Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The media and Israel..
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:20 am Post subject:

Quote:

What I'm trying to say is that terrorism is terrorism. It doesn't matter who does it under what guise and in what form. I dislike just as much what happened on 9/11 and what the Americans are doing now in Iraq. I don't care for the excuses of either side, what they have done is terrorize a group of people and that to me makes them the same type of people

No the US is not doing that in Iraq.

The US took out Saddam Hussein who was a greater killer than Idi Amin

Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists are Klansman simple as that.

The US went into the mideast to force them to quit their war against the US.

Funkdafied

Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

And my bias, more than anything else, is a bias against the far left. You interpret this in a number of ways, all incorrect, I assure you.

It is the palpably self-righteous, non-evidenciary-based and purely allegation-driven, U.S.-centric and antiAmerican discourse that I detest. That essentially represents the beginning and the end of my biases re: current-affairs discussions.

I agree wholeheartedly. Im a liberal to the core, but the people I loathe more than anything are not the far right, it's the far left, people like Big Bird etc. They do more to prevent progress in the world than any other group, and we as serious liberals need to distance ourselves from them, cut them out of our body like a cancer, as they make it so very easy for the far right to engage in all it's cliched attacks.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:33 am Post subject:

="Big_Bird"][q

http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redirect.cgi?num=429&a=32[/quote]

Quote:

Joo, celebrate your Thanksgiving another day. This is not the report to which I was referring. Glasgow University was not involved. I think Loughborough University may have been.

Here are the members of the Independent Panel (which had nothing to do with Glasgow University:

I dare say this will keep you busy for a few hours. Happy googling.

Quote:

The Board of Governors has published today the Independent Panel Report into the impartiality of BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In October 2005 the Governors commissioned the panel, chaired by Sir Quentin Thomas, to "assess the impartiality of BBC news and current affairs coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias, actual or perceived".

The panel's review covered the BBC's UK domestic public service output only.

The Governors received the panel's report at their Board meeting last week and welcomed its finding of no deliberate or systematic bias.

The Independent Panel concludes that the evidence showing that most viewers and listeners, at least within the UK, regard the BBC as unbiased presents a different challenge: the audience say they do not understand the conflict and, perhaps for that reason, do not see it as important or interesting.

The Independent Panel takes the view that impartiality also requires a full and fair account and in that regard found the BBC's coverage to be inconsistent, not always providing a complete picture and in that sense misleading.

The panel makes several recommendations to enhance the BBC's coverage, particularly to provide licence fee payers with greater context and assist their understanding of the complexities of the conflict.

Sir Quentin Thomas says in his introductory statement: "What the BBC does now is good for the most part; some of it very good.

"But, it could and should do better to meet the gold standard which it sets itself in its best programmes."

The Board has passed the Independent Panel's report to BBC management and requested their response before reaching its own conclusions.

Once the Governors have considered management's response � to be submitted at the June Board meeting � and approved recommendations for implementation, the Board will publish it with their own conclusions.

Speaking on behalf of the Board of Governors, Chairman Michael Grade said: "The Governors are grateful to Sir Quentin Thomas and his colleagues.

"The Independent Panel's report is a substantial and serious piece of work and so its central finding of no deliberate or systematic bias is all the more reassuring.

"The panel found much to praise, but it also identified some shortcomings in the BBC's coverage.

"We have asked BBC management to consider the panel's recommendations and respond to us at our June Board meeting.

"We have asked that management's response to the recommendations about editorial organisation be set in the context of the Neil Report which the Governors endorsed in full in 2004."

Michael Grade also said that: "The BBC must continually demonstrate its efforts to meet the highest editorial standards if it is to retain the high levels of public trust in its output.

"It is a measure of the BBC's commitment to that aim that its management team and journalists willingly co-operate with independent reviews such as these.

"Indeed, the BBC's impartiality is the most important safeguard of its editorial independence.

"The Governors are grateful to the panel members for reviewing the BBC's performance in this highly charged area of news coverage.

"Their contribution will assist the BBC in providing the best possible news coverage for licence fee payers."

Notes to Editors

Members of the Independent Panel:

Sir Quentin Thomas CB (chairman): President of the British Board of Film Classification and formerly Political Director in the Northern Ireland Office, with other posts in the Cabinet Office and the Home Office

Lord Eames: Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland

Stewart Purvis: Professor of Television Journalism, City University; former Editor-in-Chief and Chief Executive, ITN

Philip Stephens: Associate Editor and Columnist, Financial Times

Dr Elizabeth Vallance JP: former Head, Department of Politics, Queen Mary College, University of London; Chair of Council, Institute of Education; Committee on Standards in Public Life; Author

The Independent Panel's report - together with appendices, which include the output analysis carried out by Loughborough University and audience research carried out by Opinion Leader Research - is available in full on www.bbcgovernors.co.uk.

This is the second impartiality review commissioned by the Board of Governors under its new arrangements independent from BBC management.

The first, published in January 2005, was about the BBC's coverage of European Issues.

BBC Governance Unit

PRESS RELEASES BY DATE :
Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

Today's Press Releases

View Calendar

PRESS RELEASES BY:Category

RSS FEEDS:
All Press Office RSS feeds
What is RSS?

RELATED PRESS OFFICE LINKS:PRESS RELEASESBBC News management response to independent report on coverage of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
BBC News coverage of the European Union - statement by the BBC Board of Governors
Neil Report recommends how to strengthen BBC Journalism

RELATED BBC LINKS:BBC Governors: Impartiality Review on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Category: BBC

Date: 02.05.2006
Printable version

so there conclusion was that there was no bias. But you said:

Quote:

Actually, you are quite wrong. There were so many complaints of anti-Israel bias against the BBC, that a couple of years ago an independent commission was brought in to go through BBC reporting of the I/P conflict, and carefully analyse it for bias. Low and behold, it was discovered that the bias was pro-Israeli if anything and the BBC were given a rap over the knuckles for failing to adequately report the Palestinian side of things.

Were does the report say that?

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:32 am Post subject:

I distinctly remember it being discussed at the time. The panel criticised the BBC's reporting finding that on balance the Palestinian narrative and perspective was poorly represented.

I just did a quick google, and this is all I can find for now:

Quote:

The latest of several reports into contentious areas of the BBC's news provision, it praised the quality of much of its coverage and found "little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" but listed a series of "identifiable shortcomings".

Chaired by the British Board of Film Classification president, Sir Quentin Thomas, the review said output failed to consistently "constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture".

The panel, which also included former ITN chief executive Professor Stewart Purvis, said the BBC should not let its own requirements of balance and impartiality become a "straitjacket" that prevented it from properly relaying the "dual narrative" of both sides.

In particular, it highlighted a "failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation".

Link

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:38 am Post subject:

Funkdafied wrote:

Quote:

Well Gopher, is this silly poster the kind of company you'd like to find yourself in? Good for you.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:49 am Post subject:

Ugh, Palestine and Israel and pan-Arab hypocrisy. I could care less anymore. Listen, nothing is going to happen until Israel pulls out its settlements. And even afterwards, the Palestinians will be thrown into chaos, which was the state they were in before the occupation. Witness the pullout of Gaza. Israel has little national security to reason to be in either the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank. The only place they need to be is the damned Golan Heights, because of the Syrian-Iranian threat. Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have all been bought off by the States, and Israel needs to recognize that. If all fails, they have plenty of nuclear weapons. Big Bird, Of all the places in the world I could invest my sympathies in, Palestine would be the last. America tried in the 90s, and Arafat screwed his people. Its the corruption.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject:

Kuros, we are discussing Israel with regard to the media. Your blatherings are completely off-topic.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

so there conclusion was that there was no bias. But you said:

Quote:

Were does the report say that?

I just had another google using other key words, and found this article from The Times (a paper you likely approve of):

Quote:

THE BBC�S coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict implicitly favours the Israeli side, a study for the BBC Governors has concluded.

