How balanced do you think the media cover the Israel/Palestinian "war"?

As I think most people would be more inclined to be aware of the BBC, I'll stick with them.

Supposedly they have to be balanced and unbiased (It's in their charter, apparently: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1481644/BBC-charter-to-insist-on-'fair-news'.html) - and they do (to be fair) highlight both sides of the debate, with individual contributors.
The problem is who they refer to in their bulletins (where their reporters have control) and how much of both sides they take any notice of (and make "legitimate".)
It seems to end up being the Americans are backing Israel and they (The Americans) don't want a ceasefire.
It is so frustrating hearing both sides but only one side seems to be heard by the BBC.

 

I get so little of my news from television, I would hardly notice. I try to read across the spectrum, I think the quest for a single source of "unbiased" news is futile.

Which is also why I think the BBC should be privatised.

 

The Islam news claims the west is sent by Satan to test the strength of the chosen ones.

The western news claims we are making the world a safer place from radical Islam.

(-+)---(+-)=s = according to this formula I would say it is balanced.

But then when you look at the media budgets the west just has a nicer media broadcast system.

 

BBC News© Proud Sponsors UN peacekeepers and IMF World Bank

 

It could ultimately be a futile effort to only get your news from one particular source, but, you should be able to in my opinion.
Especially when it is from an apparently reputable source, such as the BBC, or even, at a stretch, ITV.
The BBC, especially, should be a source of information where you do not need to go anywhere else (in an ideal world.)
They have so many differing sources i.e TV, radio and online, and within that scope, have a broad range of opinions, supposedly!
For instance Radio 4 is a completly different entity than the bog standard BBC TV news.
They, apparently, pride themselves on a diverse "voice".
Ultimately I do not think that is the case.

Lets say they do that, they would just end up being the mouthpiece for the AP news, the print media or, heaven forbid, ITN.
More bias would filter through, imo.

Perhaps your choice of media is that fragmented, bias is not an issue because you do not ultimately pay attention to one source, which is fair enough, and a good thing.

Perhaps, generally speaking, I am asking how your usual sources of information have covered the news.

I do think most people look at a clutch of news sources...they do not tend to have such an ecletic mix.

May I ask why you think the BBC should be privatised?

 

I'm not pitting one news source against another.

 

Extremely unbalanced. All you see on the front pages of most Western news sources are pictures of really sad or bleeding Palestinians, and Israel is constantly referred to as "The Jew State", "Zionist", and so on.

It kinda shames me to say this, but Fox News has been the only major American media organization to truly cover it well so far.

 

i dunno,i was watching press tv's coverage last night and i thought they were very balanced..












sarcasm odon..

 

I've seen that too.
Plus, "Free Palestine" placards on the more "left wing" media.
I thought Palestine WAS ulitimately "free"!
It is fair enough to show the consequences of war, but, context is the key.
Also not use them to bolster a illegitimate point.

IMO it is nort a shame, it is refreshing.

 

I'm not asking for sarcasm.

 

Yeah all the Free Palestine crap and all the demonstration coverage is pointless and only fuels the Hamas if anything. I don't see how a protest in Greece or some place like that is even newsworthy. It's just a bunch of idiot college kids who do not understand the world.

But yeah, seeing Fox News cover something well is refreshing indeed. They did a pretty good job with the Lebanon war and the first incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

 

When anyone says "the media claims" or "the western news says", you are already hoplessly lost in my book. The media is diverse, it doesn't speak with one voice.

First of all, on television that's impossible. Television is some guy reading the day's headlines and then cutting to some video footage, perhaps with another guy standing in front of something. Then sports and weather. All at a scheduled time. Its not that I'm against TV as a medium, television documentaries and more investigative shows (Panorama) can be brilliant. But regular TV news? I get nothing from it.

That's what its supposed to be, I just think that is unrealistic. And I will never like the idea of a technocratic elite deciding "correct" content for me.

Sounds like you make use of it a lot more than me.

I don't really believe unbiased media can exist. And I'm not worried about it.

I think it is more important to "get to know" your source. When I am reading the Guardian I know how it is biased, and I take that into account. Same with the Times or the FT. I can still find each of them useful in their own way.

I rely a lot on blogs and newspapers. I especially am interested in editorial. What I need is out there if I'm willing to dig it up. I kind of wait and see who puts the effort into producing some in depth coverage. Its not bias I'm worried about, its superficiality or time wasters.

The people that care the least make the lease effort I'd imagine.

