The Media - Biased

[Evie]

Blaming Reuters for the second one, even if its an actual case (and, given that we're talking enlarged JPEG here, superficially very similar face marks might be just that - superficially similar) of cheating, is just plain nonsense.

THEY posted their picture on July 22. IF someone did something wrong, it's AP (who're the ones who posted on August 5), and there are plenty of explanations that do not involve media bias against Israel for this. (Such as, you know - the woman claiming to be a poor little victim for western reporters (without telling them), even though her own home hadn't been destroyed). Are you going to demand that news organization compare every new picture to EVERY LAST OLDER PICTURE on the same topic? Maybe some bloggers have enough time to do that sort of thing (and then, only on topic where they want to make a point), but a news organization that would do that would go bankrupt quick.

The fact that you're blaming that last picture on Reuter shows pretty plainly that you're not exactly bias-free in this matter.

 

[nivi]

I was wrong about that one, jumped to conclusions, that why I edited it several times.

But still, this thread is about media bias not "rueters".

 

[Tulkas12]

Blaming Reuters for the second one, even if its an actual case (and, given that we're talking enlarged JPEG here, superficially very similar face marks might be just that - superficially similar) of cheating, is just plain nonsense.

THEY posted their picture on July 22. IF someone did something wrong, it's AP (who're the ones who posted on August 5), and there are plenty of explanations that do not involve media bias against Israel for this. (Such as, you know - the woman claiming to be a poor little victim for western reporters (without telling them), even though her own home hadn't been destroyed). Are you going to demand that news organization compare every new picture to EVERY LAST OLDER PICTURE on the same topic? Maybe some bloggers have enough time to do that sort of thing (and then, only on topic where they want to make a point), but a news organization that would do that would go bankrupt quick.

The fact that you're blaming that last picture on Reuter shows pretty plainly that you're not exactly bias-free in this matter.

Are you actually trying to argue that this shouldn't hurt their credibility?
Watch the pallywood video, we have enough problems keepin stories real, we don't need the news ogrinization itself fabricating crap.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pallywood&search=Search

 

[Evie]

Hurt their credibility, for those who still thought media could be blindly trusted, yes. Hell, I HOPE it does. Too many people just blindly trust the medias (Fox included), and let the TV do their own thinking.

But justify accusatiosn of bias, no. There's a leap from one to the other that some people are making far too easily.

 

[Tulkas12]

Hurt their credibility, for those who still thought media could be blindly trusted, yes. Hell, I HOPE it does. Too many people just blindly trust the medias (Fox included), when no news agency has ever been worth blind trust.

But justify accusatiosn of bias, no.

Well the reporter obviously has a bias, whether its anti-Isreali, or just pro-sensationalism. O well to me it does justify the accusation, but its not a reasonable justification.

 

[Evie]

Oh, of course that photographer was biased. But "One journalist is biased, therefore all journalists are biased" (or even just "Reuter journalist") is a wrong reasoning.

OTOH, "one journalist is biased, therefore its possible that other journalists are biased" is perfectly sound, and is one of the two reasons (the other being "All journalists are humans. All humans make mistakes. Therefore, it's quite likely journalists make mistakes.") not to blindly trust ANY news outlet.

(That, btw, including the Ynetnews articles quoted in the original post)

 

[nivi]

Its not just him, there was another incident in which a router emloyee started going off on the bloggers website.

1 Is isolated
2 Is a trend (ok, maybe not, but remeber this just those who got cought)

 

[Evie]

The fact that he expressed anti-Israel opinions on his own (using his Reuters account or not) doesn't mean the news agency he worked for is biased.

"Two is a trend" only works with small samples. Which Reuters' entire employee base is not.

 

[nivi]

It went quite a bit further then "anti israel" opinions, and it was from work (reuters), using a fake account.


Its jsut stuff like this http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp that show, its sure as hell isn't isolated.

 

[Evie]

Anti-Israel or Anti-semit as the case may be ; it's quite beside the point here.

The point is, there's precious little Reuter can do about this sort of thing besides suspending the employee when their misuse of company property comes to light.

And it would take a whole lot more than that to conclude to anything more than isolated bias. (Though as I already said, there's more than plenty enough evidence to conclude to media not being worth blind trust).

 

[nivi]

I suggest you read other parts of the site, parts like this:
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/dishonest.asp?p=5


Also, that why there is such a thing called an editor, if he couldn't catch something as obvious as that (the smoke), then he should be fired as well becuase whenI first saw that picture I realised something was off, and i'm no professional phtographer..

 

[nivi]

Blaming Reuters for the second one, even if its an actual case (and, given that we're talking enlarged JPEG here, superficially very similar face marks might be just that - superficially similar) of cheating, is just plain nonsense.

THEY posted their picture on July 22. IF someone did something wrong, it's AP (who're the ones who posted on August 5), and there are plenty of explanations that do not involve media bias against Israel for this. (Such as, you know - the woman claiming to be a poor little victim for western reporters (without telling them), even though her own home hadn't been destroyed). Are you going to demand that news organization compare every new picture to EVERY LAST OLDER PICTURE on the same topic? Maybe some bloggers have enough time to do that sort of thing (and then, only on topic where they want to make a point), but a news organization that would do that would go bankrupt quick.

The fact that you're blaming that last picture on Reuter shows pretty plainly that you're not exactly bias-free in this matter.

