HR are committed to their version of Hamas - a blood-thirsty extremist group with only one aim, the killing of Jews. Letting them speak for themselves is an unhelpful complication in the campaign to vilify.

Clearly HR would prefer news organizations to censor themselves, never allowing opinions expressed that some people may find objectionable. If that was the citieria by which news was compiled, there’d be a whole lot less news.

Last year the South African Mail&Guardian newspaper called HonestReporting “enemies of……free expression”.

Ain't that the truth!

June 19 Media Critique: "BBC's All-Out Apology"

2007-06-19T16:59:00.001-07:00

Central place in todays 'critique' is Honestreportings obsession with the BBC.

The BBC apologizes for its Israel coverage?

Good thing there is a question mark, because it doesn't. The implication is what matters though. HR, in its' pursuit of "accuracy" in the media is unhappy with the BBC for issuing a correction on a factual error. That makes sense doesn't it?

"BBC REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES BIAS"
Guess what? It doesn't.

The report was about the practical application of the policy of impartiality into the future, rather than about whether or not the BBC is biased. It does include some case studies to highlight the issues and suggest improvements. Though in its' conclusions it does comment on how its' efforts are perceived by viewers,

they regard the BBC as 'generally impartial'

Since we now know that HR is against corrections, we won't be expecting to see an apology for factual errors like this one.

HR just rehash some whining from one of Britains low-end newspapers, The Daily Telegraph. Like HR, they have a bee in their bonnets over the BBC. And a good demonstration of HR's own partiality is on proud display here. The Daily Telegraph article criticising the BBC quotes its' own editor who briefly worked for the BBC . He acknowledges he is "right-of-centre" and finds the BBC doesn't completely reflect his position, it is a "flat earth" viewed from his "round earth". Naturally HR see this as a vindication of the criticism, rather than what it is - a vindication of impartiality. Likewise for HR - from their own very partial position, BBC impartiality looks like bias. It is bias, but its' HRs.

The lights are on but nobody is home.

Here’s a few tips from the report to aid HR in understanding impartiality and in case HR ever stop being strident partisans demanding compliance with their views, and instead strive to be impartial (yeah yeah, I know, when Hell freezes over),

"Impartiality does not require absolute neutrality.: the BBC should broadcast professional, evidence-based judgements by those qualified to make them…the audience clearly values this."

"Factual programming should not normally be built around a 'for' and 'against' proposition. Opinion is more complex and subtle than that."

"Impartiality involves a mixture of accuracy, balance, context, distance, even handedness, fairness, objectivity, open-mindedness, rigour, self-awareness, transparency and truth.But it is also about breadth of view and completeness. Impartiality in programme-making is often achieved by bringing extra perspectives to bear, rather than limiting horizons or censoring opinion. "

June 13 Media Critique: "Palestinian Terrorists: Abusing Freedom of the Press"

2007-06-14T02:02:00.000-07:00

Most interestingly this is a ‘Media Critique’ entirely devoid of critiques of media coverage and wholly without allegations of media bias, so surely it’s all a bit pointless?

It is only if you think Honest Reporting has any real interest in fairness and accuracy in media reporting. And as we’ve demonstrated repeatedly, it doesn’t. HR is a pro-Israel advocacy group targeting media with its' Israel-is-never-wrong message. The witch-hunt for bias is just the particular vehicle chosen to achieve this. The basic feature of HR is that any criticism of Israeli actions, no matter how factually accurate, cannot be tolerated. HR give yet another example today. Summarising the press reaction to the issue of Palestinian militants using a fake press vehicle to attack an IDF post, HR are not happy with the Palestinian Journalists Union for also suggesting that the IDF has targeted journalists,

we take issue with the false implications that Israel would ever intentionally target journalists

Reflexive defence of Israel by a group feigning concern over accuracy in the media. Amusing isn’t it?

