Thought this should be a stand alone topic and I suggest it be the place to discuss examples of media bias on current affairs from all sides. There will probably be a thread elsewhere for any given current affair mentioned, so I'm not suggesting the specific issue be talked about here, just the way it's covered. I gotta run and can't offer an example right now - but I do hope this topic's got merit and isn't duplicative . . .

On BBC tv this (sunday) morning, on it's 9 am current affairs programme with Peter Sissons, he did an interview with Binyamin Netanyahu the right wing Israeli former prime minister. And being a bit of a softie, Sissons gave him an easy time.

Next up was a Jordanian politician, (the kings uncle) who was very moderate and measured.

Then he had the head of the British army in the studio, (General Sir Mike Jackson), who is someone I admire, but is hardly a a screaming liberal. Infact he more or less said that Israel couldn't help killing civillans because their enemies hide amongst civillans. He was treated very respectfully by Sissons.

Finally he did an interview with our bullish home secratery John Reid, (which I turned off after a couple of minutes, as it's all spin fom British politicians these days).

Was that a biased programme?
If you are to the right of Richard Littlejohn (or Michael Savage ) you might think that was another example of the dreadfull BBC, pansy left wing bias. But who cares, as you would obviously be a nutter.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...lien&pr=goog-sl

Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle


and this was a good read...... http://www.inminds.co.uk/case-study-of-bias.html for all the people who think the BBC is one sided toward some issues...this shows that it gets attacked by both sides in its reporting..so you must be doing someting right is both side are saying you bias

The BBC's coverage of Lebanon has been strange, as I mentioned earlier. It started out stridently anti-Israel -- rather shockingly biased. It was the subject of much conversation -- even those who agreed with its perspective were a bit taken aback by it's open one-sidedness. A friend who is a passionate Guardian reader said she found it disturbing because, while she expected opinion from the Guardian in its coverage, the BBC had always been immune from that kind of overt bias.

There were, in the early days, no BBC reporters in Israel. Only in Gaza and Lebanon. No coverage was given to the rockets into Israel or the Lebanese incursion into Israel. It was bizarre. You could turn on CNN or Sky and it was as if there was a different war going on. On the BBC no Israeli victims were shown or mentioned. It was disturbing -- it was bias by neglect. They simply ignored the other side of the story. They didn't rubbish the Israeli perspective -- they simply didn't mention it.

That gave a lot of people a lot of ammunition. See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-2282705,00.html

And the condemnation of Israel was scathing and non-stop. Israel was compared to Nazi Germany repeatedly. It was shocking in its ignorance and propaganda. I was fascinated, because this is simply not how the BBC works.

Around that time, Jeremy Clarkson in his column joked about his own prostate cancer scare, saying that he was getting all of his information about prostate cancer from the BBC website, which wasn't such a good idea since they'd surely blame it on either Israel or global warming.

About two weeks ago, though, there was a violent shift in BBC coverage to the centre. The tenor changed dramatically. Reporters suddenly appeared in Haifa and Jerusalem. Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have been given a permanent pass to the BBC executive loo -- he's always on the news or the radio. Both sides are being given exceptionally balanced, in-depth coverage. It is the kind of excellent BBC reporting people expected from the beginning but did not get.

So, what happened? I don't know. Seems to me somebody very important might have made a phone call.

But it was a tremendous disappointment to a lot of people. It was as if somebody left the microphone on, and, for just a few minutes, we heard what the BBC really thinks.


Edited to add: Although, those who happened to be listening when the BBC reporter covering Yasir Arafat's funeral said that she wept when the plane carrying his body took off, might not have been that surprised by all of this.

This, by the way, is quite good. It's the BBC's defence of its coverage. http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/special_...content_id=4033

Their argument seems to be that they covered Lebanon and not Israel early on (notice that they do not deny this) because that's where the real story was. It's an interesting defence, but I'm not sure how they can say that the bombs falling in Israel were not a story too. Arguably they were more of a story because it was our first real look at how well armed Hezbollah has become since Israel pulled out of Lebanon altogether. This was, many other networks quickly saw, a huge story.

