--On Tuesday, August 29, 2006 20:18:41 +0100 teh kids
<tehkids@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
You mean like this?
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm>
"It now has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament and has
built broad support by providing social services and health care. It
also has an influential TV station, al-Manar."
Is this the only passage in that text that you think is biased?
(i thought you were objecting on grounds of omission rather than
inclusion)
It can be broken down in to 4 statements,
1] Hezbollah has managed to become an important presence in the
Lebanese Parliament
They just left out - by killing opposition leaders and threatening others.
2] It has gained support for this power by providing [unnamed] social
services
They left out - by conterfeiting US currency and receiving funding from
Iran.
3] It has gained support for this power by providing health care [to
an unnamed population]
Ditto. And ask those southern Lebanese how they feel about those health
services now. Hezbollah built ammo dumps under schools and hospitals. Did
the BBC tell you that?
4] It has a tv station, which is influential [it is not stated if this
is a cause or an effect]
They left out - a virulently anti-semitic terrorist propaganda outlet that
spews so much hatred that they've been banned from every Eurpopean country.
Are any of these statements incorrect?
They are literally true and truly false. They portray Hezbollah as some
humanitarian outfit that just wants to help people, when nothing could be
further from the truth. It's like aaying, "Hitler was a strong leader who
brought stability to Germany and helped them rebuild after WWI."
Literally true and completely misleading.
Do these statements imply things that are incorrect?
Obviously they do.
please, if these statements are incorrect, provide me some further
information that could conclude that the misreporting is due to
personal (on behalf of the reporter), government enforced or other
bias, please also state _your_ reason as to why you think there is a
bias.
You walk down the street and see a guy brandishing a gun. He shoots
someone dead right in front of you. When the media reports the story they
say, "He came from a broken home and was very troubled and no one actually
saw him shoot anyone." because, when they questioned you, you said, "I
didn't see anything", and they took your word for it.
Is the story true? Is it also truth?
I think you need to read the whole article to put these points into
context. I see no personal bias in these statements. (although I
cannot vouch for their correctness)
I'm not surprised.
do you have a history with this issue? it seems that you _might_ be
confusing bad journalism with bias because something is clouding your
judgement.
History with what issue? Hezbollah? I'm well aware that they've been
firing artillery into Israel for years, completely unprovoked. I'm aware
that they have manipulated the media (both photographers and journalists)
and the media refuses to admit they're being manipulated. I'm aware that
photos of the war were altered, using Photoshop, and Reuters was forced to
remove the photos and fire the photographer because bloggers, not the
media, exposed the deception.
Is that what you mean?
I see your point but without sources to back up your claims they are
little more than speculation. How do I know that you are not part of
a more effective, Israeli propaganda machine.
You don't. Do your own research.
Please supply some substance to your outlandish statements.
Google "fake" "ambulance" "rocket" and "Lebanon".
Or just read this:
<http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/>
Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
p7sF7h0NezVbL.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
