# How fair do you think news is being reported in your country?



## southerngal

We all want to read the news and receive the facts with no bias towards only one side of any event. Yet, even in countries where free press is supposed to occur, it clearly isn't.

Here's a photo essay that shows how US photographers have manipulated images from the war in Israel and Lebanon:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp


In France, a veteran news writer, Alain Hertoghe, wrote a book entitled _La guerre __à outrances:_ _Comment la presse nous a d__éinform__é sur l'Irak_ (All-out war: how the press lied to us about Iraq) which exposed how the French press was covering up information about Iraq. The author was fired from his job and shunned by the media, who didn't want to admit what had been held back from the public.

How do you personally find out what is going on in the world -- from what you see and read from the major news sources, or do you have other ways that you try to assemble facts?


----------



## mytwolangs

There are many news sites, some interject their own opinions (Like infowars dot com) and tend to be more about speculation than fact. 
They tend to be very biased.

Some water things down, like MSN.

Some have news, but tend to be quite vulgar sites like ogrish. Ogrish is sometimes graphic.

ALSO - Most cities have an online version of their newspaper.


----------



## danielfranco

Wag the dog, baby!!!

I don't care much for the news.

Argentinian cartoon-artist and philosopher (in my estimation) Quino said it best, through the lips of character "Susanita":
[Paraphrase] "News? What news? If you take into account that they tell you only half of what actually happened and on top of that they lie half the time, then the result is that news don't exist!!"


----------



## MonsieurAquilone

Badly.  News is never objective.  Such a fact is not new.


----------



## gaer

MonsieurAquilone said:
			
		

> Badly. News is never objective. Such a fact is not new.


People are shocked when I say that I don't read the news or watch it. (This does not stop you from being bombarded with information.)

I truly believe you can figure out more about what is going on now by studying history than be reading and watching "spin". By "history", I mean everything from thousands of years ago to what happened a year or two ago. Even then there is "spin". It's inevitable.


----------



## modus.irrealis

I think MonsieurAquilone sums it up perfectly.



			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> How do you personally find out what is going on in the world -- from what you see and read from the major news sources, or do you have other ways that you try to assemble facts?


Basically I try to read sources from all points on the political spectrum and then hope the different biases (propaganda) cancel each other and something resembling the truth emerges. For Canadian news, this is especially tough, since, despite the vehement claims otherwise, everything's pretty much middle-of-the-road so there's very few competing viewpoints in the mainstream media.


----------



## maxiogee

Nice to see the ownership of the source quoted in post 1 here.
No mention of Judaism manipulating anything - but the web-surfers!

What makes you say…


> Here's a photo essay that shows how US photographers have manipulated images from the war in Israel and Lebanon:


No mention is made at all of "*US* phrographers" - Reuters, AP and The New York Times are given as sources.  Reuters and AP are English. 
The nationalities of any of the photographers is never mentioned! 
Also, the photos are all from Lebanon, not are from "the war in Israel" — I didn't know there was a war in Israel!

That site is purely propagandist, so it is fitting it should be quoted in a thread on "fair reporting".


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Nice to see the ownership of the source quoted in post 1 here.


 
Nothing new there -- news reporters have been altering news from Israel for a long time. It's hard to argue with what was shown. How awful to use Lebanese actors in different stories and to use props they way they did.




> Reuters and AP are English.


 
I looked at the AP website, and although AP is international, I couldn't find where it originated. For a contact, it said to phone your local bureau or call New York City. I looked at the Reuters website, and since _organisation_ was spelled as thus, it's most likely British. 




> Also, the photos are all from Lebanon, not are from "the war in Israel" — I didn't know there was a war in Israel!


 
I don't blame you. The way the news is reported, most people never know that Hezbollah began it all by attacking Israel with rockets and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Israel tried peacefully to get them to stop, and Hezbollah refused and kept attacking. Hezbollah moved all their family members away from the Lebanon border and kept firing at Israel, later using the Lebanese people as human shields for high number of casualties that they could parade around (and of course, Hezbollah was in direct violation of international law and stored its weapons directly in the midst of civilian neighborhoods. Why would they do that if they really cared about Lebanon?) Fortunately, most people have been smart enough to see through even the shoddy reporting to realize what is occuring.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> No mention is made at all of "*US* phrographers" - Reuters, AP and The New York Times are given as sources. Reuters and AP are English.
> The nationalities of any of the photographers is never mentioned!


 
The doctored photo of Beirut burning was by Adnan Hajj.
Mr Hajj is a Muslim from Lebanon.
Reuters has now removed 920 of his photos from their database.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

News is never objective.

I am an extremely skeptical person. I like reading news from different places and highly believe in conspiracies. 

"If you do not read the news you are uninformed. If you read the news you are misinformed" by Mark Twain -> that's on the video you posted, Southerngal, great quote.


