Talk:Media coverage of 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Reason: an outdated and non-neutral para.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: This is the perfect forum for someone to write a piece on the Guardian's Coverage of Israel.
The Guardian was once israel's biggest supporters, from the 20's to the 40's it referred to the Arabs as being at a lower stage of civilisation.  They were the UK's chief Zionist promoters.  After the Arab-Israeli war following the foundation of Isael the Guardian urged the UK and US governments to help the fledgling Jewish State, and again supported the Israelis in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
However since then they have taken an increasingly anti-Israeli stance, following on mainly from the Israeli invasion of lebanon to the present Day.  Today the Guardian is the fore-most promoter of Palestinian rights amoung the UK National papers.
I think this is interesting, and deserves a decent few paragraphs, but I'm too lazy to go look for the "back-up" which will enevitably be asked of me before being Reverted.
:This just goes to show that even from the beginning writers at the Guardian are inherently prejudiced. The West generally looked down on Arabs then, and now it just hates Israel's guts. The Guardian just feels this need to go with popular sentiment—to become yes-men—in order to sell. The bottom line is profit.
No it doesn't. Israelis are still in the top positions and Jews, still rule by proxy. Hate is not the right word for the rest, 'use' is. In some west countries Jews are given hugs for being 'the chosen people'. Much of the West loves Jews for their sheer brilliance, after all, that is what the threat is about.
:: Does anyone else think that the section on misrepresentation in the media is exessively leant in Israel's favour?? Every single example focuses on atrocities allegedly committed by Israel, which turned out to be incorrect. I am not an expert on the subject, but surely there must be some misrepresented facts in the Israeli media about Palestinians also, not just the other way around. It doesn't really seem possible that the Israeli media is completely unguilty of misreporting the facts and manipulating images or situations to further the cause of Israel. Somebody should rectify this.  202.6.141.1 03:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Guardian

message: Sorry I was away for a while. Exactly what factual accuracy is being disputed here? I have reverted the header to read {npov}} -- Simonides 05:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited the post above so this talk page won't show up in the NPOV disputes category. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy? 

message: Simonides, I tweaked the section you just added. One thing: embedding external links in text is considered reader-unfriendly, as for many it is not always obvious what is a wiki link what is external. The concensus appears to be that grouping them at the end of an article or supplying them as citations is the way to go. Personally, I think it makes sense, because it forces us to make sure the text stands as a whole, and not depend links for vital information. -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline ext refs considered harmful 

message: Can someone who understands statistics explain to me how the authors of the report on the Chronicle end up with percentages above 100, ie "111% of Israeli deaths" and "150% of Israeli children's deaths". I thought maybe it was an editing error but that is how it stands in the cited PDF document. -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I examined the study and determined how they arrived at these figures, and then rewrote the section accordingly. -- Viajero 11:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on statistics 

message: removed from article
Given the crucial importance of media coverage in the conflict, an unfortunate but not surprising side-effect has been attacks on journalists from both sides. Since the flare-up of violence in September 2000, journalists have repeatedly been targeted, shot, beaten, arrested, threatened and intimidated by Israeli soldiers, police, politicians, settlers and civilians, as well as by Palestinian police, politicians and civilians. According to figures published by the International Press Institute (IPI), there were 310 incidents up to May 2003, including the deaths of ten journalists. Journalists and media workers were injured by live ammunition, shrapnel or rubber coated bullets, and were harassed and physically assaulted in other ways. 126 violations involved shootings, almost all of them perpetrated by Israeli troops. Journalists were jailed for several months by the Israelis without even being charged with an offence. Palestinian journalists were denied Israeli press cards and thus severely obstructed in carrying out their professions.
At least 240 press freedom violations were carried out by Israeli authorities. 17 violations were committed by Israeli settlers and civilians. One was perpetrated jointly by soldiers and settlers. Thus, at least 82.9 per cent of all reported violations were perpetrated by Israelis. Another 24 reported violations were carried out by Palestinian authorities, 8 by Palestinian paramilitaries, and 7 by Palestinian civilians. This makes  Palestinians responsible for 12.5 per cent of the reported  number of abuses of press freedom. The overwhelming majority of victimised journalists are of Palestinians. Eight of the journalists who were killed so far were Palestinian, one was Italian, and one was British. Eight were killed by Israelis, one by Palestinian paramilitaries and the tenth killing is disputed. (It is unclear whether this journalist was killed by Israelis, Palestinian or as a result of an accident.) Of the 4.5 per cent of the incidents whose perpetrators are unknown, the IPI believes it likely that the initiative lay with the Israeli army in most of the incidents. 
please compare text with link
It was not clear that the paragraph was a quote, which has been rectified; apart from that the text is not a copyright violation because the source is cited. -- Simonides 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation