[Mefustae]

Right, good point, i'm getting mixed up with who's on which side of whatever arguement is occuring. Still,  they may be taking it for granted, but opinion ain't going to change any time soon.

[Sandwich]

Uno: Peace? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286906,00.html

Dos: Bias? http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9028.htm

[Mefustae]

Uno: Peace? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286906,00.html

I'll believe it when I see it.

Dos: Bias? http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9028.htm

You're right, that is biased.

[karajorma]

The newscaster reads out carefully selected "audience comments." Among these are invariably contained some version of the claim that "Israel's attack on Lebanon" will serve as a "recruitment" drive for al-Qaeda.

Exactly the same thing was said about Iraq and it was proved to be correct. It's not bias to say that you know. People with the kind of mindset that has them sitting on the fence about joining al-Qaeda are going to look at what Israel is doing, see that the US and UK are doing nothing to stop it and get the push they need to go from fence-sitting to joining up.

It's certainly not biased to say that.

[Mefustae]

But apparently it is bias not to also present the "audience comments" that describe how Israel will somehow destroy all trace of Hezbollah and inaugurate a new era of peace and prosperity across the Middle East.

[Sandwich]

Dos: Bias? http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/9028.htm

You're right, that is biased.

Uhm, wrong. It's a personal opinion piece. A viewpoint. Viewpoints are by their very nature opinionated in a certain direction. News reports are supposed to be without that personal opinion, without bias - which is why newspapers have analysts and opinion columns and such, seperated from the (hopefully) unbiased fact-reporting.

However, those very same opinion columns and analyst pieces are kept for a number of reasons, among which I imagine are reasons such as "they provide a more personal, intimate viewpoint on an issue" and "It gives people who don't know much about a certain situation an idea of how people who do know a lot about a situation feel about it."

I am biased. You are biased. Blogs are (generally) biased. And that's perfectly ok. However, news agencies should not be. This is obvious to any civilized person on the planet living in a democratic nation. The assumption that because they should not be biased means that they aren't biased is a very dangerous one, and opens one up to a wide range of untrue things, ranging from innocent mistakes to purposeful misleading.

Personally, and this is my personal, biased opinion here, I see the BBC's coverage of the Middle-East as somewhere around a "subtle skew", but whether it is innocent or purposeful, I do not know.

EDIT: Here's a suggestion. Refute 75% of the accusations the author of that article makes against BBC, such as (but not limited to) the ones quoted below, and I will stop claiming that BBC is not providing a fair and balanced coverage of the situation.

The BBC and other media have carried report after report on the damaged Lebanese tourist industry, but none on the damaged Israeli one, even though at least one hotel in Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, was hit by a Hizbullah rocket. There are reports on Lebanese children who don't know where they will be going to school, but none on Israeli ones.

[vyper]

You know there's a huge number of muslims in the UK that claim the BBC is skewed too? Only they reckon its in your favour.

The rest of us like it just fine (at least when it comes to mid-east coverage).

[Sandwich]

Claims are claims; I'm interested in seeing proof, one way or another. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong if it turns out that way. But I want to see the BBC articles that that opinion columnist claims don't exist before I do.

BTW, I thought this was interesting and surprising:

“Saudi religious leader blasts Hizbullah,” JP, 5 Aug 2006

A top Saudi Sunni cleric, whose ideas inspired Osama bin Laden, issued a religious edict Saturday disavowing the Shi'ite guerrilla group Hizbullah, evidence that a rift remained among Muslims over the fighting in Lebanon.

Hizbullah, which translates as "the party of God," is actually "the party of the devil," said Sheik Safar al-Hawali, whose radical views made the al-Qaida leader one of his followers in the past.

"Don't pray for Hizbullah," he said in the fatwa posted on his Web site.

The edict, which reflects the historical stand of strict Wahhabi doctrine viewing Shi'ite Muslims as heretics, follows a similar fatwa from another popular Saudi cleric Sheik Abdullah bin Jibreen two weeks into the conflict with Israel.

"It is not acceptable to support this rejectionist party (Hizbullah), and one should not fall under its command, or pray for its victory," bin Jibreen said at the time. That fatwa set off a maelstrom across the Arab world, with other leaders and people at the grass roots level imploring Muslims to put aside differences to support the fight against Israel.

There have been daily demonstrations in support of Hizbullah around the region, including in predominantly Sunni and generally pro-western countries like Jordan.

Even the Saudi government, which initially condemned Hizbullah for sparking the fighting by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in "uncalculated adventures," backed down and said it warned the United States the region would be headed toward war unless Washington halted the Israeli attacks.

Last week, al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri issued a videotape that urged all Muslims everywhere to rise up in holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza.

Mohammed Habib, deputy leader of Egypt's largest Islamic Sunni group, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, immediately rejected al-Hawali's new religious edict, saying Hizbullah is defending "the whole Islamic nation."

Al-Hawali is receiving medical treatment in Jeddah and could not be reached for comment.

In remarks published Saturday, Kuwait's prime minister, Sheik Nasser al-Mohammed al-Sabah, also warned that if the conflict does not end soon, it could give rise to new radicals.

"I believe that if this Israeli war on Lebanon goes on, it could contribute to creating new terrorists, and that of course would pose a new danger in the area," he told Egyptian magazine el-Mussawar.

[karajorma]

Number 1 story on news.bbc.co.uk at the moment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5249972.stm

Are you seriously trying to tell me the BBC is ignoring the attacks on Israel or downplaying them when they are the number 1 story on their website?


Also a report on tourism and industry in Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5244618.stm

That was directly linked to from the above page. In fact it was the second story in features.

BTW, I thought this was interesting and surprising

Not that surprising to me. Both sides hate each other. They both hate Israel too. They just want to make sure that Hezbollah doesn't gain a lot of sympathsisers in their country and threaten their power base.

[aldo_14]

*mentions the independent report last year that decided the BBC had a minimal bias towards Israel*

[Kosh]

When it comes to media bias, most people just say "it's biased" when they don't agree with what is being reported.

[Mefustae]

When it comes to media bias, most people just say "it's biased" when they don't agree with what is being reported.

What? That's outrageous! You're just f***ing bias against people with that opinion!

[Kosh]

When it comes to media bias, most people just say "it's biased" when they don't agree with what is being reported.

What? That's outrageous! You're just f***ing bias against people with that opinion!

My point exactly.

[Darius]

*sigh* I wish we had something like the BBC or ChannelNewsAsia here in Aus, rather than all the "soft news" crap that's flooding the television.

[Mefustae]

I hear that. Personally, I just ignore most of it, instead getting my news off HLP.

[vyper]

*sigh* I wish we had something like the BBC or ChannelNewsAsia here in Aus, rather than all the "soft news" crap that's flooding the television.

Don't you guys have the BBC World Service?

[Deepblue]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14224221/

Lebanon retracts claim of 40 dead, replaces it with one death.

[Nuclear1]

Interesting...

[Sandwich]

*cough cough*

Oh, and the Qana thing? Done from 60 or so to ~25. Amazing, these miraculous ressurections should be televised - let the whole world know that Allah is raising those women and children up from the dead so they can become involuntary martyrs somewhere else!

Ok, so that may not have been called for. People are suffering, people are dying - on BOTH sides of this conflict.

I'm still posting it though.

BTW, I heard half a million Lebanese, and 1 million Israelis, are now refugees. This may not be good for tourisim, but I don't think the hotels out of range of the conflict are suffering much.

[aldo_14]

*cough cough*

Oh, and the Qana thing? Done from 60 or so to ~25. Amazing, these miraculous ressurections should be televised - let the whole world know that Allah is raising those women and children up from the dead so they can become involuntary martyrs somewhere else!

Ok, so that may not have been called for. People are suffering, people are dying - on BOTH sides of this conflict.

I'm still posting it though.

BTW, I heard half a million Lebanese, and 1 million Israelis, are now refugees. This may not be good for tourisim, but I don't think the hotels out of range of the conflict are suffering much.

At least 800,000 Lebanese refugees, actually.  And cut off from aid convoys due to the destruction of all major access routes and regular bombing runs on the main roads.

Still, let's all laugh at those miscounts, eh?  Hoho!  Hilarious!  Less people are dead than previous said!  Let's mock them!