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

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”

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”

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"

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”

“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' "

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' "

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“

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' "

"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´

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

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

So, what’s the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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”

“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”

“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”

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"

"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"

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”

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"

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.