----------



## bernik

_" even in countries where free press is supposed to occur, it clearly isn't."_

In France, the news media are mostly on the extreme left, so they are useless.
Same thing in England with the BBC. On the BBC, terrorists are called insurgents (except if they are IRA terrorists).
French radio gives biased news about the muslim world, and little news about the rest of the world. Domestic news are mainly about "regularizing" people "without papers" (=giving french identity cards to illegals). So, the only solution is to turn off the radio and the TV. Internet is also part of the solution.

_" I am an extremely skeptical person. I like reading news from different places and highly believe in conspiracies. "_

I am skeptical about using conspiracy theories to explain everything.


----------



## southerngal

Brioche said:
			
		

> Reuters has now removed 920 of his photos from their database.


 
That's criminal.  Not criminal to remove them of course, but criminal that they were altered in the first place!


----------



## panjabigator

I always take the news with a grain of salt.  I also try and watch competing networks to see if there is anything different.  It's sad when you cannot trust the news though.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the photos are all from Lebanon, not are from "the war in Israel" — I didn't know there was a war in Israel!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you. The way the news is reported, most people never know that Hezbollah began it all by attacking Israel with rockets and kidnapping Israeli soldiers.
Click to expand...

You (deliberately?) misinterpret my statement - I didn't know that the state of Israel considered itself *to be at war*. 
* You posted a link to a site without telling us that it is a section of a site called Your Life, Your Judaism. The Jewish Website. 
* You have misrepresented the content of that site as showing "how US photographers have manipulated images" when there is no mention of US photographers. 
* You say the photographs are "from the war in Israel and Lebanon" — There isn't a war in Israel and Lebanon. What is happening in Lebanon is outside the ability of the impotent Lebanese government to control or to affect. Israel and Hezbollah are using Lebanon for their own purposes. Hezbollah is not a Lebanese organisation.
* You say the photographs are "from the war in israel and Lebanon" — they are not. They are solely from Lebanon.

Yes, it is a shame that people manipulate the truth. But hey, Israel has been doing that for years. Ask an Israeli about Mordecai Vanunu. But of course to say that Israel is a tarnished state is to be immediately labelled as anti-Semitic and therefore not to be listened to.

This whole thread seems to me to be "Ain't those anti-Israel people dreadful!"
Do you honestly think that you are getting fair and unbiased reporting from inside Israel? Or from Iraq — or from anywhere nowadays?
What sort of unbiased reporting are Americans getting about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay? 
What sort of unbaised reporting are the Iraqis getting about world affairs?
What sort of unbiased reporting do viewers to Al-Jazeera get of America?


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> * You posted a link to a site without telling us that it is a section of a site called Your Life, Your Judaism. The Jewish Website.


 
*Did you find that the editing that the website reported was inaccurate?* If so, I'd like to see evidence. The same evidence has been duplicated on many different news sites. Otherwise, are you saying that anything a Jewish site reports is automatically wrong? 




> * You say the photographs are "from the war in israel and Lebanon" — they are not. They are solely from Lebanon.


 
The mispresentation is on the side of Lebanon, to exploit what has occurred, that's true, Again, if you see anything that photographers have misrepresented to make the damage Hezbollah has inflicted upon Israel to be worse than it is, I am very willing to take a look. Until then, please refrain from the antisemitic attacks.



> You have misrepresented the content of that site as showing "how US photographers have manipulated images" when there is no mention of US photographers.


 
It was unintentional, and I apologize.  As someone else pointed out, one of the photographers was a Muslim Lebanese. 

It's unfortunate that you have chosen this opportunity to show your hatred towards Israel.  That isn't what the thread is about at all.  It's about reporters altering the truth.  Another example was given about the French press, which you either didn't read or to which you didn't respond.  Please keep your comments on-topic.


----------



## jimreilly

One learns to read. Afterwards, very soon afterwards if one is lucky, one learns that not everything one reads is true. One may even learn that what is "true" depends on the angle of observation. And sometimes sources deliberately omit things, and sometimes people lie. 

Of course we don't get the whole truth from our media, and news is slanted. We have a responsibility to try to find different news sources that complement each other and present things from differing viewpoints.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> *Did you find that the editing that the website reported was inaccurate?* If so, I'd like to see evidence. The same evidence has been duplicated on many different news sites. Otherwise, are you saying that anything a Jewish site reports is automatically wrong?
> 
> Could a fire in a garbage-yard *not* have been caused by a downed aircraft?
> 
> I was merely drawing attention to the hilarity of someone using a page from a Jewish website to launch a thread on unfair reporting. The page, by implication, says that this is a one-sided thing.
> 
> Surely you would agree that - in discussing the events in the Middle East - a website run by a Jewish organisation needs to be scrupulously fair to avoid any suggestion that it might be biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mispresentation is on the side of Lebanon, to exploit what has occurred, that's true,
> 
> 
> 
> You persist in identifying Lebanon as the problem Israel faces. This is not true. You know as well as the Israelis do that Iran and Syria are behind Hezbollah but you - for whatever reason - refuse to acknowledge that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until then, please refrain from the antisemitic attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I predicted! That was quick.
> Just to satisfy my innate curiosity about words - please define antisemitic. And please identify what was an attack.
> 
> Just to spell it out for you. It is not Israel I attack, it is you.
> * *You* posted a link to a site without telling us that it is a section of a site called Your Life, Your Judaism. The Jewish Website.
> * *You* have misrepresented the content of that site as showing "how US photographers have manipulated images" when there is no mention of US photographers.
> * *You* say the photographs are "from the war in Israel and Lebanon" — There isn't a war in Israel and Lebanon. What is happening in Lebanon is outside the ability of the impotent Lebanese government to control or to affect. Israel and Hezbollah are using Lebanon for their own purposes. Hezbollah is not a Lebanese organisation.
> * *You* say the photographs are "from the war in israel and Lebanon" — they are not. They are solely from Lebanon.
> and finally
> *You* (deliberately?) misinterpret my statement - I didn't know that the state of Israel considered itself *to be at war.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have misrepresented the content of that site as showing "how US photographers have manipulated images" when there is no mention of US photographers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was unintentional, and I apologize.  As someone else pointed out, one of the photographers was a Muslim Lebanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unintentional? You put that word in there. The website says nothing about the photographers being from the US - you made the decision to say "US photographers.
> 
> Can I ask you something I think important - what checking of this material did you do before you posted that link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unfortunate that you have chosen this opportunity to show your hatred towards Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no evidence for that statement. Hatred is a very strong word. I challenge you to produce any evidence from anything I wrote which shows a hatred of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what the thread is about at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not? It's the only link you posted. Post us others to show your concern for "truth in the news".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about reporters altering the truth.  Another example was given about the French press, which you either didn't read or to which you didn't respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I declined to comment on bernik's contributions - I've read bernik on France before, and on Islam and Arabs. It's an oft-told tale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep your comments on-topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a thread about fair reporting I think it is extremely on-topic to examine the fairness of someone's interpretation of the news they are presented with. Biased reporting is bad enough, but a biased reader who accepts something at face value and without question takes the matter of bias in the media to a whole new level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep your comments on-topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please keep your's truthful.
> *Just to remind you* — I await your definition of _antisemitic_, an identification of an antisemitic attack, and also your evidence of my alleged hatred of Israel.
Click to expand...


----------



## tafanari

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/transcripts/2006/jul/060731.vedantam.html


----------



## ireney

I think I will agree with maxiogee and, since that will make me also someone who hates Israel, this will come as a big surprise to my Israeli friends. (You know, I have and still am dead against the operations of Israel in Lebanon but, since I have no Lebanese friends I was only worried sick about my Israeli friends; I guess to some this is a contradiction! To others it's only logical).

The whole 'spirit' of that video whose accuracy I cannot check in any way (some have apparently have and found it accurate) was "see? they lie about what we did in Lebanon).

Now manipulation is  wrong. More than just wrong. It's against what journalism is all about. News reports should be objective. News agencies, newspapers etc should double check their facts before they make them public. And so on and so forth. 

However
a) this does really happen doesn't it? There's no such thing as objective and thorough news coming out from a single source. 

b) when it comes to that particular video, while I condemn some fools' attempts to make matters seem worse all I have to add to my previous thoughts is this: I really don't care when that woman's house was bombed. I don't care if the smoke was less. I do care that someone falsified what should be evidence but that doesn't mean that bombs didn't drop and people weren't killed.

c) when it comes to this thread, and in order to make sure no one else thinks that it is biased, perhaps we should all help you look for examples of blatant manipulation of news by other countries/sides which you can then post in the opening one of this thread. This way it will be clear that you oppose media manipulation no matter who's behind it.

Hope all that makes some sense


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Could a fire in a garbage-yard *not* have been caused by a downed aircraft?


 
You aren't interested in the subject of fair reporting at all. You have used this thread as nothing but an attack on Israel (and me).  You've given us lots of hatred but have yet to dispute the Reuters and UP fraud.  Here it is from the horse's mouth:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-07T162027Z_01_L06301298_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-REUTERS.xml&archived=False

But perhaps some Israelis infiltrated the Reuters website and just made that up?  When you refuse to acknowledge the obvious, then you simply aren't playing with a full deck.




> It is not Israel I attack, it is you.


 
You're right. You certainly are.  As thus, a debater attacks the argument, not the person himself.  You are to be pitied.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> You've given us lots of hatred


Again you mention hatred.
Can you please show me what you consider to be hatred.
You haven't answered any of my questions yet.



			
				southerngal said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not Israel I attack, it is you.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. You certainly are.  As thus, a debater attacks the argument, not the person himself.  You are to be pitied.
Click to expand...

You post things which you appear not to see as being biased.
You don't read what I have written, I'll remind you…



> Do you honestly think that you are getting fair and unbiased reporting from inside Israel? Or from Iraq — or from anywhere nowadays?
> What sort of unbiased reporting are Americans getting about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay?
> What sort of unbaised reporting are the Iraqis getting about world affairs?
> What sort of unbiased reporting do viewers to Al-Jazeera get of America?


and then you say that I am not "interested in the subject of fair reporting at all" - but you aren't either. You seem to be solely concerned with a case of doctored photographs. That hardly falls into the realm of biased media. I remember the staging of photographs in Northern Ireland in the 70s, in Vietnam, in all sorts of "situations".
You haven't mentioned any other instance of biased reporting - and even what you do highlight is more fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the photographer than it is bias on the part of an unfree press.

You have me wrong. It is your conception behind this thread which didn't interest me - and when I have asked you about the way you manipulated your introductory remarks you respond by saying that I am antisemitic, that I hate Israel, that I hate you, that I am not playing with a full deck and that I am to be pitied.

*Just answer the questions please.* How many requests does it take?


----------



## southerngal

Maxiogee, you have ignored what I have written (and have yet to prove that Reuters didn't manipulate the actions of Israel against Lebanon) and say that *you are attacking me* and then expect me to answer questions that I already have? Again, you're right -- I mistakenly claimed that it was US photographers that altered the photos in Lebanon when in fact, it wasn't. At least one of the photos was manipulated by a *Lebanese Muslim*. But you didn't either read or acknowledge my response.

Never have I claimed that the two separate topics that I discussed in the first post were isolated and that all other reporting was completely fair and accurate.  Why do you put words in my mouth that I neither stated nor implied?  Of course, there are many cases of unfair reporting from many different countries and many different news agencies.  Because you have a vendetta against Israel, you somehow seem not to believe anything that isn't negative about it.  Again, Reuters itself admitted the mistake.  You have ignored that.  Based on what you've written here, I don't think you can look at much objectively when you have very negative pre-conceived ideas that will not allow in any information that does not support your view.

If you don't read my posts or cannot comprehend them, then it's an issue you'll have to resolve on your own. I'll debate ideas, but when you clearly state that you are attacking me, you just ruined your credibility as a person with an open mind.


----------



## maxiogee

You appear to have yet to grasp the meaning of the word attack.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary says
*attack •v 1* take aggressive action against. ➤ (of a disease, chemilcal, etc.) act harmfully on. *2* criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly. *3* begin to deal with (a problem or task) in a determined way. *4* (in sport) make a forceful attempt to score goals or points.

Criticism upsets you? I don't see how it ruins my credibility as someone with an open mind - can the open mind not criticise? I have not claimed that the photos weren't retouched/forged/abused and have nothing to acknowledge or admit. My sole query is your bias in all this.

I thought that this was an intelligent discussion - where do you get the notion that I have a vendetta against Israel — you do make outrageous claims and then refuse to back them with any substance. I can only assume that you see any criticism of Israel as a lack of objectivity.

You are the one making the unsubstantiated claim that Reuters (and not some photographers, possibly acting in concert) "manipulated the actions of Israel"

I do read your posts and can comprehend them but when you presume to suggest that I might believe "But perhaps some Israelis infiltrated the Reuters website and just made that up?" well you lost me there.


Another question to add to the growing list which you refuse to answer - what "very negative pre-conceived ideas" have I evinced here - apart from my all-encompassing standard-issue scepticism? Should I hang around all night for the answers - it's getting late over here.


----------



## beakman

Southerngal,
It is evident that you exaggerate great deal. Nobody promote vendetta against Israel. Nobody hate you nor Israel. Objectively, you are obsessed to prove to everybody (maybe also to yourself?) that what Israel is doing is good. That's why you have started this thread.


----------



## GenJen54

This thread asks a question about bias in the media. The problem is that the source cited for the thread is, by its very nature, also biased, which has created a bit of irony that others have selected to point out.

The irony of the issue is not what is to be discussed here. What needs to be discussed is whether news sources are biased. The answer? Of course, most are, because most are operated by a state and/or corporation which has an agenda. 

The manipulation of photographs is against the ethics of photojournalism.  

The manipulation of thread topics to foist a specific political agenda goes against the spirit of these forums. 

Until we can see a clearer light and understand the bias on ALL sides of the issue, this thread shall remain closed.


----------

