What kind of bias have you observed in the mainstream media?  I don't
believe in conspiracies.  I think that news coverage tends to be pretty
well balanced.  If there's a slant, it's in favor of making more money for
the media outlet by covering too much sex, gossip, and other junk.

I have been introduced to an organization called CAMERA, Committee for
Accuracy in Mid-East Reporting in America.  They publish a newsletter that
seems dedicated to the premise that the big media outlets (radio, TV,
magazines, newspapers) are anti-semitic.  The media is too sympathetic to
the Arabs and too hard on the Israelis.  Jews all over the country have
to support CAMERA.  Read the CAMERA newsletter and it'll tell you which
media outlets are the worst offenders.  They correct errors in regular
news coverage and help you write letters to the editors.

It feels to me like Pat Robertson's kind of thing.  Lots of loaded and
inflammatory words in service of the agenda.  I find it distasteful.

I know that as a computer person, reporters often don't seem to understand
the computer industry very well.  I suppose if I had some reason to think
the world had something against computer people, I would feel that the
media was out to get us.  But I've learned to accept the fact that most
general reporters know less about computers than I do.  I try to laugh and
not let it bother me.  People reading this must be experts on lots of
topics.  Does the media have something against nerds and Jews, or is the
coverage of your field lacking as well?

Any Arabs out there?  Is there an Arab or Palestinian publication which
mirrors CAMERA's?  I find it hard to believe that reporters are as nice to
Arabs as CAMERA thinks they are.  Where did I ever get this idea that
Hamas was a "terrorist" organization if not from the mainstream media.

96 responses total.

I'm dissapointed, kaplan.  Not believing in conspiracies.  Of course the
major media is controlled fully.  Why are computers given little coverage?
Because they allow us to bypass many gatekeepers (thank you Jon Katz).
If the masses were to suddenly envelop the Internet, think of the mass         
confusion.  Million suddenly being awakened into a world of truth!  Ok,
so maybe I'm just a major conspiracy advocator, but in this world you
gotta be a little loony for trusting the media.

 But I thought the Jews controlled the media!  I guess maybe it is just the
'entertainment industry.'

Maybe the Jews do.  By systematicaly sabatoging specific textiles, they
direct us toward specific media.  The entertainment industry you refer to
is the front for the combined mafia-Kennedy organization.  My sources
indicate that they do not currently control media, rather manipulate
responses to the media

as someone who indulges in journalism as a hobby, I'm aware that those who
make the media are inclined to make it present a view that they agree
with. However, to say that there's only one view presented seems a bit of
an overgeneralization to me. 

Did anyone see the Nightline where a panel discussed whether the
media's coverage of Whitewater was appropriate or not?  Interesting
show.  Comments?

Well, "talk radio" is openly slanted.  

I've seen lots and lots of misrepresentation in "news" reports, too.  Balanced
and fair reporting is an ideal, not a reality.  

I've got some of this CAMERA stuff on line.  I'll remove it in a few days,
but in the meantime, to see what I was talking about in #0: 

!zmore /u/kaplan/camera

What are you implyin, Kaplan?
a.  That it doesn't matter whether TV, radio, newspapers, etc. report 
the truth or feed us a pack of lies.
b.  That people shouldn't have the right to challenge media reports and
have "errors" corrected (or at least make the public aware).
or
c.  That my right to challenge the media depends on whether or not other
people are doing it, too.
If you answered yes to a, b, or c, please take youself in to have you
Democratic values and principles readjusted.

No, I do not agree with statements a, b, or c.

I am simply wondering if anyone on grex agrees with CAMERA that there
is an anti-semitic slant in the mainstream media.  I am also wondering if
a publication with the opposite view point exists which I could take a
look at.  I don't feel I have to tools to evaluate the CAMERA material,
but I would like to believe that the mainstream media is pretty objective.

Mein Kampf (sorry bout misspelling) :)

If you read CAMERA you should have noticed that it is concerned with
fairness in reporting about Israel, not with reporting about anti-semitism.