Deaths of Israelis received greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities, while Israelis received more airtime on news and current affairs programmes. The references to �identifiable shortcomings� surprised BBC News executives, who are more used to accusations that their coverage is routinely anti-Israel.

Only �a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC News�, the analysis, published yesterday, noted, while �the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on national broadcast programmes�.

At the same time, there was �little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives� and a �failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupation�.

Led by Sir Quentin Thomas, the president of the British Board of Film Classification, the Governors� study group analysed a period between August 2005 and January this year in which 98 Palestinians were killed and there were up to 23 Israeli fatalities.

The findings were seized upon by pro-Palestinian groups. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: �When research consistently shows that fatalities from one side of a conflict � the party that has by far the least number � are more frequently covered, then this must raise alarm bells.�

To read the full article: BBC news 'favours Israel' at expense of Palestinian view

And from Haaretz.com:

Quote:

Is the BBC too pro-Israel? Is The NY Times?
By Bradley Burston

Pro-Israel watchdogs just love to wale on the Beeb.

"BBC's coverage of the Middle East has an underlying text: Israel is at the root of all the region's conflicts," wrote Ricki Hollander of the Committee for Accuracy in Media Reporting in America last month. "This biased perspective, exhibited in much of BBC's reporting, is institutional."

It came as something of a jag to the eyes, therefore, when an independent inquiry commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corporation's board of governors criticized the BBC for turning a blind eye to the hardships of Palestinians under occupation.

The panel, chaired by the president of the British Board of Film Classification, Sir Quentin Thomas, concluded that BBC coverage was marked by "failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation."

According to the report, which came to light last year, BBC reporting had failed to consistently "constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture."

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Kuros,

we are discussing Israel with regard to the media. Your blatherings are completely off-topic.

So sorry,

Erm. The Beeb is Palestinian-biased, and CNN is Israeli-biased. That is all.

TML1976

Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Location: South Korea

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

That's your opinion, and I respect it. However, I don't see it that way. After WWII the usa has had a consistent foreign policy of imposing her will on others. That to me is the essential characteristic of a bully or a tyrant. This to me is terrorism.

Now , others can justify american actions by citing link after link of the infalliable and rightious reasons (ala democracy, eliminating a tyrant, national security... ect.) why america has and is doing this.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Kuros,

we are discussing Israel with regard to the media. Your blatherings are completely off-topic.

So sorry,

Erm. The Beeb is Palestinian-biased, and CNN is Israeli-biased. That is all.

I would suggest that only someone 'Iraeli-biased' could come to the conclusion that the BBC is 'Palestinian-biased.' As an American, exposed to media outlets that are carefully self-censored so as to regularly exclude the Palestinian perspective, it is little wonder that you have absorbed an Israeli-bias. I too had the Israeli-bias once.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject:

TML1976 wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Was the US wrong to fight the cold war? I think the cold war was defensive . Remember Korea would be controled by Kim Jong Il now had it not.

The war on terror is also defensive.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Kuros,

we are discussing Israel with regard to the media. Your blatherings are completely off-topic.

So sorry,

Erm. The Beeb is Palestinian-biased, and CNN is Israeli-biased. That is all.

I think both sides can claim bias.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Kuros,

we are discussing Israel with regard to the media. Your blatherings are completely off-topic.

So sorry,

Erm. The Beeb is Palestinian-biased, and CNN is Israeli-biased. That is all.

I think both sides can claim bias.

Duh!

But we are talking about bias in the Western Media. I can not think of many outlets that allow more than a few token articles/reports that do not adhere to the usual Israeli-bias. The Guardian and The Independent are the only two major newspapers that come to mind. Even the Israeli press is more honest about the situation than most media based in the English-speaking world. I can learn a lot more in a week about the Palestinian plight if I read Haaretz than I could from a year of reading The New York Times, for example.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject:

I think both sides can claim bias against them in the western media. lets not forget the BBC paid to keep how they report about the mideast from the public.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe