Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Bias against Israel: "Stone Throwers" 9

Journal by Chacham

Honest Reporting, a website dedicated to showing the media bias against Israel, has another unbelievable article, this time on the Arabs "throwing stones".

The IDF has reported that the Arabs are throwing cinder blocks, the type used in buildings, not stones. Well, Yahoo! News has a story with a picture" from the Associated Press, showing this in action.

These "stone throwers" are using deadly force.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bias against Israel: "Stone Throwers"

Comments Filter:
  • For What It's Worth (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaytonCIM (100144) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:47PM (#7908825) Homepage Journal
    I cannot agree with your assertion that the Media is biased against Israel.

    I think what you label as Bias is really a conscious effort by the media to get people interested in the news. 30 years ago, ABC World News was on for one hour. 20 years ago, it went to 30 minutes, followed by a game show. 10 years ago, ABC News was moved to 6:30 to make room for "Entertainment/Show Biz News/Gossip" shows.

    The truth is that a majority of Americans are more interested in the latest Survivor/American Idol/Ben and JLo story than they are any story about Israel and/or Muslims.

    The News Media of today has to insert some "entertainment" in the stories or people simply don't watch and advertisers simply don't pay.

    What you call bias is simply the Media getting your attention in order to sell ad time. One week the Media is PRO-Israel, the next Anti. It really depends on what they can sell to the public and what advertisers are willing to pay.

    If you're really interested in the News (from a non-Biased POV), then I suggest the BBC. Very different from American News (and the dreaded FOX and CNN).

    Out.

  • Look, on one side you have kids throwing deadly cinderblocks and suicide bombers taking out dozens of bystanders at a time. On the other side you have retaliatory missle strikes that routinly take out far more bystanders than targets, along with indiscriminate bulldozing of bystanders' homes.

    It is easy to find examples of real bias, if you look in the official propaganda of each side. But the truly telling fact here is that critics from each side accuse the same media outlets of opposite biases. [tompaine.com]

    Inaccura

    • suicide bombers taking out dozens of bystanders at a time

      How do suicide bombers take out bystanders? They specifically target civilians! (Think of Sabarro Pizza shop, civilian bus rides, open markets). Suicide bombers to not go for army installations.

      On the other side you have retaliatory missle strikes that routinly

      Missle strikes routinely? Missle strikes are rare from Israel, unless in a targetted killing.

      take out far more bystanders than targets

      The total is probably somewhere near ten bystander
      • How do suicide bombers take out bystanders? They specifically target civilians!

        Right, in Israel the suicide bombers only take out bystanders, not government targets, presumably because large numbers of people tend not to congregate around those targets, which are themselves well defended.

        Missle strikes are rare from Israel, unless in a targetted killing.

        Rare? As far as I can tell, the last one was Dec. 30th, and it was the second in less than a week. Have there been any palestinian bombings in the

        • Right, in Israel the suicide bombers only take out bystanders, not government targets, presumably because large numbers of people tend not to congregate around those targets, which are themselves well defended.

          Which means that they attack civilians, and there is no such thing as bystanders to them.

          Rare? As far as I can tell, the last one was Dec. 30th, and it was the second in less than a week.

          A missile strike? I am unaware of them using missles in such things.

          in the past three years that weren't fo
          • Thank you. I learned a lot from both those links.

            Here are some the things I noticed in multiple, fairly diverse, outlets in the U.S. media over the past couple of weeks:

            1. The "Geneva Accords" were well-received by everyone except the two governments, who both agreed that the accords were unworkable. This is the first time the American media reported an agreement between the two sides in the past three years. But it was a bitersweet agreement, since they also agreed that their alternative was hoplessly
            • The "Geneva Accords" were well-received by everyone except the two governments,

              The Geneva Accords were accepted by an extreme minority. A few more though it was a nice gesture, but it was rejected as failure. Only the furthest left had anything to do with it.

              The fact that it got so much fanfare, is because of the leftist media.

              who both agreed that the accords were unworkable

              Besides being illegal, the accords were ridiculous. They didn't give anybody what they wanted.

              This is the first time the Ameri
            • Palestine intends to declare itsself a state again

              Give me the specific dates when Palestine was a state.

              Give me the names of its Arab leaders when it was a state.

              I await your answers with bated breath.

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...