Talk:Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Archive 1

message: I propose to reduce this page to a stub until someone is willing and able to write an article that is not just junk like at present.  --Zero 01:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare its coverage in the media vs. the coverage of the incident in Gaza on the same day. The article is not about the conflict but rather about its coverage in the media. --Humus sapiens|Talk 22:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

message: This must be one of the most ridiculous and biased articles in the whole of Wikipedia. --Zero 08:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article stinks 

message: Rachel Corrie may be a controversial figure, but I fail to perceive -- and the article does nothing to clarify -- how this has anything to do with media coverage. Failing clear evidence of systematic media bias with regard to her this section should be deleted. -- Viajero 15:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachel Corrie 

message: IMHO, "overly sympathetic" is not the problem. Just the opposite, being sympathetic to the Palestinians means they deserve better. The media, education, NGOs that support anti-Israel hatred and violence is counter-productive, just as keeping them eternal refugees. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed "overly sympathetic" to "biased" 

message: Moved the following paragraph to talk:
: The US media watchgroup Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) claimed in 2001 that the word occupation has become almost taboo for American reporters. FAIR said that even the designation occupied territories, once routine on network TV, had all but disappeared. On the three networks' evening news broadcasts -- ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News -- FAIR determined the West Bank or Gaza were mentioned in 99 news stories since the fighting began in September 2000, but of those 99 stories, only four used the word "occupied," "occupation" or any other variation. FAIR determined that there is a significant difference between UK and US media: Israel's occupation was mentioned in almost two-thirds of the news stories in the British newspaper The Independent in 2001, while it was omitted from more than two-thirds of stories in the The New York Times. 
Reason: an outdated and non-neutral para. As per Oslo, in 2000-2001, the "Area A" territories were already under Palestinian control, and "Area B" - partially so. They were reoccupied later, in 2002, as a result of Intifada2. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation in 2001 

message: I have removed the photo. The Times makes errors everyday. What is special about that one? If someone presents quantitative evidence of systemastic bias on the part of the Times we can restore it. By quantitative, I mean that kind of statistical analyses FAIR does. Otherwise, it is simply anecdotal (and hence propaganda). -- Viajero 21:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Photo section above for an answer to your question. By removing the text and the photo not in line with your POV, you only demonstrated your non-neutral opinion. I think the AP/NYT photo is very representative of the topic (). Regarding FAIR: who is the judge to say it is not unfair? I have included some numbers as requested. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  anecodotal evidence insufficient 

message: For example, The New York Times is reguarly castigated by progressive groups in the United States for its uncritical support of Israel, especially on its editorial pages, while right-wing, pro-Israel groups claim its reporting has a pro-Palestinian bias.
Do you call this NPOV? Progressive is definitely not (implying that the opposite is regressive). And being pro-Israel and right-wing is not the same. See also the comments above and learn to accomodate opinions other than yours. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yep, and rightwingers all sit on the right side of the table... -- Viajero 17:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I have removed this paragraph:
:Pro-Israeli media critics claim newswire services such as the Associated Press, Agence France Presse and Reuters have a pro-Palestine bias because they employ Palestinians as journalists, due to their knowledge of the Arabic language and culture and easy access to the Palestinian population. Because of this, such critics say, the media outlets that depend on them are biased towards the Palestinian perspective. Others point out that major media outlets, particularly in the West, tend  to portray the Israelis as victims. 
This basically an ad hominem attack on Palestians. If someone comes up with objective, quantitative evidence that the wire services do in fact hire many Palestinines in Palestine and that it results in bias, we can reinserit it. -- Viajero 17:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common for Palestinian guides, interpretters, camera crew, etc, to be hired by Western news agencies when they want to report from the Palestinian areas.  They hire Israelis in the same fashion within Israel.  However, the talking head (if TV) or news copy writer (if print) is usually Western.  There are probably exceptions, but the extent would have to be documented and the claim of bias justified before anything like the disputed paragraph is acceptable. --Zero 18:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinians as journalists