But then Glasgow Herald rubbishes BBC reporter Fergal Keane, whose heartfelt reports in the early days of the war were indicative of the Beeb's misguided emotive coverage at that time: http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/66928.html

Total rubbish.

This is a BBC Video report on 13 July (one day after it all started) on a non-fatal rocket attack in Haifa. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

I also remember Wyre Davis reporting live from Northern Israel in the early days of the conflict.

Sure most of the coverage was from Beirut but then most of the action was in Beirut and the south of Lebanon, not Northern Israel - it took a couple of days for Hizbollah rockets to really get going. Israel started bombing before the rocket attacks.

The far-Left still strongly defending the BBC.I wonder why?

what, where???

That was a great film Lee Harvey Oswald. I watched the whole one hour and nineteen minutes of it.
Only people that have watched it will understand this, but I am fully behind the position it was making.

if you liked that your gonna love this Edward Said: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights.. WAS one of the last talk's he gave before his death.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/edward_sai..._2003_intro.mp3

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/edward_sai...9_2003_talk.mp3

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/edward_sai...19_2003_q-a.mp3

Professor Edward Said: "Memory, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights." This lecture was held at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 19, in Zellerbach Auditorium, UC Berkeley.
Credits: Producer: UC Berkeley outfarpress@saber.net
Uploaded by: a web dude outfarpress@saber.net
Notes: For UC Berkeley's streaming video presentation of the event, see:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/details.html?event_id=46

Attached mp3 files are a direct recording of that video stream.

Said, author of the groundbreaking work "Orientalism" and a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, is one of the most prominent literary and cultural critics in the United States. His writings about the Middle East and its relationship to the West have had a major influence on both scholarship and public opinion.


edit to put in 'was'. oi i've told you that i'm dyslexic

was

'Was': I didn't get what was meant there.
That he's dead is common knowlege.
My computor isn't working properly so I can't see any films, but I have read some of Edward Saids writing.
And anytime I saw him on TV, he always spoke well.
Orientalism is something I have read about.
To be honest I found it hard going.
Mostly, it was in the book by Kenan Malik, called 'the meaning of race.'

I'm sorry, that was snotty of me.

Sky News gets a bollocking off George Galloway

Cheers, Andy.

I think I was being snotty in my last post (as well )

And edited to say: George is very good in situations like this, (from your link Andy T), but there are some flaws in his arguments, I think.
The Shebaa Farms are not a good enough reason to be fighting a war, and how many Lebaneese prisoners does Israel hold? Galloway was talking about thousands: They have thousands of Palestinians, do they have thousands of Lebaneese too? (And of course loads of Palestinians live in Lebanon - so the prisoners might be being counted twice, as it were).

And again to say: I am secretly hoping that the Israeli army gets absoultely stuffed in southern Lebanon.

And again to say: Channel 4 news is on, and what a fine programme it has been tonight.
Jon Snow at the UN in New York.
Lindsey Hilsum on the border, and Alex Thompson in Tyre.
It was just good.

The US press continues to take a pass as the White House keeps telling blatant lies. Media protects a chronic liar:

Rumsfeld Lies, Press Takes a Nap
http://www.observer.com/20060814/20060814_...ns_wiseguys.asp

ETA:

"Fake" News Picks Up What The "Real" News Drops
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060...ily_show_plays/

Julie Burchill is very talented and clever - but a complete div for writing this. How biased.

The #1 Balanced Source On Mideast Matters: Fox News?

i always get her confused with Julie Bindel, well she is trying her up most to rip of Burchill style, anyway that opinated journalism was full of shit.