HR quote the Israeli Foreign Press Association’s condemnation of the incident. Pity they didn’t check the FPA a little more closely before making the “false implication” charge. Here’s the FPA on Israels conduct towards journalists,

“The FPA wishes to express its profound dismay and shock over two recent incidents in which Palestinian Journalists have been injured and detained during the pursuit of their legitimate duties.Both cases, at Hawara Checkpoint and in the village of Bili'in, raise serious concerns about the treatment of journalists by members of the Israeli armed services. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests both journalists were physically assaulted by uniformed Israeli forces during routine news assignments." – 2006

"The FPA protests the outrageous targeting of a vehicle belonging to the Reuters News Agency in Gaza yesterday. The FPA rejects the excuses offered so far by the IDF. The assertion that the vehicle was acting suspiciously near Israeli forces is wholly unacceptable and we demand further details to support this allegation.The IDF also claims the vehicle was not identified as a vehicle belonging to the press. This is simply not true. The Reuters armoured vehicle is clearly marked." – 27/9/06

"The FPA wishes to protest against the obstruction and ill treatment of journalists trying to cover recent IDF activity in Nablus." – 28/2/07

"The FPA condemns the harassment of journalists trying to cover last Friday’s demonstration in the Palestinian village of Bilin. Israeli security forces were observed firing tear gas canisters in the direction of journalists and several cameramen were detained at the scene while they tried to cover the demonstration. Journalists have every right to cover these events without fear of harassment and assault by Israeli security forces." – 23/4/07

"The FPA is very concerned about an incident near the West Bank village of Artas where priovate security guards, hired by the Israeli authorities to protect a bulding project on disputed land, fired automatic weapons in a haphazard and unprofessional manner near a group of journalists covering a peaceful protest staged by a small number of Palestinian, Israeli and foreign activists" – 17/5/07

"The lack of consequences for the shooting of journalists - not to mention more frequent cases of simple harassment - delivers the message that abuses against journalists are somehow acceptable. This is a deplorable and utterly unacceptable situation. Therefore we call on the Israeli authorities to go beyond general promises and set a binding deadline for a serious accounting regarding the cases the FPA has forwarded to their attention." – 26/7/2001

"The Foreign Press Association calls for an immediate investigation into the killing of British video journalist James Miller last night near Rafah. The military has a duty to avoid harming non-combatants. Yet in recent weeks we have seen the killings of two journalists working for foreign outlets. We are still waiting to hear results of the investigation of the April 19 killing in Nablus of APTN's Nazeh Darwazeh, shot in the head, apparently by an Israeli soldier, while wearing bright clothing that clearly identified him as a journalist." – 3/5/2003.

James Miller was shot by an IDF sniper.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) documented the 45 cases of journalists hit by IDF fire in the first 12 months of the Second Intifada.

This is what RSF had to say on the event of the IDF killing of Italian journalist, Raffaele Ciriello,

For months, we have been denouncing the impunity enjoyed by Israeli troops firing on journalists. We have frequently been concerned by the almost complete lack of investigation by the Israeli authorities into such shootings. It was bound to lead to this kind of tragedy. Today, what we always feared has happened: a journalist has been killed, the first since the start of the second Intifada. We are appalled.

And another case where the journalist, luckily, survived,

When Bertrand Aguirre was wounded by a real bullet in Ramallah (West Bank), three different television crews filmed the scene. Their films clearly show an Israeli border guard getting out of his vehicle, calmly taking aim and, with his cigarette between his lips, opening fire on the man, at a distance of 100 meters. The journalist, who had just finished an interview and still had his microphone in his hand, was hit in the chest. Fortunately the bullet-proof jacket he was wearing saved him. - RSF (14/10/2001)

How’s that for “false implications”? Bias in the Palestinian Journalists Union!

Given HR’s deep concern for press freedom, perhaps it’s reflected in the number of 'Media Critiques' addressing this specific issue? If you want to know how many times this has happened, think of a number, any number.............as long as it’s less than one.

June 4 Media Critique: "The Six Day War: Forty Years On"

2007-06-04T06:50:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting takes a look at the context behind the events of June 1967.

Just looking at the events themselves really wouldn’t make HonestReportings case particulary well. And its case is nothing new, just the same old apologetics – nothing is Israels fault.