Most people have at least one issue on which they simply cannot see
straight -- where any commentary against the person's opinion makes
you "the enemy."  Such people tend to revel in "honest" reports that
"reveal" the bias of their opposition.

That conference in Boston certainly sounds appealing!  And if this is
sponsored by CAMERA, they certainly have pulled together an outstanding
panel.

It would come as no surprise for many that I agree with CAMERA's point of
view.  Not having seen any specifics, I can't say to what extent I agree.

For another opinion on the media's treatment of Israel, read "The Media's
War Against Israel" (I don't recall the authors).

Off the top of my head, here are a couple instances:

The media's universal usage of "West Bank" to describe the territories of
Judea and Samaria.  For thousands of years, the area was known as the
latter (even if it was included in a [non-Arab] Palestine).  From 1949
to 1967 this area was illegally occupied by Jordan, and which point it
became known as the "West Bank *of Jordan*".  While Israel's administration
of the area is legal, news reports always indicate "Israeli occupied West
Bank" -- which they never did when it was under Jordanian control.

About the same time that about 1,000 Palestinians were killed in Sabra
and Shatila (an act that Israel didn't cause but should have prevented),
other massacres received little or no press.  In context, S&S was "just
another" massacre in the Lebanese civil war.  When 5,000 Christians were
massacred in Damour, the western media was silent.  When the Syrian army
destroyed 2 entire villages, killing 20,000-60,000 civilians, the NY Times
reported the story in something like a 1-column inch article on page 63.
Yet S&S was beamed into our living rooms for weeks, with implications of
a unique event that was Israel's fault.

re #13:  The fact of Israel's administration of the territories is legal.
         The manner of that administration, and ideas of annexation, are
         not.

         Is your latter assertion an argument that Israel should not be
         held to a higher standard than its neighbors?  Is it not an
         industrialized, democratic, first world nation?  Does it not
         speak of itself as better than its neighbors?

         Our society has this problem with prejudice.  You see, we "expect"
         those nasty minorities to kill each other off.  Who even knows
         about the genocide in Uganda, that nearly obliterated a minority
         population that had exceeded one million people a few years before?
         We focus on the "genocide" of "civilized" people, by "civilized"
         people -- we care more if the people "look like us."  And, yes, we
         pay attention to the slaughter of "uncivilized" people where
         "civilize" people are somehow responsible -- ignoring, probably
         unintentionally, our own nation's history.

I think that Israel, by and large, adheres to much higher standards than
its neighboring Arab countries.  But given the media's focus on Israel (at
one point the number of journalists, or rather the density, was 2nd in the
world only to Washington D.C.), a non-representative (untruthful) picture
of events is created in the mind of the reader/viewer.

You may well be correct that this bias exists for reasons other than
anti-Israel or anti-Semitic feelings (which I wouldn't say about various
European media).  But the reason isn't so important as the bottom line:
there is an anti-Israel bias in the American media.

 There's also an anti-membersofthelactoovovegetariancommunity bias in the
American media.

Obviously, otherwise they'd call it the ovo-lacto vegetarian community.
But it's a different cup of tea, and a different type of bias.

 What does tea have to do with it (other than being somewhat inciteful to
our British friends...), and so what if it is a different type of bias?
 
  Are you saying that the bias against you is worse than the bias against
me?

I was certainly suprised yesterday when Cokie Roberts converted a 3%
decline in U.S. violent crime rates into a 3% *increase* in order to
give impetus to the Fienstien/Schumer "Recreational Firearms Use Act".

Nothing Cokie Roberts (or Eleanor clift, for that matter) does can
surprise me anymore. I wish the media would admit their various biases
and have done with it instead of pretending to be neutral.

re #15:  I don't see the media depicting Hussein's actions toward the Kurds
         as beneficient, or lauding the human rights record of Assad, for
         example....  I think the bias, in this case, lies with the reader.

