Quote from: Alphi on July 29, 2014, 05:04:05 PM

Quote from: practicaldreamer on July 29, 2014, 12:39:16 PM

Quote from: Alphi on July 29, 2014, 11:37:32 AM

if I was going to be completely honest.. I would say that the UK seems to be one of the most progressive and balanced societies regarding this issue.. both in terms of their public (protesters, media etc) and their politicians.

Greg Philo, of Glasgow University's "Glasgow Media Group", would disagree with you there - and they meticulously study media representations of events for a living.

I wasn't talking about the news coverage I was talking about how the people are protesting and what the politicians are saying.
though I did say media I meant all forms, news, written, radio, social and it was only my observation...
but even if the news media is biased, which it invariably is, it seems to me like the BBC are doing a better job of covering the news in the west than most other agencies.
(I'm only making that comment based on the news coverage I am seeing in English)

clearly though because of their political leanings, both al jazeera and Russia Today are covering the issue of the Isreal Palestine conflict much deeper than the west because they have more to gain from airing Israels dirty laundry.

I still haven't heard anyone on TV or radio say that the kidnapping or killing of 3 Jewish settler kids was not done by Hamas which some news articles are quoting the IDF as saying.

if this is the case then Netanyahoo has a lot of Jewish and Palestinian blood on his hands for both causing the war and stoking the fires of hatred between the two peoples.

honestly I don't know why so many people believe the BS that politicians say.. everybody knows that a politician will say and do anything to get elected. It is the nature of politics, to lie deceive and twist facts to benefit their agenda. imo Netanyahoo is more dangerous than George W bush for both Isreal and the US.

Hey, we are largely in agreement Alphi, so I'm not going to argue over the finer points of the BBC's coverage.

All I will say (in addition to urging people that are in any doubt to read the link to the Guardian article on Greg Philo's take on the medias coverage of the conflict) is that it seems to me that what the BBC are doing, ever so subtly, and with a very careful gloss of impartiality, is to present the conflict as if its six of one and a half dozen of the other. Which it clearly isn't - and in presenting it as such they are doing the Israeli's a massive service - and the Palestinians no service at all. They are, therefore, presenting propaganda and lies - even though it might not be immediately recognisable as such ( they aren't that stupid Wink

)

   The airtime yesterday spent on the conflict spent as much time on the 10 Israeli soldiers deaths as it did on the 60 to 100 Palestinian civilian deaths - as if they were somehow congruous. Which they clearly aren't.
   And the BBC's narrative is one of Israel vs. Hamas. Why is this so ? Why not, for e.g., Israel vs Palestine ? This would seem most rational. Or why is the discourse not framed as the people of Palestine vs. the Israeli Defence Force ?

   If we are comparing the BBC's coverage to that of the networks in the US then I expect the BBC will come out looking good - but they are a very long way from being impartial in this matter.