While June 5 marks the day that Israel initiated its military operation, it is important to note that the immediate Arab threats to wipe out Israel began in the preceding months. It is also critical to take the causes of the Six Day War into account before analyzing the resulting status of land taken as a result.

“Initiated its military operation” is alternatively known as an 'invasion' or 'armed aggression', the supreme war crime. Who needs such details when you have “context”!

International Law makes a clear distinction between land "occupied" during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war.

Really? HR accidentally fail to mention where “International law” makes this distinction, or to provide a relevant quote. Let me assist HR to locate where in International Law this exists – NO WHERE.

Well, that takes care of the first two sentences. I think we can see where this is going.

Here’s a few other resources for “context”. From MERIP , and IMEU .

And a general overview of the June ’67 war, and since HR mention it, a review of the “Syrian Shelling” that “Initiates War with Israel”, according to HR.

Israel had every legal and moral right to defend herself in 1967 and has legitimate rights within the territory that is under her control today. If you see a media report that misrepresents the events of 1967, use this primer and the following links to respond to media bias:

Using HonestReportings “primer” as a guide, one would be hard pressed to see any media reporting on the June '67 war that isn’t “bias”.

But that is the general idea.

May 29 Media Critique: "Cartoons and Conspiracies"

2007-05-29T17:23:00.000-07:00

HonestReportings theory is that if you fire enough shots, you must hit something. Fine in theory, but as HR show today, if the targets are mirages, no number of shots help.

First, HR turn their mighty intellects to a cartoon in a South African newspaper. They seem to think it's not 'balanced'. This is farcical. Cartoons are the epitome of 'point-of-view' in newspapers. Next HR will be complaining that the sports section has too much sport.

"USS LIBERTY CONSPIRACY RESURFACES IN AUSTRALIA"
Well, if anyone should know about conspiracies, it's HR. They remain convinced of a world wide "anti-Israel media bias" conspiracy, despite the underwhelming evidence.

This one shocks me. Imagine, in my own backyard, and via Tim Fischer, the former Deputy Prime Minister, no less. The conspiracy is that Tim Fischer suggests that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty. As everyone knows (except Tim apparently), it was an accident. Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats repeatedly, for over an hour in broad daylight, accidentally attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34.

HR know this claim is a "canard" because someone wrote a book saying so ('The Liberty Incident' - Ahron Cristol). It was the "definitive study", so they say. I think it's a definitive study in the same way that Joan Peters' 'From Time Immemorial' was the definitive study of population movements in Mandated Palestine. Fischer and his evil conspiracy rejected this "definitive study" by a retired judge in favour of the evidence presented by such people as a former Lieutenant on the USS Liberty, James Ennes who wrote 'Assault on the Liberty', detailing the extensive evidence in support of the contention that the attack was planned and deliberate.

But, just as 'From Time Immemorial' managed to do the opposite of what it intended, so too did 'The Liberty Incident' backfire rather badly, spurring old hands from the USS Liberty to denounce the book as a fraud and to again demand a real inquiry. So strong was the reaction to the book that new witnesses emerged to provide evidence. Stephen Forslund, who was an intelligence analyst working on the day of the attack, related how he read the intercepted transmissions that showed Israel knew the USS Liberty was an American ship, and had deliberately set about attacking it.

"THE SIX-DAY WAR: DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS"
How appropriate. HR launch a 'pre-emptive strike' on likely media coverage of the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War. Purely defensive of course, as HR prepares for the 'imminent' attack by the media with their "anti-Israel agenda".

HR warn,

Some historical analyses will be perfectly legitimate. Others may be simply a rewriting of history in order to promote a politicized anti-Israel agenda. Be on the lookout and make full use of HonestReporting's resources, which will be appearing shortly.

It doesn't take much imagination to know what these resources will consist of. I'm sure Ahron Cristols book will be there. You have to laugh.

It's poor form to self-reference, but here's a brief overview of the Six Day War that won't figure in HRs 'resources'.

May 24 Media Critique: "Sderot: Still Under Fire"

2007-05-24T17:53:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting doesn't like the term "home made rockets". Um, OK.

Truly compelling media critique.

What the media is probably trying to do is to provide some "context" (a selectively beloved term of HRs) , to their audiences about Qassams. Namely, that they are not standard military grade weapons which have an altogether different effect, as shown by the Israeli missile attack on a Hamas politicians private home, which killed 8 members of his family. He wasn't home. See the difference? One military grade missile kills almost as many people as thousands of Qassams have over several years. That's the kind of context that HR abhors.

"SLANTED COVERAGE"
This is the tactic that started it all.

When HR isn't just straight out lying or misrepresenting, it likes to impute intent to errors, mistakes or just routine journalistic sloppiness. The incident that lead to HRs creation remains a classic example of the genre. It was in the 2nd intifada, and a photo showing an Israel soldier standing over a bleeding man was incorrectly captioned to suggest that the man was Palestinan, when it was a Jewish man who had been assaulted by Palestinian rioters. It was an error that had occurred in communication between the photographer and an editor in a busy newsroom on a breaking story. HR, naturally, sought to explain it in terms of anti-Israel bias.

Todays example is far more dull, but essentially the same. Australia's ABC has a story with the following headline "Israel Continues Air Raids Despite new Gaza Truce". Clearly misleading (and quickly changed), but the story itself was perfectly accurate and reasonable. Just one of those editorial stuff-ups that affect all news stories from time to time, from the world news, to lost dog stories. But not to HR, where every error is a sign of malign intent and so HR screams "slanted coverage"!

HR try to have a go at regular target, the BBC , for saying,

Israel resumed airstrikes on Gaza on Tuesday after a six-month lull. It followed several rocket attacks on Israel.

But the best they could manage in response was "Several? Several?". Maybe even HR are getting bored with their script.

"COMPARE AND CONTRAST - BLOODSHED IN LEBANON"
HR wants to, but has to avoid a significant contrast in its' effort to suggest that the IDF attack on the Jenin Refugee camp is a comparable situation. That Israel is an illegal occupying army, in contrast to the Lebanese Government being the recognised authority responsible for order and security inside Lebanon. Naturally, HR repeat their favourite lie regarding Jenin,
"This army was pilloried by the international press and falsely accused of perpetrating a 'massacre' ".

Despite that, there has been significant coverage of the civilian casualties caused by the Lebanese armies actions. Inconveniently for HR, some of the best coverage of this type has come from one of the journalists that HR has often sought to smear with its "anti-Israel" tag, Robert Fisk,

The Lebanese soldiers claim they try never to hurt civilians (I can think of another army which says that!), but did so many Palestinians have to be killed or wounded for the crimes of a few ………….Had there been feelings of revenge rather than military discipline when they first opened fire?

Pandering to their prejudices, HR say,

we do wonder if there is the faint whiff of double standards at play here?

Sadly for HR, no.

Just the stench of strident pro-Israel partisans trying to maintain the fiction of "anti-Israel media bias".

May 17 Media Critique:"Buried By the Media: Watch Sderot Under Attack "

2007-05-18T06:31:00.000-07:00

HonestReporting complain that the latest Qassam attacks on Sderot have been “buried by the media”.

The media fails to do justice to the suffering of Sderot.

After all it was a major event, with one (1) person seriously injured. There were some other minor events, like the deaths of 40 Palestinians in factional violence and a further 10 killed in an Israeli bombing.

Now, in media-speak, “buried” has a very specific meaning; that a story has not been given the attention it deserves, getting little mention and no follow up and so disappears into obscurity.

So, just how buried was the Sderot story?

Unfortunately, HR had to begin by acknowledging that one of their favourite targets, AP, had a 2 page story on Sderot. Which of course disuaded them not at all from making their allegations.

CNN had this and this for follow up which included some video.

AFP had this , this and this.

Reuters covered the story here and followed it up with this.

Not only that, but look at this. IRIN News, news agency of the evil UN, covered the attacks with this story and then another!

OK, so there was plenty of coverage, but surely that bastion of anti-Israel media bias, the BBC, ignored this vital story? Close enough. The BBC could only manage a 40 sec video of Sderot showing damaged buildings and people being evacuated by ambulance. Typical.

Don’t you just hate this vast world-wide anti-Israel media conspiracy that has “buried” this story?

Thankfully we have courageous groups like HonestReporting to alert us to such awful media bias.

May 13 Media Critique: "New Horror Footage: From Mickey Mouse to Mother's Suicide Mission"

2007-05-13T06:56:00.000-07:00

HR are determined to demonstrate why no one should take them seriously.

Most people would have heard of the Hamas ‘Mickey Mouse’ story, given the extensive international coverage it’s received. But HR, faithfully adhering to the old adage of when-you’re-on-a-good-thing-stick-to-it, are demanding to know why,

the media ignore another equally abhorrent video, which is still running on Hamas TV?

And that’s it, that’s the “media critique” – why doesn’t the media spend more time covering the specific story we want to see covered? Has the general issue of incitement on Palestinian TV not been covered? Obviously not to HRs satisfaction.

To top it off, HR then offer some “recommended reading” on the issue of media bias, explaining that,

the media is guilty of highlighting individual and sensationalist stories, such as the Hamas Mickey Mouse, while neglecting the bigger picture….

And this just after they’ve hysterically demanded to know why the media “turns a blind eye” to another “individual and sensationalist story”! HR, the unintentional comedians.

The sight of a stridently partisan group like HonestReporting, flinging around accusations of bias never fails to amuse.

HR gave a master class in objectivity and concern for children in 2002 when Amnesty International released their report on child deaths “Killing the Future: Children in the Line of Fire”.
Others have dealt with the general issues of the huge number of Palestinian children killed by the IDF in this conflict. But what is interesting from the bias perspective is that HonestReporting were at pains to ensure that, in the interests of protecting children, that the IDF version was presented,

The Palestinian terrorists are solely and unequivocally responsible for the injuries caused to Palestinian children.

So there.

Update:

Thanks Russ for this tip.

Seems that MEMRI has been indulging in a little creative translating (otherwise known as fabrication) to make the Hamas 'Mickey Mouse" story a bit more useful for their purposes.

Am I surprised? Not a bit.

Update 2:

Thanks to Facts On The Ground, for this very clear summary of MEMRI's.....err....issues.

May 10 Media Critique: “Nice Story But Where's the Context?"

2007-05-10T17:02:00.000-07:00

Or alternatively – 'Nice Try, But Do You Really Think You Can Ever Make Us Happy?' (HonestReportings ability to find bias in anything is neatly explained by experimental studies - see the 'hostile media effect').

While we frequently highlight some of the most egregious media bias and inaccuracies, it is also worth noting those instances where a seemingly benign or even positive article can disguise a greater problem….. so what's the issue with a piece where there appears nothing to get upset about?

That’s right – even when there is nothing to get upset about, HR will always find something to get upset about. It just goes to show the utter futility or trying to please extreme partisans like HonestReporting. The BBC are the target for running a puff-piece (sorry, human interest story), on the fond reminisces of some Iraqi-Jews for their homeland. But the BBC miss the all-important "context".

The problem lies not in what has been written but in what has been left out. While terming the Iraqi Jews' move to Israel as part of a "mass migration", the BBC conveniently forgets that this was not a move made out of choice. In fact, the Iraqi Jews (along with thousands of Jews living in Arab states) were forced to flee for their lives as refugees in anything but positive circumstances.

Well, not quite "fleeing for their lives", as the emigration of Iraqi Jews occurred over several years, and it was a migration that Israel was only too happy to encourage.

