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

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”

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”

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”

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”

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”

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”

“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?

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”

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”

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.