Comments on: Covering Israel-Palestine: The BBC’s Double Standards

By: opeluboy

opeluboy — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:27:53 +0000

Double-standard? Ya think?

Maybe it would be helpful if just once in a while we could have a Middle East/terrorism/Arab/Islam “expert” on TV that wasn’t an American Zionist Jew. Or even to be more outrageous, seek out and hire Arabs, Muslims or people actually from the Middle East to comment on these topics.

But somehow I find it hard to imagine that the Zionists who own the media have any plans to implement this policy.

By: hp

hp — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:32:35 +0000

I simplify thing by assuming 99% of everything from the Zionist US media and 100% of everything from Israel is a lie.

By: bozhidar balkas

bozhidar balkas — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:22:01 +0000

hp. thanx for ur input. “read betwn the lines” to me would entail finding how many lies and false assmptins may be hidden even in some of the simplest statements.
here’s one: “serbs were partisans”. now we hunt for lies and assumptions in this utterance. i find at least 3.
1) only serbs were partisans.
2)all serbs were partisans
3)all serb partisans were for the same cause.
another good example of such a ruse is:
1)there was no palestine
2)thus there were no palestinians
3)since there was no palestine something else must have existed
4)biblical lands existed. note the word “biblical” . this one contains many lies
5) “land for peace” means giving one’s land for peace. but in fact israel would be ‘giving’ stolen land back to palestinians. and only palestinians would be giving peace. and peace would mean that US/IOF decides what constitutes peace.

one could go on and on.
actually, the hidden assumptions and half truths are not that well hidden. i’m not best at teaching the proper method for studying the implicatory structure of statements.
i have been taught by semantists who stand head and shoulders above me. thank u

By: hp

hp — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:59:05 +0000

You have a point bozhidar, but I believe it is more realistic and helpful to read between the lines/lies than to have nothing to read at all.
We do it every day, don’t we?

By: Lloyd Rowsey

Lloyd Rowsey — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:00:57 +0000

hear, hear, bozhidar! corporate reporting gives secrecy a good name!

By: bozhidar balkas

bozhidar balkas — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:17:51 +0000

sorry to disagree with “no reporting is worse than biased reporting”
no, it is the other way around: being uninformed is much better than being disinformed.
“biased reporting” to me is an euphemism. most analyses in corporate media are indeed biased but also often contain innumerable false assummptions, half truths, ommission of facts, and brazen lies.
one need to omit just 1 fact to presemt to unwary readers a fictitious reality
corporate editors, journalists are masters of this craft. and they make megabucks doing just that. and precisely why they do it!

By: hp

hp — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:31:32 +0000

The only thing worse than biased reporting is no reporting at all.
(’evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified, I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information.’)

By: Lloyd Rowsey

Lloyd Rowsey — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:15:59 +0000

Thanx for the appraisal, Gary. Stick to prose.

By: bozhidar balkas

bozhidar balkas — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:12:36 +0000

if my memory is correct, the word “zionism” hasn’t appeared in vancouver sun or province. a letter toe ditors analyisng what zionism means, has not ever appeared in any corporate medium.
and we may infer why corporate media avoids to discuss zionism.
to me, zionism is an ism; thus, can be compared with any other ism.
all isms i know of misteach; spread hatred and intolerance; wage warfare for land and to obtain adherents, etc.
but of all isms, nazism and zionism are by far more bestial than any other.
naturally, no corporate media would ever publish this. i have written thousands of letter to eds; none ever appeared.
ca. 2 or 3 years ago i made a statement on a radio talk show that antijudaism and antizionism is not antisemitism. the moment the host heard it, he hung up on me.
the usual practice is to allow questioner to stat on line and to elaboprate. the poor fella, raif mair, was frightened of the mighty jews who own, people tell me, much of vancouver media.
a few days ago, after the debate about our role in afghanistan, i asked the debater who was prooccupation, What’s wrong with the of-necessaary-truth principle that no land has the right to attack another under no know n circumstance; corrollary aring out of this principle being that only people who do crime do time and not civilians.
the moderator, a jew/ or zionist, spoke for her by saying, She won’t answer your question.
i did not expect anything better from a zionst. thank u

By: Gary Corseri

Gary Corseri — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:44:25 +0000

It’s an excellent article, evincing in itself the principles of objectivity, whole-truthfulness, fair play and balanced subjectivity which Media Lens espouses.

I agree with Rich Griffin about the need to create alternative media. Actually, we’ve been doing so for at least 5 years with many now getting much of their news, analysis and commentary from the Internet. Of course, there’s a lot of noise and junk on the Internet, so we still need to educate ourselves as consumers of news and information, and the goals of Media Lens still apply.

Perhaps it is not so much a boycott of mainstream media that would prove most effective–how would we know what lies and half-truths they are spewing? If the best, most reasonable of the audience leave the mainstream media to the less reasonable, we’re in for more distortions. Rather, let’s counter the distortions with articles that clearly explain the real situation–with sufficient contexting and backgrounding–as Media Lens and others attempt to do. Also, rather than boycott mainstream media itself, I suggest boycotting the sponsors behind the media. Let’s keep track of the offenses on network shows–Couric, Gibson, Williams–on Fox and CNN (there are so many!)–then target the sponsors of that show because of an especially misleading, inaccurate or prejudicial report. That would highlight a particular offense and make it easier to organize a boycott movement. From the particular to the general.

By: Rich Griffin

Rich Griffin — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:09:51 +0000

Again, we need to create, perhaps slowly, alternative media that will report news accurately. This means boycotting all mainstream media.

The media has underreported Iraqi deaths in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, emphasizing instead only the american soldiers who have died (and neglected reporting on those injured). They have kept real images from entering our consciousness; so our view is distorted and manipulated. Same with Israel-Palestine.