Biased media reporting discussion

[shamrock_uk]

I just looked back over a previous thread and found this comment from TL which I'm going to take issue with. (new thread because the other was simply a 'post in case people were interested' thread)

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sorry, when it comes to Palestine/Israel, I take anything reported by the Beeb with a huge grain of salt. They are very biased on the issue. Any rag that says Arafat was "branded by critics as a terrorist" deserves to get its ass beat.

Isn't the quote cited here an indication of strict BBC impartiality? It may not be what certain people wish to hear but isn't it the absolute truth?

These two statements are truthful: (quote box is just presentational)

His supporters regard him as a freedom fighter. His critics regard him as a terrorist.

I defy anyone to dispute their accuracy.


What I want when I read the news is both sides of the story, so I expect to see a quote like Timber cited when I see coverage on Arafat. It shows an acknowledgement of two sides to the story which is sorely lacking in American coverage of the conflict.

It may be that one's personal views are so skewed in one direction or another that what is actually a 100% factual statement appears like bias, but in that case, the day the BBC becomes 'unbiased' will be a sad one for reporting standards in the UK.

Consider what would happen if the BBC changed its coverage and simply referred to Arafat as a terrorist (presumably avoiding the need for getting its ass beat now) as you clearly would want Timber, how is it any better than the likes of Al-Jazeera who (a perhaps unfair example) would just write that Bush is a terrorist as if it was the god-given truth? There is always two sides to cover and the BBC would be negligent if it did not do this.

All IMO of course. So what do the rest of y'all think? And don't feel restricted to reporting over this particular conflict, I just used that example to pose my question since I disagree most strongly with TL over this. (I was getting worried - I'd been agreeing with virtually everything you've written for the past few weeks! [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Edits: Re-arranging and additions

[ 11-23-2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Azred]

[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] But Arafat was a terrorist. That isn't an opinion, it is a matter of historical fact.
If the BBC reports a statement like "branded by critics as a terrorist" that would also be true, because his critics did do that. They aren't necessarily showing their bias here.

Oh, well. We all know that different news sources have differing biases, which is why it is best to choose three sources and average them together.

[Cerek]

I agree with Azred. There is no way denying Arafat's ties to terrorism. It isn't as if Arafat's terrorist activities were based on mere speculation and perspective. He founded the P.L.O. and I am old enough to remember when they were one of the most agressive terrorist organizations around.

So calling him a terrorist IS a statement of fact. Claiming that is a label applied by his critics ignores his past activities. I don't care if his followers consider him a freedom fighter - if you deliberately target innocent civilians, you are a terrorist by definition.

Personally, I find it incomprehensible that Arafat actually recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. That doesn't put him or his activities in a better light (IMHO), in fact it contradicts the very wording of the Prize itself.

[Stratos]

The Nobel Peace Price is given to individuals and organizations that have worked towards peace or similar pursuits. A clean record is not really necessary.

I do want to note, however, that Yassir Arafat shared the prize with Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin. He would never have gotten it alone.