Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (106750)	7/20/2003 8:41:50 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 281500

"I don't see the BBC as quite the bugaboo you appear to...." It appears an objective comprehensive study is in complete disagreement with your faulty POV...... THE BBC – AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR ANALYSIS <a tiny excerpt> .....The BBC has a legal obligation to report news in an accurate and impartial way[2]. A comparison between the way in which coalition troops and Israeli troops are treated when dealing with such similar military problems provided a rare opportunity to compare like with like in a more direct way than our earlier studies have allowed. What emerges from this study is the marked contrast between the way the BBC reports the two conflicts. Collation troops are described in warm and glowing terms, with sympathy being evoked both for them as individuals and also for their military predicament. By contrast Israeli troops are painted as faceless ruthless and brutal killers with no or little understanding shown for their actions. The BBC goes to considerable lengths to explain, excuse and mitigate any civilian deaths at the hands of coalition troops. Israeli troops receive totally different treatment; little sympathy is shown for their situation, and mitigating arguments are brushed aside or scorned if voiced at all. At times the reporting of events in Israel amounts to distortion and at times to what appears to be discrimination against Israel. We are aware that, during the Iraq conflict, the BBC was heavily criticised in the UK for being too harsh in its treatment of coalition motives and tactics. This report does not seek to comment on that criticism. However the fact that the criticism was widely voiced only serves to emphasise the correctness of the argument at the centre of this report. Had the BBC responded to public pressure to report coalition actions more favourably than it did, then the contrast between its reporting of coalition and Israel’s forces would have been even more stark than it actually was..... bbcwatch.com

To: epicure who wrote (106750)	7/20/2003 11:25:59 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

don't see the BBC as quite the bugaboo you appear to (from reading not just the last post, but many of your posts on the subject). But I agree that Arafat could blow this thing up. We'll see whether he does or not. I've been watching the BBC for a long time now. They have a well established MO. Here's a suggestion to pick up on the technique: notice what is reported in the active voice (X kills Y), and what is reported in the passive voice, as if there was no actor (Violence happens in area X). Both the BBC and Reuters have a habit of reporting all Israeli violence in the active voice, and most Palestinian violence in the passive voice, as if it were a natural force. And don't even get me started on their selective choice of stories.