How we view international news; double standards

[TheBigShort]

None of the Arab players care one bit about the Palestinians and their claims for a historical homeland

I agree, or at to the point that none of them care insofar that it does not advance their own selfish national interests.
I agree it a tool that is used to beat the Israelis with, but the Israelis do more than enough to assist in that regard.
In the end, the resolution (if ever) will take the participation and massive effort and resources of numerous outside players, from the West, Africa, Russia and EU.
It is simply not convincing that Trump can "stand with the people of Iran against tyranny", or feel the "sufferring of ordinary NK's" whilst simultaneously ignoring the plight of Palestinians.
Perhaps that is why Gaza gets more profile? The atrocious conditions the people live in are being witnessed?

 

[TheBigShort]

OP highlighted a media bias against Israel and questioned whether this was anti Jew. I said I don’t think so. It is more the distinctly pink tinge of our liberal media. But why would pink equal anti Israel? I was only surmising it was a Soviet legacy and not a Nazi one, but I might be wrong. Ironically extreme right wingers can also be anti Israel but they are anti semites.

The only thing I can make of that is that you think there is still a significant presence of Soviet sympathisers determining our media content? Has anyone told Denis O Brien this?

The way I look at it is that the Palestine/Israeli conflict has been going for decades. Understandably there is therefore a higher media presence on the ground there with access networks developed over the years.
Unlike say Yemen, which im assuming does not have as much established media, nor the access for reporters.
If you watch RT you can see documentaries and reporting from Syria that you cannot see on British networks for instance.

Furthermore, the political responses to atrocities is also skewed, with derogatory language used against 'enemies' like 'mad Ayatollahs', 'Animal Assad', 'Butcher of Baghdad' etc...but treating Israeli leaders who sanction slaughter as state persons.

 

[Purple]

Reminds me of a meeting I was in, big massive boardroom table, the works. This guy, Irish(ish) but English schooled &accent and very much landed gentry type (not a bad lad in fairness) was just back from somewhere in Africa talking about how badly it fared in the early 20's and said something like "it was a disgrace what we did the them".... probably with me looking askance he goes "well, not the Irish", so I said "yeah.... we were kinda busy at home at the time...." and his solicitor goes "hmmm yeah.... I can see now why this table is so wide..."

Moral: Twas the Brrrriittttishhh

Yea, only there were plenty of Irish who took the Queens shilling and cracked the heads of the natives.
Men like Sir Michael Francis O'Dwyer, for example, who was Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab when Colonel Reginald Dyer opened fire on a crowd in what became known as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (if you saw the film "Gandhi" you'll remember that bit). O'Dwyer was from Barronstown in Tipperary. He actively supported Colonel Dyer and his actions.
I know we re-wrote our history after independence to pretend that a large chunk of the population didn't consider themselves British but 100 years later we should be a bit more balanced.

 

[Purple]

The only thing I can make of that is that you think there is still a significant presence of Soviet sympathisers determining our media content? Has anyone told Denis O Brien this?

I don't think he runs the Irish Times or RTE, the two most biased news organisations we have in this context.

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't think he runs the Irish Times or RTE, the two most biased news organisations we have in this context.

Biased how?

 

[Delboy]

I know we re-wrote our history after independence to pretend that a large chunk of the population didn't consider themselves British but 100 years later we should be a bit more balanced.

Nope, we still have a large percentage who view themselves as British or at least yearn for a return. The royal wedding schmooze in the Irish media last weekend was testament to that

 

[Purple]

Biased how?

Seriously? Read this thread.

 

[TheBigShort]

The Palestinian question is as much to do with the inter-generational hot/cold/hot civil/regional war between Sunni and Shia Islam, between Egypt and Iran and their respective power groups, as it is to do with a conflict between Israel and the Arabs.

The people writing in the Irish Times know all this but they choose not to say it. Instead they choose to frame this as a conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, as if the border around them was eternal and immutable instead of a 90 year old European creation. Why is that?

Seriously? Read this thread.

Ok, this is the only reference to IT's that I found and none for RTE. I'm looking at the IT's website today on Middle East section.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east

There appears to be widespread reporting of events occurring in different parts of the Middle East with no over emphasis on any particular issue.
As for the IT choosing to frame this as a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians....they are hardly alone in that are they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...s-updates-dead-Gaza-border-trouble-US-embassy
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/israel-two-state-explainer/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/israel-palestine-conflict
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...conflict-hard-gets-can-donald-trump-do-solve/

Even the "Times of Israel" describes it as such

https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israeli-palestinian-conflict/

Hard to see the bias in the IT that is not evident across a broad spectrum of media outlets.

