Left Wing Guardian admits Israel ‘straightforward target’

[Bob]

Next you'll tell me there's newspapers (see: the National Post) that have an clearly pro-Israel editorial policy.

If "pro-Israel" means supporting Jewish independence in Israel, and defending our basic national rights, then that is a balanced, honest, and moral position.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Bob

[GostHacked]

If "pro-Israel" means supporting Jewish independence in Israel, and defending our basic national rights, then that is a balanced, honest, and moral position.

/facepalm.

[waldo]

The truth is, waldo, I can find bias in about 95% of BBC and Guardian articles relating to Israel. And by bias, I mean explicitly omitted context that misrepresents history and contemporary events in order to mislead the readership. it also includes massaged language intended to send a false message. It is beyond easy to do so. It can be done in virtually every article.

Go ahead, give me any article (or background history piece), no matter how old, you want from either the BBC or The Guardian. The bias and misinformation is everywhere among those two outlets.

as much as I'm encouraged that you've narrowed your target from your earlier broad brush labeling of the complete British press, I'm somewhat discouraged that you need me to do the leg-work for you. But we have some progress in that you've qualified your usage of "bias", to mean purposeful intent to mislead and/or send a false message; usage associated to explicitly omitted context (historical and/or contemporary) and/or massaged language.

one could question the independence of your personalized evidentiary interpretations... but at this point why should one quibble given your largess; clearly, "95%/virtually every article", is a heady challenge to ignore

batter up... and on deck

[Black Dog]

If "pro-Israel" means supporting Jewish independence in Israel, and defending our basic national rights, then that is a balanced, honest, and moral position.

It's early and I'm tired, but I know a fallacy when I see one. And I'm looking at one right now.

[scribblet]

If "pro-Israel" means supporting Jewish independence in Israel, and defending our basic national rights, then that is a balanced, honest, and moral position.

Agreed, one also has to wonder about the continual incitement against Israel by some of the media and people here who buy into the anti Israel propaganda machine, and why Israel isn't supposed to have the right to defend itself and live in peace. good blog here

http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2011/03/continual-incitement-against-israel.html

[waldo]

Agreed, one also has to wonder about the continual incitement against Israel by some of the media and people here who buy into the anti Israel propaganda machine, and why Israel isn't supposed to have the right to defend itself and live in peace.

swing, batter, batter, swing!

batter up

...

and on deck

[Black Dog]

Agreed, one also has to wonder about the continual incitement against Israel by some of the media and people here who buy into the anti Israel propaganda machine, and why Israel isn't supposed to have the right to defend itself and live in peace.

One also has to wonder at the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-Israel camp in this thread and their tendency to invent their opponent's arguments for them out of thin air.

[GostHacked]

One also has to wonder at the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-Israel camp in this thread and their tendency to invent their opponent's arguments for them out of thin air.

BD steps up to the plate, all bases are loaded ... here is the pitch ... SMACK !!! .. HOMERUN !!!!

[bud]

it's kind of pathetic to try to convince people that israel shouldn't be criticized because there are other bad stories out there. the supposed biased in the guardian does not change the fact that israel has repeatedly violated international law and the rights of the palestinians.

[scribblet]

One also has to wonder at the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-Israel camp in this thread and their tendency to invent their opponent's arguments for them out of thin air.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, the only tendency here seems to be that of the pro terrorist supporters who seem to think that only Israel is wrong and has no right to defend itself. The only intellectual dishonesty here is that of those who fail to accept the bias of the Guardian et al, and their acceptance of the terrorist propaganda.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, the only tendency here seems to be that of the pro terrorist supporters who seem to think that only Israel is wrong and has no right to defend itself. The only intellectual dishonesty here is that of those who fail to accept the bias of the Guardian et al, and their acceptance of the terrorist propaganda.

There are no "pro-terrorist supporters" here. There are people who disagree with you about Israel.

Now, if you wish to refer to yourself as a "pro-murderer and oppressor of Arab children," or some such nonsense, then you might get away with such otherwise spurious formulations as you've devised. But as it stands, I'm afraid you'll have to get called on it.

[bloodyminded]

Back to the subject, we have to take what journalists say of their own profession with a huge grain of salt. Thanks to the self-indulgent mythos of professional journalism, many of these people perceive themselves as mavericks, "truth to power" idealists; so, they say, we sometimes "go too far" in our pursuit of holding powerful people's feet to the fire....

In truth, this might approach the near-literal opposite of how it actually works. The journalists of the major professional organizations are like court jesters. They run in the same social circles as the political and Business elite, thanks to their often sycophantic need for sourcing and indulgences. They need access, and they get it by behaving themselves. There are of course exceptions, but the rule remains, I think, pretty constant.

If we're going to take the Guardian journalist's "confession" seriously, we have to understand that there's a note of self-aggrandizement at play, if we read even slightly between the lines.

Further, we have to take note of other things he says, beyond the combustible Israel issue.

Like, oh, for example, his throwaway remark about how the Guardian ignores "the less attractive tribal habits of the working class."

Oh, so it's like that, is it? One wonders why he omitted any remark about the "less attractive tribal habits" of the professional upper-middle class--say, journalists. Are they free, thanks to their elevated positions in society, from unattractive tribal habits? I'm sure this implied declaration (for that's what it is) begs the question, does it not? And what about the "less attractive tribal habits" of the very wealthy? Have they, along with the journalists, doctors, solicitors and politicians, evolved beyond such matters that aren't too pretty to look upon, and which journalists of note generously have ignored among the "working class," and so exposing the left-wing bias of the Guardian?

Edited March 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure what you are referring to, the only tendency here seems to be that of the pro terrorist supporters who seem to think that only Israel is wrong and has no right to defend itself. The only intellectual dishonesty here is that of those who fail to accept the bias of the Guardian et al, and their acceptance of the terrorist propaganda.

Your post is self-parody.

[Bob]

as much as I'm encouraged that you've narrowed your target from your earlier broad brush labeling of the complete British press, I'm somewhat discouraged that you need me to do the leg-work for you. But we have some progress in that you've qualified your usage of "bias", to mean purposeful intent to mislead and/or send a false message; usage associated to explicitly omitted context (historical and/or contemporary) and/or massaged language.

one could question the independence of your personalized evidentiary interpretations... but at this point why should one quibble given your largess; clearly, "95%/virtually every article", is a heady challenge to ignore

batter up... and on deck

Go ahead and pick an article, and I'll show you the bias through either massaged language or omission of important context.

[jbg]

One also has to wonder at the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-Israel camp in this thread and their tendency to invent their opponent's arguments for them out of thin air.

Yet why is there so little criticism of the Arab government's butchery of their own citizens?

[Saipan]

or it's mini-me in making version, FoxNewsNorth?

What's that?

Is it some paper opposing Toronto Red Star?

[Saipan]

it's kind of pathetic to try to convince people that israel shouldn't be criticized

Criticize away!

the supposed biased in the guardian does not change the fact that israel has repeatedly violated international law and the rights of the palestinians.

1) Whose "international laws"?

2) What exact "rights"?

3) Which "palestinians"?