NewsMine — propoganda — corporatemedia — Viewing Item

British news favors israeli position { June 22 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3829967.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3829967.stm Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 June, 2004, 17:21 GMT 18:21 UK Mid-East coverage baffles Britons UK television news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is confusing viewers and favouring the Israeli position, a new report says. The study, by the Media Group at Scotland's Glasgow University, found Israelis were quoted more than twice as much as Palestinians in reports. It said that news programmes did not provide enough information about the conflict's history and origins. Many viewers were also not even sure who was "occupying" whose territory. Language differences Researchers focused on the BBC One and ITV News channels' coverage from the beginning of the current Palestinian intifada, examining more than 200 programmes and interviewing more than 800 people, including several prominent BBC correspondents. They found that, in addition to "a preponderance of official Israeli perspectives", US politicians who support Israel were "very strongly featured" in news programmes, appearing more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain. It was about time that this has come to light - most people confuse Palestine with Pakistan Sharif, Leeds The report takes issue with a tendency in the media to present the problem as "starting" with Palestinian action, while Israelis were seen to be "responding" with actions that were explained and contextualised. "There was very little discussion of the nature of the relationship between the two sides - that one [the Palestinians] was subject to military control by the other [Israel]," the report says. Researchers also found a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news despite the number of Palestinian deaths being considerably greater. And the differences in language used by journalists for both sides were also noted. "Words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian," the report said. "The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'." 'Breaking news' culture The survey also showed that the average British person knew little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many people in Britain think the Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way round and some think Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan, despite extensive media coverage of the conflict. Several journalists interviewed for the report blamed lack of time and the difficulties of reporting such a controversial topic for the dearth of adequate background explanation, while others pointed to intimidation of journalists by both sides. Many BBC News Online readers blamed the "breaking news" culture for reducing news to sound bites instead of offering comprehensive coverage of one of the world's most covered but least understood conflicts. "The history is the missing aspect in all coverage today," said BBC News Online reader Rakesh Jain from the US. "This results in the people being susceptible to 15-second television sound bites and they totally misread the reasons for the problems." While UK reader Douglas Shaw picked up a point suggested in the report, that there is a tendency among journalists to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than having a key military and strategic function. "The BBC could choose to describe all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as being 'illegal'," Mr Shaw wrote. "This would be a small step forward in helping public understanding." History lessons Senior BBC news executive Mark Damazer denies any suggestion of anti-Palestinian bias in the corporation's coverage of the conflict, but concedes that because of the "grammar" of TV news important context is often left out. People watch the news night after night and at the end of the day they have no understanding what the conflict is all about Greg Philo, Glasgow University "Sometimes important points of history get lost amidst the welter of coverage," he told BBC World Service's Newshour programme. But he said correspondents and editors were aware of the risks and take their responsibility "very seriously" to sketch in the missing context over time. And as far as the language of news is concerned, he said there was no evidence that the BBC had been "cowed" into being pro-Israeli. "When BBC correspondents have to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip they don't say 'disputed' territory, they say the territories are 'occupied'." But Glasgow University's Greg Philo that told the same programme that the facts speak for themselves. "You can't have a history lesson each time you do the news, but the problem is 80% of the population rely on television news for their information about the world," he said. "They watch the news night after night and at the end of the day they have no understanding what the conflict is all about." What do you think of the issues raised in this story? Send us your comments using the form below.

britney cnn-early-oribuary fcc-consolidation howard-stern limbaugh murdoch superbowl-janet-breast 60 minutes blind sided by clark book viacom ties { April 11 2004 } American idol delay deployment { January 26 2003 } Amy goodman giving voice to silenced majority { April 21 2004 } Aniston bares more [jpg] Antiwar group says ad is rejected { July 12 2004 } Ashcroft calls on news to brainwash { June 20 2003 } Bank australia hbo takeover Bill oreilly flips out and edits show { June 30 2004 } British news favors israeli position { June 22 2004 } Cbs fires producer over arafat special report Cbs refuses anti bush ad { January 31 2004 } Clear channel conglomerate { January 30 2003 } Clear channel deregulation mess Clear channel hearing Clear channel mexico san diego { October 4 2002 } Clear channel organizes pro war rallies { March 26 2003 } Cnn intimidated by bush Cnn planted question at debate Cnn regrets planting debate questions { November 11 2003 } Cnn vs cnn international different pictures { April 11 2003 } Comcast makes unsolicited bid for disney Corporate ads aired as real news Corruption in the business { September 15 2003 } Cross ownership { April 20 2001 } Decline in public trust of media Defense contractor buys movie theater chain loews { June 22 2004 } Discovery empire Disney prevents release of michael moore film { May 5 2004 } Drawing up press battle lines { February 2 2003 } Elton john says stars are scared to speak out { July 17 2004 } Fcc easing television caps save viacom { May 11 2003 } Fcc questions stations on fake news { August 15 2006 } Financial times beats new york times as best paper Fired radio host sues clear channel { July 7 2003 } Head that could roll at bskyb Hitler rise to power series canceled { May 15 2003 } Idol calls in marine Isaacson resigns cnn Longer war more money { February 27 2003 } Mccain feingold stop consolidation Mccain questions clear channel dixie chicks { July 8 2003 } Media big fish Media cross ownership rule { April 29 2003 } Media empire born { September 2 2003 } Media giant shows anti kerry film before election Media is mouthpiece for whatever administration in power { August 12 2004 } Media mergers { May 14 2002 } Media owned republicans { September 26 2003 } Media ownership Media sells war { February 18 2003 } Moore reveals carlyle holdings 17 percent disney { July 28 2004 } Msnbc ceo dismissed { December 21 2002 } Msnbc future { August 18 2002 } Msnbc hits bottom Msnbc savage show canceled { July 7 2003 } Mtv censors lyrics free mumia Murdock to control directv { April 10 2003 } Nbc postpones world dating show Nbc pres to sony NBC reports arabs blame US for tsunami { January 7 2005 } Nbc shakeup Neil young sings patriot 911 songs Network executives pressured to support bush { May 28 2008 } New york times criticizes own war coverage { May 26 2004 } News ownership chart [gif] News reporters ordered not to investigate 911 Newspapers cutting foreign correspondents { February 18 2007 } Npr commercial { April 11 2002 } Npr gets big money from mcdonalds { November 6 2003 } Nytimes reporter faces fraud inquiry Nytimes tensions shakeups Oreilly attacks son of 911 victim jeremy glick { February 4 2003 } Pacifica radio moves to berkley { June 24 2003 } Powell concern media concentration Powell cut off during interview { May 17 2004 } Protest music died { February 20 2003 } Refusal to air iraqi dead criticized { March 19 2003 } Rep sanders Rep sanders2 Rick braggs nytimes problem Salon pacifica { June 20 2002 } Saudi owned upi massive debt { April 24 1999 } Sinclair broadcast fires chief for criticizing political ad { October 18 2004 } Speaker at press corps dinner chides press for doing nothing Stern tears into fcc { April 18 2003 } Stories pushed aside in march to war Ted turned says network news focus is on the pervert of the day Ted turner lost 85 percent Ted turner says government protects big media { July 8 2004 } Thomas friedman calls 911 holy day for war { October 26 2001 } Time warner joins bidding for MGM { July 2 2004 } Un newspapers failed to challenge government claim about wmd { March 11 2004 } Viacom extends mtv reach in china { September 23 2004 } Viacom president quits { June 2 2004 } War patriotic music radio { February 24 2003 } Washington post says iraq coverage was flawed Washington post to have shorter stories more photos { November 19 2004 } Files Listed: 97

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.