 

[Purple]

Ok, this is the only reference to IT's that I found and none for RTE. I'm looking at the IT's website today on Middle East section.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east

There appears to be widespread reporting of events occurring in different parts of the Middle East with no over emphasis on any particular issue.
As for the IT choosing to frame this as a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians....they are hardly alone in that are they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...s-updates-dead-Gaza-border-trouble-US-embassy
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/israel-two-state-explainer/index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/israel-palestine-conflict
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...conflict-hard-gets-can-donald-trump-do-solve/

Even the "Times of Israel" describes it as such

https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israeli-palestinian-conflict/

Hard to see the bias in the IT that is not evident across a broad spectrum of media outlets.

Does that mean you accept that there is bias across a broad spectrum of media outlets?
Edit; Actually forget I asked. I'm not getting into another reductive semantic discussion with you that spirals into nothing.

 

[TheBigShort]

I haven't claimed there is bias, you have. I have stated that I believe there is selective reporting, both here and abroad. I have put forward my views on why that might be, such as ;

1. The length of time a particular conflict may be ensuing - providing for established reporting networks
2. The strategic importance of any conflict to ours, and other countries.
3. Access to reporting - I cited Russia Today, having obvious more access to sites in Syrian controlled territory for instance than say the BBC would.
4. Vested interests in not wanting information being reported - such as Saudi atrocities in Yemen using British made weapons.

These are some reasons that may go someway to answering your OP. That, or you can run with the anti-Jewish conspiracy - good luck with that.

I'm not getting into another reductive semantic discussion with you that spirals into nothing.

Gee, you mean you push forward a view claiming bias, anti-Jewish conspiracy in the media, and the first post that challenges that view, with some links to back it up, you want to shut down the discussion.

Perhaps the bias is somewhat closer to home?

שיהיה לך סוף שבוע נעים

 

[Purple]

I haven't claimed there is bias, you have. I have stated that I believe there is selective reporting, both here and abroad. I have put forward my views on why that might be, such as ;

1. The length of time a particular conflict may be ensuing - providing for established reporting networks
2. The strategic importance of any conflict to ours, and other countries.
3. Access to reporting - I cited Russia Today, having obvious more access to sites in Syrian controlled territory for instance than say the BBC would.
4. Vested interests in not wanting information being reported - such as Saudi atrocities in Yemen using British made weapons.

These are some reasons that may go someway to answering your OP. That, or you can run with the anti-Jewish conspiracy - good luck with that.

Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy?
By the way, I agree with most of your points above.

Gee, you mean you push forward a view claiming bias, anti-Jewish conspiracy in the media, and the first post that challenges that view, with some links to back it up, you want to shut down the discussion.

Perhaps the bias is somewhat closer to home?

שיהיה לך סוף שבוע נעים

No, I just couldn't face another plethora of comments and answers in which you set yourself up as the righteous inquisitor en chief focusing on the ever more minute dissection of specific examples rather than the bigger picture discussion.

Given that this is not a court of law, that you are not a barrister and that other posters are not on the Stand it is conducive to the flow of a discussion not to delve into such minutia in what becomes a rather myopic flow which is neither interesting or informative.

 

[Sunny]

If we stick to the original example, the only reporting that 50 of the 62 killed were members of Hamas that I can find is in the Times of Israel. CNN reported on the Times of Israel article but didn't independently verify the report. Suits both sides to make it sound that way I think. CNN did make a good point about Hamas using civilian population for their own purposes but that same point has been made numerous times across multiple media outlets. At the end of the day 62 people died on one side. 0 people even injured on the other side. Whatever about the rights and wrongs, you would think at this stage that Israel would stop allowing themselves being goaded into action by Hamas. They play into their hands every single time. Let them throw their rocks and run at the barbed wire fence. If they get through, then they could have reacted but it just looked like they were shooting at ducks.

 

[TheBigShort]

Why do we get so exorcised about what Israel does while we ignore what Turkey does?

Why is Israel held to higher standards that its neighbours?

I just can't shake the idea that the fact that Israel is Jewish has something to do with it.

Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy?

I interpreted the above comments to mean that you believe we get so exorcised about what Israel does while ignoring what Turkey does, because you have an idea that Israel being Jewish has something to do with it. Meaning an anti-Jewish bias in the Irish media.

 

[TheBigShort]

Let them throw their rocks and run at the barbed wire fence. If they get through, then they could have reacted but it just looked like they were shooting at ducks.

There is (was?) video footage of an Easter 1916 commemoration in Derry earlier this year where PSNI vans came under attack with petrol bombs.
Apparently agreement could not be found between PSNI and organisers of the march as to how close the police presence should be to the commemoration (I cannot verify this, but sounds plausible), hence the ready made petrol bombs when PSNI encroached over the disputed territory.

The PSNI vans simply retreated back. I cant help think that the petrol bombers (mostly teenagers) would have been shot in Gaza.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

There is (was?) video footage of an Easter 1916 commemoration in Derry earlier this year where PSNI vans came under attack with petrol bombs.
Apparently agreement could not be found between PSNI and organisers of the march as to how close the police presence should be to the commemoration (I cannot verify this, but sounds plausible), hence the ready made petrol bombs when PSNI encroached over the disputed territory.

The PSNI vans simply retreated back. I cant help think that the petrol bombers (mostly teenagers) would have been shot in Gaza.

Can I get you back on topic please. OP condemned the excesses of the Israelis (personally I wouldn't be so quick to do so). He was not as I understand him intending to dive into the old Israeli/Palestinian thing. Rather he drew rather stark attention to the completely unbalanced media coverage of such events. To me his examples proved this to be so, I don't see how that can be denied no matter what "side" you are on. He posed a supplementary as to whether this was anti Jewish per se. I am not sure you even accept his premise that double standards are clear to be seen here.

Whilst not on topic nonetheless I think comparing the PSNI approach to a few hoodlums in Londonderry these days is not in any way comparable to the persistent threat to Israel's very existence from its enemies within and without. There was a time when the hoodlum threat in Londonderry was considerably higher than today and we know how it was dealt with then.

 

[TheBigShort]

Rather he drew rather stark attention to the completely unbalanced media coverage of such events. To me his examples proved this to be so, I don't see how that can be denied no matter what "side" you are on.

For which I provided a list of possibe reasons as to why this may be the case, none of which had anything to do with being on any side.
In fairness to Purple he did acknowledge that he agreed with some of those points.

He posed a supplementary as to whether this was anti Jewish per se. I am not sure you even accept his premise that double standards are clear to be seen here.

Firstly, you have to show that the media coverage is unbalanced. I have already stated that media coverage is selective. What I mean by that, and in line with the OP, I agree the Palestine/Israel conflict receives more airtime than the other examples provided - again, I provided what I thought reasonable points that may provide some reason as to why this is so.
But if you mean reporting that Israel killed 62 Palestinians and shot dozens more while no injuries from sling-shots and thrown petrol bombs were sustained on the Israeli side, is 'double standards' at play, then I disagree. It is just stating the facts.

There was a time when the hoodlum threat in Londonderry was considerably higher than today and we know how it was dealt with then.

How?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

How?

Bloody Sunday

 

[TheBigShort]

Bloody Sunday

Good God, is there any point in having a discussion about media bias when you are obviously so blind to the facts that you invent your own version of events, regardless?

The 'hoodlums', as you describe them, were unarmed citizens. Many of whom were shot whilst running away from Army gunfire.
Sound familiar?


You obviously have a penchant in admiring those in authority, be it Army or Central Bankers, those in power can do no wrong in your eyes.
Clearly, for you, the slaughtering of innocent civilians by those in authority and with over-whelming fire power is not something you think the media should be focusing on.
Especially while there are 'mad' Ayatollahs coming in the middle of the night to getcha!

 

[Purple]

I interpreted the above comments to mean that you believe we get so exorcised about what Israel does while ignoring what Turkey does, because you have an idea that Israel being Jewish has something to do with it. Meaning an anti-Jewish bias in the Irish media.

Okay, so Where did I suggest there was an anti-Jewish conspiracy?
You do know the difference between a conspiracy and a bias, right?

 

[Purple]

If we stick to the original example, the only reporting that 50 of the 62 killed were members of Hamas that I can find is in the Times of Israel. CNN reported on the Times of Israel article but didn't independently verify the report. Suits both sides to make it sound that way I think. CNN did make a good point about Hamas using civilian population for their own purposes but that same point has been made numerous times across multiple media outlets. At the end of the day 62 people died on one side. 0 people even injured on the other side. Whatever about the rights and wrongs, you would think at this stage that Israel would stop allowing themselves being goaded into action by Hamas. They play into their hands every single time. Let them throw their rocks and run at the barbed wire fence. If they get through, then they could have reacted but it just looked like they were shooting at ducks.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Hamas know that the best way of getting international attention is with dead bodies. That used to mean dead Israeli Jews but now it means dead Palestinian Arabs. They don't really care which side the bodies come from, just as long as they are there and there are news cameras pointing at them.

Gaza is under siege by Israel and Egypt. If either party lifted their bit of the siege then the blockade would be over. Where are the protests on the Egyptian border? Where are the opinion pieces about how the Egyptians are treating their Arab brothers and sisters?