I just don't accept the mission. People have so much choice now, why not let them make a choice? I don't like the regressive tax, I don't like the way it displaces other competitors from the market, I hate the moaning over BBC bias one way or the other all the time, the irate Daily Mail readers who heard Russel Brand offend them on the radio, worries about who gets paid too much, etc.

Also I think there are inherent contradictions. People say "don't change the BBC, everyone likes it the way it is". But why would it need to change if everyone likes it the way it is? The market tries to give people what they want. But if everyone doesn't like the BBC the way it is, then you are saying "Don't change the BBC, I like it way it is, but in a free market my tastes wouldn't be catered to/incorrect tastes would be catered to. So its either selfish or elitist.

Similarly, either the BBC produces programs people want to watch, and gets good ratings but displaces commercial broadcasters, or it produces programs it thinks people should watch, and then nobody watches it and we all wonder why we are subsidising unwatched television. They can't win. And worst of all, the try to do both so they are an 800lb gorilla in the market, broadcasting "world darts" (presumably the "popular but unneccesary for public support category) and "Lark Rise to Candleford" (the praiseworthy but unpopular category, I'd guess).

I'd prefer a privatised BBC or at least a vastly scaled down one. Why can't they produce "worthy" programming for other channels and rent the time if necessary?

 

About as balanced as the casualties have been. If you research long enough and read commentary on Salon and other online sources you may find some sane voices that look at both sides objectively.

Television seems to constantly count the number of homemade rockets launched and continually refer to the elected government of the Palestinians as terrorists, but rarely touches on the months of forced embargos, and economic restrictions placed on the Gazans. It's rare that you hear about the tons of US bombs dumped on Gaza. Almost like a replay of how the west was won by annhilating the Native American savages.

 

Behind the scenes apparent "journalism" is supposedly there, that is why (cynicaly speaking) they have multiple award ceremonies for, one presumes, different areas of news.
Not just for stand alone documenteries.
I appreciate how the news works and it apparently can't be as in-depth, but, that to me is a cop out.
Yes, perhaps it is cut and pasted and fills certain criteria and time slots. But, the news should be balanced, regardless.
It should also have its own standards.
High standards.
Most people garner their news from the standard news buletins, so that should be the gold standard, not to fill time.

True. All I reallly meant was you should not be looking for bias, it should not really be there. It is not difficult to produce vanilla news for the massses and remove bias. It is a well trodden arguement about bias, but IMO it is the "political commentators" that add bias, not the actual facts at hand.

I try. It just seems odd that there is a divergance in quality and standard...even the persons accent reading the news alters dependant on where you go within the BBC.

It can IMO, I have heard it. It is truely a pleasure to behold.
It just seems most if not all media caters for the audience they speak to rather than the news at hand. That is a shame.

Yeah, I know, I too find my news from multiple sources.
I too get frustrated at superficiality.
I picked the BBC.
Perhaps choosiing one source and commentating on that was what I was really askig for.

I'm not denying people a choice, just asking how their choice fairs.

The BBC deserves all the critiques it recieces, it seems to be able to handle it, and have pithy retorts to any arguements made against it.
BBC news is no longer the one people choose, It is ITN or even Sky news, lets not get upset about it apparently displacing others, it has not done so for many a year IMO.

You may find opinion about the BBC is made by the BBC.

MMM I'll stick to talking about the news if you do not mind.
Fair arguement, not one I want to discuss, to be honest.
It seems unrelated to the news. Forgive me if I am wrong.

I agree.

 

Al-Jazeera's good.

I think the CBC has been doing a very good job with their coverage on the TV. It's balanced and most people they interview are just thoroughly concerned for people's safety. Bot sides of the debate are presented well on that station.

 

Even though you read both sides, do you think that comes across when you post here?

They are.

US bought bombs? How do they remain US bombs?

 

I agree I find myself going to Al-Jazeera's website for information more and more. Funny isn't it.

 

True.

To those outside Greece, it is not.
Here anything that is negative or depressing, regardless where, makes it on our news.

Perhaps, but still not our concern.

The Murdoch press aint so bad.

 

When the US provides the financial aid it does to Israel, then facilitates the delivery of armaments to Isreal in time for their planned agressions, we are supposed to ignore the fact that the US is arming them. Hell I've even seen pictures of Israeli kids painting messages on the bombs.

http://front-line.blogspot.com/2006/07/israeli-kids-sending-messages-on.html

 

So what you are saying is Israel is akin to trading to Mugabe?
I don't agree.
I do appreciate what you are saying though.
You are clear.