Andy champions a man who has stated that his own Prime minister is a legitimate target for a terrorist assasination,and who revelled in the fact that Israel got (and i quote) 'a bloody good hiding' when rockets were launched recently at Israeli civilians.

your are so full of shit KLF the 'a bloody good hiding' was not the rockets but the failed ground invation to smash hezbollah forever, the resistance they're were encountering is a hell of a lot stronger than your Intelligence has anticipated. rockets LOL most of the long-range rocket arrays have not been destroyed, they were all fired into israel. thats how they rocket numbers went down LOL

http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2423

THE IDF WON

LHO..Interesting that you and George seem so proud of the activities and strengths of a terrorist organisation.

I personally feel that any death,on any side ,be they the deaths of Lenonese or Israeli, is a tragedy and something to feel sorrow about.

that good KLF we agree on that but how do make the connection that my post on what GG said was in anyway that i'm taking pleasure or satisfaction in the hezbollah victory. A conflict that has cost 1,000 Lebanese civilian lives can hardly be called a "glorious battle" but the facts are they won and according to Mr Bush its Israel's "victory" in Lebanon it is this what makes me laugh as are famous "victories" in Iraq and Afghanistan. you wanna know what interesting today hezbollah said it is gonna compensate for ALL the damage it caused to homes and property in Lebanon, they are gonna rebuiled. pay rents and find new homes for the homeless. tell me this do think they will lose support? or do you think that the UN and other NGO's should of taken this out of the hands of hezbollah and done this. but now its another victory of hearts and minds to hezbollah. a rod for our own back comes to mind




The first casualty of War is Truth

Video IDF Doesn't Want You to See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0&eurl=

LHO..say Hezbollah won the war.

LHO..Say Hezbollah are going to rebuild all the damage they caused.

LHO..Say Hezbollah are going to build new homes,pay rents and find homes for the homeless

LHO..says its a victory for of hearts and minds to Hezbollah.




PS..Thanks for clarifiying that you're not getting any satisfaction out of Hezbollahs victory .

actully i was Paraphrasing, and Summarizing a euronews report in which this was all said

All I said was: "Sky News gets a bollocking off George Galloway". Which part of that means I'm championing George Galloway?

Cheers, Andy.

Quite right Andy T. Though this is a hard to define subject - for me anyway.

This was in the Guardian today, and got to me a bit when I was reading it. It makes a mockery of Blairs simplistic 'Arc of tyranny' or what ever he said. Biased/unbiased, you have to read these things to get a ballanced view.
in the same paper was this from an Israeli.

shame you dont feel the same about iraqis KLF

I don't think we have really proved anything one way or the other yet. Personaly I find the Fox network biased, but at the same time it can be informative. I like shows like Hannity and Colmes and Bill O'Reilly even though I feel they are being shortsighted when I've watched them.
The BBC morning tv programme is better than the one on ITV (for news etc), and Newsnight is better than that silly programme Trevor McDonnald did. But ....... but. The Daily Mail is pretty crap in one way, but it is also worth a read sometimes.
I thought this was really good in todays guardian. Gary Young wrote a very strong piece which I was going along with, nodding my head, then there were loads of replies to it underneath, some of which made me think harder about what I had just been agreeing to.
I think alowing that sort of interaction is very healthy, as in the past only a few letters to the editor would ever get in the paper. To slag off the guardian (to me) seems a dull headed thing to do. Credit where credit is due.

(The daily mail ran this today, for example.)

(And this).

Obsessed Bin Laden wanted to kill Whitney Houston's husband....

oh purlease....

did make me laugh though

run bobby run!!!!

Could this not be the one case were al Qaeda could do the world a favour

Maybe Bobby & Osama could have a Celebrity Death Match

and i thought that Bobby Brown was in drug rehab but it turns out he's hide from an al Qaeda cell bent on his removal. i wonder what wintney is gonna look like in a burka. this would be the ultimate celeb wedding. Hello have the picture rights..they beat the NSA for the deal. Osama's cave is gonna be on cribs when he ties the knot with witney. i give the marriage a year before Osama's in rehab with bobby

In all seriousness, this was in the Daily Mail today. I think to rubbish it, is not the right thing to do. (Or ignore what George Alagiah says). It's his book, and the Mail obviously feels some affinity with what he is saying. Enough to serialize over several days.

