I found this article to be indicative of the press in general, and not just the British press, as the author states.
Media bias?
Are we being told of the Israeli deaths? Are they not losing innocent civilians?
The lack of coverage of the Israeli civilian war casualties stands in marked contrast to the swift response by many sections of the international media to reported Lebanese casualties.
Meanwhile, the British press, which has produced some of the most venomous anti-Israel coverage during the war, has continued its tirade against Israel.
Inaccuracies
An article in the London-based Guardian, entitled “Militants merge with mainstream ,” argues that Hizbullah has gained widespread, cross-religious support in the Arab world, and uses terms such as “the Qana massacre” to explain the apparent newfound unity.
The article argues that Sunnis and Shiites have come together in their backing of Hizbullah: “Whatever qualms Arabs once had about Hizbullah they have since been dissipated by Israel’s attacks, the hundreds of deaths, the sight of up to a quarter of the Lebanese population fleeing their homes, and especially the bombing of UN observers and the massacre at Qana. The Shiite organisation and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, have become symbols of resistance even in such unlikely places as the Gulf countries where Sunnis and Shiites have been spotted waving the yellow-and-green flag.”
The article was co-written by Issandr el-Amrani, a freelance journalist in Egypt who referred to Hizbullah as ” Lebanese resistance fighters ” on his personal blog and who describes reports of Hizbullah members operating out of civilian areas as “Israeli lies.”
The article’s authors failed, however, to note that an influential Saudi Sunni cleric, Sheikh Safar al-Hawali, has issued an anti-Hizbullah fatwa declaring that “Hizbullah is not the ‘Party of God’ but the ‘Party of Satan.’”
An Associated Press report, which undermines the Guardian’s claims, says that “Al-Hawali’s words are an addition to a previous fatwa issued two weeks ago in Saudi Arabia by the leader of the Wahhabi movement, Sheikh Abdullah bin Jabrin, which declared that it is illegal to support, join, or even pray for Hizbullah.”
BBC correspondent reports his own views
Meanwhile, an article has appeared on the BBC website in which a reporter for the British broadcaster, Hugh Sykes, relays a conversation he has with Lebanese residents.
The article is remarkable as it contains the views of a BBC journalist being given to Lebanese locals, rather than the other way around.
In the piece, written in first person narrative, Sykes tells people in Lebanon that there would be “no point” for Israel to strike Hizbullah targets in Lebanon: “‘People keep asking me: ‘ Beirut – will they bomb Beirut again?’ ‘What would be the point?” I reply.’”
The BBC journalist also attempts to second guess where Israeli strikes hit.
“Four massive thumps one night, and six the next, as Israeli bombs or shells slammed into the ground a few kilometres away. Or into the children’s homes,” Sykes wrote.
Related Posts:
Highly agenda driven. The links in leftist media sources Eddy recently provided were prime examples. The story was about Israeli jets attacking two ambulances with rockets in a civilain convoy. But none of those article told the full story: Where was Hezbollah at the time? Was Hezbollah commingled with this “civilian convoy”? Were the Israelis being fired upon from this convoy? One article did mention that it occurred at night. Were the ambulances marked? Questions that were not answered.
It doesn’t even take a skillful writer to turn a news report into a propaganda piece; simply leave out such details.
“”Whatever qualms Arabs once had about Hizbullah they have since been dissipated by Israel’s attacks, the hundreds of deaths, the sight of up to a quarter of the Lebanese population fleeing their homes, and especially the bombing of UN observers and the massacre at Qana.”
Add to that a significant portion of the religious Left in the U.S. and elsewhere.
It doesn’t even take a skillful writer to turn a news report into a propaganda piece; simply leave out such details.
Seriously… I learned that from y’all over here
A page taken right out of the SF Liberal book of comebacks, Eddy. Can’t you think of your own?
A page taken right out of the SF Liberal book of comebacks, Eddy. Can’t you think of your own?
nah… Robert… If I were SFL, I’d just pick on you…
Actually, SF and Robert go back and forth, but if you actually watch the debate, look at how in depth they both get on history etc…they snipe but they also bring some great stuff to the table.
I’m not sure how much history Robert goes into… And please, if that was a swipe at me… let it go… I was accused to “read my history” on a topic that was more about feeling than necessitating historical fact.
You haven’t been around here long enough to know, Eddy, or you would have seen some of the posts I have done that contained plenty of information.
nah: Robert: If I were SFL, I’d just pick on you:
I never considered SF Liberal’s comebacks or shots at me to be anything more on the scale than say, an annoying little dog, yapping and nipping at my ankles. No real threat, no credible counter, not dealing squarely with the issue or argument at hand, mostly just an annoyance.
I never considered SF Liberal’s comebacks or shots at me to be anything more on the scale than say, an annoying little dog, yapping and nipping at my ankles. No real threat, no credible counter, not dealing squarely with the issue or argument at hand, mostly just an annoyance.
No offense taken since the feeling is mutual
So now you are speaking for SF Liberal? Is this official; has he authorized this, or are you just a volunteer?
Hello. My name is San Francisco Liberal, and I approved this message.