Never ones to miss a chance at being factually inaccurate, HR include a map to show the level of migration to Israel from Arab countries. It includes Egypt which shows a figure of 89, 525. But that is roughly the Jewish population of Egypt, not the number of émigrés to Israel. And HR also never miss an opportunity to do themselves, what they accuse others of doing. Just as they accuse the BBC, they leave out some vital ‘context’ about the situation in Egypt – most of the émigrés didn’t go to Israel. Why? Well, it's not the kind of 'context' that HR likes. Many of the Egyptian Jews blamed Israel for their situation. In the 1950s Israel had recruited several Egyptian Jews to bomb targets in Egypt, followed by Israels 1956 invasion of Egypt, all which led to Egypts Jews becoming the targets of campaigns doubting their loyalty to Egypt, leading them to emigrate, the majority going anywhere but Israel.

There is some other missing context, but again not the sort that HR would tell its' sheep-like readers – why do some of the Mizahrim have fond memories of Iraq? Afterall, as HR tell us, they were "forced to flee for their lives". Doesn't make much sense does it? But, onto the context that resolves this apparent conundrum. The European nature of Zionism meant that the Mizharim didn’t get a very warm welcome in Israel. They were seen as second-rate and were treated that way. It was they who were sent to the outlying ‘development towns’ where conditions were harsh and services very basic, often finding themselves living in tents for extended periods. And these were people who were often the middle class in their countries of origin. It was a very rude shock for many of them, compounded by the contemptuous attitudes towards the 'Oriental-Jews'. Contempory Mizhari scholars increasingly write about the racism that has typified the relations between themselves and the Ashkenazi Jews of European origin.

May 2 Media Critique: "Harvard Report Examines Media Coverage of Lebanon War"

2007-05-03T08:15:00.000-07:00

Back at the beginning of March 2007, HonestReporting's Backspin blog drew attention to a research paper published by Harvard University, which examined media coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War. The conclusion: Hezbollah succeeded at using the media as a weapon against Israel. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the mainstream media, having allowed themselves to be cynically manipulated by the Hezbollah propaganda machine, failed to report the findings of the Harvard study.

And HonestReporting, having failed to read the actual report, can’t manage to summarise it with any great accuracy. The report (actually a ‘Research Paper’) focuses its media analysis on Arabic media, such as Al-Jezeera, Al-Arabiyya etc, the BBC and the main US outlets. It doesn’t provide much information on its methodology, so it's conclusions are rather difficult to assess. Its basic finding is that Hizballah tried to use the media to its advantage. Ground-breaking stuff. Who needs a ‘Research Paper’ to point out what is obvious and uncontroversial. The real issue is how does the media respond to attempts to manipulate it -whether it is a Government, a military force, or an internet pressure group.

While the initial lack of publicity was disappointing, a number of blogs have recently revisited the study, generating a surge in internet-led interest. This prompted the Jerusalem Post to report:

This is amusing. The Research Paper author, Marvin Kalb, expressed an interesting opinion almost 10 yrs ago on the power of the internet to influence mainstream journalism – he felt it was a negative one.

I suspect that over the next couple of years that impact will grow to the point where it will damage journalism's ability to do its job professionally, to check out information before publication, to be mindful of the necessity to publish and broadcast reliable, substantiated information.

Kalb felt that ‘bloggers’ putting information out, compel a commidified media to run with those stories from a purely competitive perspective, leading to a degradation of journalistic standards. And that’s pretty much the way this latest 'Media Critique' has come to us. The Harvard paper has been kicking around a few blogs and then as HR tell us “This prompted the Jerusalem Post to report:” Kalbs paper. A little ironic isn’t it?

Here’s an excerpt from the paper that HonestReporting (and the Jerusalem Post) should read, and re-read till they get it,

Keller of the Times said that the issue is so irresolvable that he refuses to pander to the prejudices of his critics. “They don’t want you to be balanced in your coverage; they want you to portray the morality of the war as they see it.” Scholars have coined a term for this problem—it’s called “hostile media effect,” meaning partisans tend to believe that the media generally paints them in a negative light

Sound like anybody we know?

Update:
Thanks to Eric for pointing out this critique of the Harvard study. On a related matter, Kalb was a vocal critic of the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the 'Israel Lobby', as it "clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper". If you've read Kalbs effort, it's hard not to laugh at this. I've written to the author pointing out some of the serious academic limitations in his 'Research Paper'. It will be interesting to see if there is a response.