Edited to add: I thought that was a very good article. That tens of thousands of people in 'middle England' will have read it, I don't know is a good thing or not. It could confirm peoples prejudices if they already have them.
It would be interesting to hear if anyone took exception to what he says there. He's not rantng in a Richard Littlejohn type of way, but some of the things he says could make people on the left a bit uncomfortable.

Also, have a listen to wednesdays Vanessa Feltz show on bbc london (23rd of august). Talking about immigration from eastern europe - a really good, fair and balanced programme I thought.

And Simon Mayo on BBC five live radio in the afternoons does some really good political discussions. They were just discussing Iran in (I thought) a very intelligent and informative way.
To talk about ''the BBC'' being biased is I think daft. It might be sometimes, and maybe there are lots of examples you could point to, but I often hear really good stuff on it.

Sorry to knock you klf, but I just watched almost an hour of channel 4 news, and it was a really great bit of news reporting. It started off with some reports, and in the studio interviews about Zimbabwe.
Then a report about that Mormon child abuser who has been on the run in the area between Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona - he got caught.
A bunch more that I can't remenber right now.
To say that you don't watch channel 4 news says something about you, more than you it.

Oh god, am I making another post today.
The whale is going at it bigtime tonight, but I just watched Newsnight again. And anyone who says they don't watch it is a big stupid berk - I mean, if you were to say you just avoid watching it, routinely, then you are just an unimformed person.
Tonights programme had long report from Qatar. About the education system there.
That was really good.

And (edited) there is some mad conversation going on between the whale, david shayler, and some american bloke called Alex Jones

ABC has blacklisted Air America: http://www.fair.org/images/ABCmemo.pdf

I don't know if this fits here - but well said Jon Snow of channel 4 news.
Poppy fascism might sound a bit strong, but I have had similar feelings for years.
It's been a news story on the radio this morning, and as I write Vanessa Feltz is inviting listeners to give their opinion - I can't really be bothered to listen, as so many people come out with tired old arguements like: ''If it wasn't for those brave boys, we'd all be speaking German.''

But on the other hand, that a lot of people don't even know what it is, makes me feel like wearing one.
When I see a teenage boy, like I did yesterday, in his school uniform, waiting for a bus, with his hoodie up - leaning against a shop doorway, and as I walk past, he just lets a spit out. (Not a big powerful one, just a slow gob) I notice that at his feet are several other spits.
What would a red poppy mean to him? Nothing I think.

First, I think you have to ask why he is making such a point about it.
Second, and more importantly, to equate a degree of emotional and moral pressure with "fascism" is, particularly in this context, crass insensitivity at best and an insult to the victims of real fascism at worst.
The poppies are about remembrance: I think that they symbolise the tragic waste of life in the futile clash of imperialisms in WWI as much as the sacrifice of life in defence of freedom and justice in WWII.
I have sympathy for kids who really don't understand their significance, but when I hear someone older claiming (on R5 this morning) that Britain's involvement in the Second World War was an example interference in foreign conflicts that should not concern us, I feel something close to despair....

I certainly agree that the use of the word fascism is too much here. But I go along with Jon Snow.
I went by a small war memorial yesterday, just as the service was finishing. While on the one hand there is something nice and good about remembering, in this public way - even the time of year with the autumn weather seems to be part of it - it is a tradition that is pro military.
The people who attended the ceremony were all of a certain kind - older white people.
On the radio last night, on a programme for the black community in London, there were three black service men in the studio. Some callers called them traitors and uncle toms. It's an interesting idea, and I can see why some of the callers to the show felt like that. ''Would you fight for Britain against Nigeria'' became part of the conversation.
Since WW2, Britain has often been a force for bad in its interventions around the world. (Or maybe that's too simplistic).
If you live in a very multi-ethnic area where poppies are a rare sight, and only white people seem to wear them, does that show (perhaps) a kind of silent racism - or saying something anyway?
And again on using the word fascist: I think that calling the national front that, was also a misuse of the word.
Nazi particularly. To call that thuggish sad little group Nazi's, was giving them far too much importance.