message: Humus, as a conciliatory act I will not revert my bibliography to its original version. In future, however, do NOT revert any of my edits until you comment on it first, instead of simply adding a note to your edit. Since you asked about why I put The Holocaust Industry in there, it is because the book is about Media Coverage. It doesn't need to have the words "media" and "coverage" in the title to be so. I don't see what your objection to Finklestein, a Jewish person, is - just above you were claiming I was trying to turn this article into an anti-Jewish "disgrace". Simonides 09:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews have full range of opinions. Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew, who does not represent majority. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, since Jews (all other people as well) have a full range of opinions it is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia to represent the full range without maliciously characterizing or reducing any of these opinions. Calling someone a self-hating Jew does not reflect objective thought - this is not about majorities, it's about objectivity. Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: "A self-hating Jew": that is about the stupidest cliche there is. Simonides, don't bother try to reason with Humus, he is just a zealot. -- Viajero 09:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Simonides, you haven't been around so long, right? Take a look at the version of this article Humus regarded as acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict&oldid=4010575 Very instructive, no? -- Viajero 09:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Viajero, thank you very much for stepping in. Yes, I'm new! Simonides 09:56, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again, as I am sure you are aware, accusations of "media bias" are a dime a dozen. The only meaningful way to tackle the topic IMO is to try to find studies where media analysts try to "quantify" such bias by counting and analyzing the use of terminology, images, sources, and that kind of thing. FAIR has been this doing type of work for many years, and it is extremely useful, but it is very time consuming and not many groups do it. If you can find any other studies of this kind, it would be enormously helpful. -- Viajero 10:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall keep an eye out for such groups, Viajero. For the most part I only know sites which discuss media bias, but don't do many exhaustive studies. Articles on such studies do show up on internet news stories from time to time however. Simonides 10:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the critique, Mirv. The two books indeed do not restrict themselves to media coverage and cover other topics; but since the article mentions a "war of words" I thought it worthwhile to bring up books which discuss bias in print media - books and periodicals. I own The Holocaust Industry too, but not the other one and it has been a while since I looked at it (but I do remember it discusses media coverage at several points.) Please note that the bibliography is only a start. You are welcome to add to it, and remove one of the Finklestein titles as you find replacements. You are also welcome to add books from another POV, but preferably books written by "serious" authors, not griping, hysterical hacks. Simonides 20:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! We are perhaps reading different versions of these books. I have the 2000 edition of The Holocaust Industry and the 1995 edition of Image and Reality; you referenced the 2003 editions of both. It may be that the new revisions included material on media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; if so, I withdraw my critique. —No-One Jones 02:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography + DO NOT make edits without initiating discussion. 

message: How did we ever get a consensus to keep this?  It's inherently POV and can never make a worthy article.  I can't believe this junk gets to stay. blankfaze | •­•
:In my opinion this is an important article and it is not inherently POV. To mention bias does not mean one needs to choose sides. Simonides 20:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I disagree.  However, I do respect your opinion.  Perhaps "inherently POV" is the wrong terminology.  See my comment below in response to Viajero's concerns.  blankfaze | •­• 00:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: User:Blankfaze: If you'd take the trouble to view the VfD voting record, you would know exactly what the nature of the consensus was. Does that the fact that you consider it junk imply that you will also be contributing to the (considerable) effort required to turn it into something respectable? -- Viajero 21:12, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I'd like to apologise for not signing my comment.  Simple oversight/mistake.  Not cowardice or anything.  I take full responsibility for what I write.  Second of all, it's not the content of the article that I have a problem with.  The article itself seems to be mostly well-written.  But this subject is simply too controversial to ever be NPOV.  You just can't be neutral here!  It's impossible.  Sorry if you disagree, but that's just my opinion.  But I respect the fact that a majority of people have a differing opinion.  You all have the right to make your opinion known, just as I do, and have done here.  I don't think it belongs here... but this is a community encyclopaedia, not my encyclopaedia. blankfaze | •­• 00:30, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The Holocaust is controversial, and is inherently POV, but we keep it. This article is even more so, but I believe it deserves to be here because it's a valid topic. There's nothing inherently POV about media coverage of a war. If there is, the article on the war in question should be deleted as well. We are dealing in facts here. That there is a conflict is a fact. That it makes headlines around the world is a fact. Therefore, we have an article on the conflict, and likewise, an article on its media coverage. If the title read "media bias" I would agree, but as it is I see nothing inherently POV about this. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is still here?? 

message: I am willing to go through this latest diff 
one by one, but here's a recipe: 
# Slap a reference and a quote from a "progressive" website that harps exclusively on Palestinian victimhood. 
# Whack (no need to edit) anything that doesn't suit your agenda: research, analysis, or important facts (such as official boycott of BBC because of their bias, see #Criticism of BBC above), simply "Because you do not mention or cannot find conflicting views". 
# Never enter into discussion with those whose opinion differs from yours and simply revert _anything_ they write. 
# Use Israeli newspapers, as long as they help exposing "Israeli government influence". No need for the "conflicting views" here, or even mentionining Arab Media. 
# For balance, add The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition, by Norman G. Finkelstein (2003): see, he's a Jew (an Israel-hater, but nonetheless). So there, certifiably perfect NPOV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a person who is critical of Israel is a "Israel hater"? Your way of thinking is as simplistic and reductionistic as those dreadful cartoons from the Arab media which you like to dredge up. Maybe someday you will learn it is possible to be critical of both of the Israelis and the Arabs, sceptical of the claims of all governments. But I am not holding my breath. -- Viajero 06:22, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is being passed as NPOV here