Correction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ5Rj4yBGdU

00:50

 

[boarder]

Media is biased on both sides, I have always maintained that, but doctoring a photo is just plain wrong IMO and not biased but straight out deciet.(sp)

 

[Evie]

I think we've already established that Hajj is a biased photographer, there's no need for additional proof there.

Youtube doesn't even *mention* the pictures I was talking about in that post, you know...

(The picture I was talking about in that post is the one with the same woman mourning on both days)

As for editors, LOL.

Welcome to the modern world, where the customers expect - no, DEMAND - news almost before the events happens. News networks have to get their newspiece out as soon as possible, and sooner if at all possible, or face possible bankruptcy - because that's the way we, the public, made them.

And you expect editors to have the time to take anything more than a cursory glance at the pictures to check if there's anything on them "unsuitable" for TV/internet? (ie, nudity, profanity, the sort of stuff that have hefty penalties attached to it)?

That's not the way the economics of information work.

 

[nivi]

Look again, 00:50-01:13

And, here qana, from a diffrent angle:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/qana-directors-cut.html

 

[Sidhe]

Thanks Nivi very interesting I like a bit of truth with my media coverage. That said though, they don't necessarily need to manipulate the media, the facts do speak for themselves, we're not biased(i'm not biased at all, I think both sides are behaving abomnibally and have said it a dozen times) Because we're taken in by the news stories like sheep, The figures speak for themselves, ie the unbiased ones produced by the UN Red Cross. Well I'll say it for cliche's sake the first casualty of war is the truth. Israelis claim they have killed 300 Hezbullah, UN put's it at closer to 50 or so, who do you believe, really you tell me? We do take these things with a pinch of salt, we do see Israeli casualties too, it's hard to know exactly what to believe for sure. But it doesn't change the fact that we believe and so does the UN that the whole affair is overblown and an overreaction. Could we of achieved more by peaceful means? By diplomacy, now there's the rub.

I heard about a hospital being bombed by Israel, because Hezbollah we're taking casualties there, can you expand on how this is good form? Especially when the majority of the victims we're civillians who thought they were safe from the conflict and could recover in peace? I see the Geneva convention need not apply...

 

[warpus]

They should be ashamed of themselves!

What a bad photoshop job!

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

i'm not biased at all, I think both sides are behaving abomnibally and have said it a dozen times

First of all, everyone is biased. I will freely admit that I am biased. Secondly, being unbiased dosen't mean having your viewpoint being a comprimise of the viewpoints of the opposing sides. Thirdly, I wish the the news stuck to the facts. However, even when just giving facts, news outlets show bias. Which facts do they show? Which do the leave out? What emphasis do they put on which words? Even when someone tries to be unbiased, they will unknowingly display bias. It is impossible not to. It is human nature.

 

[nivi]

Thanks Nivi very interesting I like a bit of truth with my media coverage. That said though, they don't necessarily need to manipulate the media, the facts do speak for themselves, we're not biased(i'm not biased at all, I think both sides are behaving abomnibally and have said it a dozen times) Because we're taken in by the news stories like sheep, The figures speak for themselves, ie the unbiased ones produced by the UN Red Cross. Well I'll say it for cliche's sake the first casualty of war is the truth. Israelis claim they have killed 300 Hezbullah, UN put's it at closer to 50 or so, who do you believe, really you tell me? We do take these things with a pinch of salt, we do see Israeli casualties too, it's hard to know exactly what to believe for sure. But it doesn't change the fact that we believe and so does the UN that the whole affair is overblown and an overreaction. Could we of achieved more by peaceful means? By diplomacy, now there's the rub.

I heard about a hospital being bombed by Israel, because Hezbollah we're taking casualties there, can you expand on how this is good form? Especially when the majority of the victims we're civillians who thought they were safe from the conflict and could recover in peace? I see the Geneva convention need not apply...

Errrr....hizballah is claiming 50 loss, not the UN.

You heard about it, do you know if it true? No, you don't, and if it is, well, did you the video of the Israeli commando raid in baalbek? Guess what they found in the hospital?
How could the majority think they are safe when Israel is constantly telling them to get the **** out of southern lebanon, or they might get hurt.

 

[Sidhe]

First of all, everyone is biased. I will freely admit that I am biased. Secondly, being unbiased dosen't mean having your viewpoint being a comprimise of the viewpoints of the opposing sides. Thirdly, I wish the the news stuck to the facts. However, even when just giving facts, news outlets show bias. Which facts do they show? Which do the leave out? What emphasis do they put on which words? Even when someone tries to be unbiased, they will unknowingly display bias. It is impossible not to. It is human nature.

You're right of course, by unbiased I mean not leaning towards one side or the other in my support. although bias of course will creep in; generally I like to try and keep it out of the frame, I guess though when the majority of posters support one side or the other, I do try and get them to express a more neutral perspective, and since most people are on the side of Israel it's hard to be impartial. I refused to post for example on the rantings of the Scotsman against Israel, simply because the guy was so far beyond what rational criticism is about, he ruined his own case, and to post any support for anything he was raving on about would tarnish what I really support, I'd end up looking as biased as he did. Suffice to say if someone puts up a thread about Israel being the greatest evil in the Middle East since.. the Romans! I mean what have they ever done for anyone! I guess I'll appear biased despite my best efforts not to be.

Just as a FYI I am just as interested in seeing Hezbullah routed as anyone else, it's just I don't see this as the best method, forcing them to shrug off there guerilla ways and form a party within Lebanon would be my best case scenario. But sadly I don't see this happening when Israelis are shelling and bombing the hell out of The Lebanon.