Jon Snow just came across as a little immature in my opinion, I agree with his colleague that not wearing it made a much bigger point than wearing it.

I agree with JBoyd (very formal) that the use of a term like poppy facism is just silly considering the many millions who died fighting it.

As for the people at the ceremonies being older white people, well they would be its generational. Older white people my parents were and I loved them!!!!

If in the multi racial area you refer to only white people wearing poppies, thats a shame the people not wearing them are missing out on both donating to a good cause and learning a little history at the same time.

Red versus white well in Flanders fields red poppies grew not white so thats that issue sorted then.

As for the younger generation not wearing them thats a shame also maybe we need to teach history differently?

Not only older white people Damon, in Birmingham yesterday I saw a gentleman in full Islamic dress wearing a poppy.

Will Time tell if there's bias here?:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611130001

As an 11 year old I remember my whole class - without any teacher suggestion - standing at 11 on the 11th November after we studied WW1.

Anyway - as for it being a white affair - this is sadly mostly true. And I say sadly because actually what I think is woefully unknown is the role of commonwealth and other forces in both WW1 and WW2.

Millions of Indians and Africans fought for the Allies in both conflicts. And in WW2 if it wasn't for Polish, Czech and other non-British airmen we might never be here discussing this today.

It is to the eternal shame of the English people that they have denied and continue to deny the role of foreigners and migrants in the defense of England and the defeat of Nazism.

Without them we would have lost - it is that simple. This Island survived ONLY because of the sacrifice of so many who were also British and fought and died for ideals that the white British masses very quickly forgot.

Anyway - as for it being a white affair - this is sadly mostly true. And I say sadly because actually what I think is woefully unknown is the role of commonwealth and other forces in both WW1 and WW2.

I wouldn't say the role of the Commonwealth/Empire is either unknown or undervalued these days I have seen countless references to it in recent years and absolutely right too.

Without them we would have lost - it is that simple. This Island survived ONLY because of the sacrifice of so many who were also British and fought and died for ideals that the white British masses very quickly forgot.
[/quote]

I'm not sure about ONLY The USA and USSR helped a bit or am I misunderstanding you?

Anyway I agree with your basic premise and nothing in my post contradicts that I hope?

Cheers,

Mick

I think that quite a lot of people in this country have always recognised that it was not only white Britons who deserved respect.
I remember someone at school pointing out that Haile Selassie and his people were the first to fight fascism in the Thirties, there is the Roll Call of non-British nationals at the end of "The Battle of Britain" (made in about 1969?) and I've been told that the war graves at places like Monte Cassino at fitting monuments to the sacrifice of troops from the commonwealth.

"Fair and Balanced" Fox News Has Head Firmly Up Own Ass:

Not between 1939 and 1941 they didn't



I think that those that fought with them knew - but many others didn't, and still don't.

How many black or brown faces do you recall in British war movies for instance? Indian sailors made up a sizeable portion* of the British Navy yet you wouldn't know it from the war movies.

* I can find the statistic - just not with me at the moment.

Very few, if any; however, I was thinking more of serious history, and also the actual veterans.

I came across the Chattri war memorial a few years ago, while walking on the downs. I never knew of it before - its location means it's out of sight, (and out of mind).
In the battle of the atlantic in WW2, 3,500 allied ships were sunk. How many Chinese crew went down with those ships I have never heard.

If you've never read the finest columnist in the UK, because of having to subscribe online, now is your chance, because it seems to have become free - maybe not for long, so take your chance while it's there
Here's one example.
And here are a whole load more. (Well worth several hours of reading through IMO).

Fair and balanced? Biased? Does it matter? I don't think so.