Oh, puleeze.  The only time the U.S. media focused on the plight of the
Kurds (or their ill treatment by Iraq and other neighboring countries)
was during our fixation with the Gulf War.  Of course we don't hear of
the plight of the Bahaiis in Iran on a daily basis, too.  Or the Copts
in Egypt (which in real terms receives more US aid than Israel).

Let us not forget the China/Tibet situation which has recieved universal
noncoverage for as long as I can remember.

        The issue of media bias is multifaceted.  First, there is the
consideration that the commercial news media are businesses, and they must
produce and sell a product in order to survive.  This also applies to public
broadcasting, but the market and the methodology are different.  This
constriction affects which issues are covered, and how.  If there is interest
(saleability) in an issue, it will receive more coverage than an issue in
which interest is weak.  The most significant factor is that the marketing of
newsmedia is toward an increasingly poorly educated public, and the complexity
of the issues is increasing.  Here then is a dilemma.  Go tabloid, or bore your
audience with arcane technicalities?
        What we have is not so much a bias against or for any particular group,
but rather a logistical marketing and economic survival issue.

        For the most part, folks who claim that the media is biased against 
them or their group are simply finding the simplest explanation which seems
to fit the facts they have available.  Occam's razor, applied in ignorance,
tends to remove a lot of Occam's face.....

re #22:  So coverage of human rights abuses is okay, as long as Israel is
         covered last....  Sounds like Leeron, alright.

I guess even Leeron agrees with that....

On another point, it was asserted above that Israel gets less U.S. aid
than does Egypt.  As this is not on a per capita basis, a per square
mile basis, an absolute dollar figure basis, or any other basis I can
think of, I was wondering what the rationale was behind the assertion.

Wow, in both your last responses you managed to put words in my mouth
rather than respond on-topic.  No wonder I now twit-filter your responses
on M-Net so that I needn't read absurd and baiting entries such as #24.

Israel is given more "aid" than Egypt in terms of raw Dollar amounts, but
the form of aid is different.  I don't have a break-down in front of me,
but most of the aid given Israel is in the form of *loans* which are
repayed.  Most of the aid to Egypt is *grants*, especially when one
considers Egypt's inability to repay existing loans.  For example, during
the Gulf War Egypt was forgiven loans of about $10 Billion.  That's more
than Israel receives in 3 years.

I don't particularly disagree with Other's entry, but for the bottom line.
It is true that "Man Bites Dog" is a better selling story than "Dog Bites
Man".  But if hundreds of the latter cases are glossed over while the
former are thrust on the front page, there is a definite media bias
against "Man" and in favor of "Dog".  Now in this example all readers
inherently realize that "Man Bites Dog" is a story because it is the
exception.  This is not always apparent when it comes to foreign events.

So when it comes to formulating public perceptions and opinions, the bottom
line is that media bias exists -- regardless of whether the reasons for its
existance are more benign than malignant.

Actually, I responded on-topic.  You didn't respond.  I asked questions.
You didn't respond.  You now enter your usual tirade, rather than anything
of interest.  Yawn.

Israel gets direct money, and frequently gets its loans forgiven.  Heck --
we even "forgave" the reparations Israel "paid" for their destruction of
the U.S.S. Liberty.

Blather on, Leeron.

Incidentally, Leeron, your use of a "twit filter" doesn't surprise me.
I asked far too many questions you couldn't (or wouldn't) answer.  A
true cop-out.  Although it does save me from your tirades.

That's quite the inaccurate reflection.  You bait more than you ask
questions and do your best to create a combatative atmosphere.  It
seems as if you feed off this.  As bdh would say, you can't win a
pissing contest with a skunk.  And you do your best to assure that
any reasonable debate turns into a pissing contest.

The most recent thread is a perfect example.  I made a simple statement.
Rather than ask what I meant, you made a dog and pony show out of it.
When I clarified, were you honorable enough to concede the point?  Of
course not.  You made two assertions which, regardless of whether they
are correct or not, had nothing to do with the topic.  Despite your
muckracking and attempting to ressurect issues from nearly 30 years ago,
the fact remains that in real terms, Egypt receives more aid than Israel.

But you can't leave it at that.  Despite the fact that this was a statement
I said in passing in an item about the media, you must continue to
obfuscate the issue with more loaded questions and shift the topic to
even further tangents.

And that's your problem.  You are so caught up in trying to trip me up
with questions that I can't or won't answer that you've lost all grasp
of the forest.  So stop nitpicking, get some perspective -- and a life.

... And you're the skunk?  Interesting.

Actually, Leeron, I have been more than charitable with you in the past.
The fact that I (and others) have tired of your obfuscation and insults,
presumably an extraordinarily thin attempt to veil a total lack of
objectivity on certain subjects, should not surprise you.

You can't even make an honest point.  Israel gets more cash than Egypt.
Israel gets more arms than Egypt.  Israel gets more loans forgiven than
Egypt....  Israel gets *far* more aid than Egypt by *any* measure.  The
only obfuscation and dishonesty has been on your part.

Your problem is that you are so hung up on defending Israel that you
can no longer see the truth.  The sad part is, you don't even want to.

 Oy vey!

My thoughts exactly.

Sorry, Aaron, but the lack of objectivity is yours with regards to such
exchanges.  Your argumentative methods are just that -- argumentative.
And, like a small child, you regurgitate my comments back at me; aren't
you creative enough to come up with your own metaphors?  While you can
talk out your ear about me, the fact remains that you are widely viewed
as the "skunk", with an incredible capability of getting into "pissing
contests" with a wide variety of people, from dpc to russ to remmers.

While I'm glad to see that you were able to address the issue without
repeating your loaded muckracking questions, you are still mistaken.
About 90% of all government aid to Israel comes right back to the U.S.,
with about 60% appropriated for loan repayment.

Hmm. 9 lines of criticism of style and 2 lines of content. 18% efficiency.
Can you get below that, Aaron? (sarcasm intended) (note: I got 0% here)

re #34:  Hmmm....  Well, if you point out the substance, I will be happy
         to respond to it.  Otherwise, it isn't worth my time.

 About 90% of all government aid to Israel comes right back to the U.S.,
 with about 60% appropriated for loan repayment.

With 1.8 billion of the 3 billion "on the books" aid to
Israel earmarked for military expenses, it is ludicrous to say that
about 60 percent of its aid goes to past loans.  And your comment
also ignores the fact that Congress has bound itself, statutorily,
to provide Israel with enough funding to cover its "loan" payments
to the U.S.  (This is like the bank making your house payments, and
throwing in some spending money.)

In a sense, the military money comes back -- we require nations to whom
we extend military aid to spend the bulk of it on U.S. munitions.  (Of
course, part of it, along with a great deal of "off the books" aid, is
directed toward the Israeli arms industry.)

Israel gets about 1.5 billion in "off the books" grants.

In addition, Israel gets 2 billion in "loan guarantees," offset by any
amount of funds used to support its illegal settlements in the Occupied
Territories.  Actually, this "offset" is an advantage to Israel, given
that Clinton has to date made up the "offset" amounts in direct grants.
(That is, Israel spent almost .5 billion on settlements, so it only got
1.5 billion in loan guarantees.  So Clinton threw in a grant for .5
billion for "relocation of troops.)

If we look at past grants to Israel, recognizing that those "gifts"
remain a part of our national debt, we should also note that those
"gifts" cost us $5 billion in interest every year.

        Is it possible that one of you is looking at aid from the U.S. gov't
while the other of you is looking at total aid from the U.S., including the
substantial quantity given in private donations? (And I *do* mean substantial!)

My references were solely to government aid.  If somebody has found a
way to track Israel's spending of private aid, I'd be interested to hear
the details.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss