babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Reuters honest reporting???

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Reuters honest reporting???
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 19 July 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And we thought we worried that Global was biased???

quote:
A one-month study of Reuters headlines reveals clear bias in Reuters' Mideast coverage.
Headlines are powerful elements of any news story, for a headline is the first (and oftentimes the only) item seen by the reader.
Recognizing this, HonestReporting monitored headlines of Reuters news agency reports on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during the one-month period June 10 - July 10, 2003. This critical period commenced with the Israeli strike against Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and ended with the relative calm of the Palestinian hudna.
During this time frame, Reuters issued headlines describing six acts of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, and twelve acts of violence by Israel against Palestinians. Among these, HonestReporting found the following patterns of bias:
1) Named subject
In violent acts against Israelis, the Palestinian agent is named in 33% of the headlines.
In violent acts against Palestinians, the Israeli agent is named in 100% of the headlines. Moreover, Israel is always emphasized by appearing as the first word in the headline.
2) Named object
In violent acts against Israelis, casualties are labeled "Israeli" in 11% of the headlines.
In violent acts against Palestinians, casualties are labeled "Palestinian" or "Hamas" in 50% of the headlines. Considering "militant" as a Palestinian-specific term raises this figure to 71% of headlines.
3) Verb selection
Violent acts by Palestinians are described with "active voice" verbs in 33% of the headlines.
Violent acts by Israelis are described with "active voice" verbs in 100% of the headlines.
A few examples of Reuters headlining Israel in ferocious terms:
"Sharon Vows More Attacks on Militants Despite Talks" (June 15)
"Israel Threatens New Raids After Anti-Hamas Strike" (June 22)
"Israeli Army Swoops in Nablus After Security Talks" (June 23)

examples

quote:
SUMMARY:
In the world of Reuters headlines, when Israel acts, Israel is always perpetrating an active assault, and the Palestinian victim is consistently identified. But when Palestinian terrorists act, their Israeli victims are faceless, and the Palestinian perpetrators are rarely named nor described in active terms. Moreover, Palestinian diplomats pursue peace, but are frustrated by their obstinate Israeli counterparts.
Reuters' obvious message? Israel is the aggressor, and Palestinians are the victims.
For the past three years, HonestReporting readers have intuitively sensed that Reuters is taking sides in this conflict. HonestReporting's one-month analysis of Reuters' headlines demonstrates that the claim of Reuters' bias is indeed grounded in fact.
In professional journalism, lack of objectivity is the cardinal sin. As one of the world's most broadly syndicated news agencies, Reuters has tremendous influence on Western perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — thereby making its biased stance all the more reprehensible.

[ 19 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 19 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 July 2003 06:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In violent acts against Palestinians, the Israeli agent is named in 100% of the headlines.

Justice, this surprises me.

The overwhelming number of violent acts perpetrated against Palestinians by Israelis that I have read about have been perpetrated by the IDF -- and I'm not sure that I have ever seen the IDF soldiers named in reports of those acts.

I guess these people were tracking only Sharon, eg. Unquestionably, he has ordered violent acts, and I guess it is hard to avoid naming him.

But I wonder how many violent acts against Palestinians are being left out of this study, if it considers only reports in which Israeli actors are named. The IDF has tended to be successful in remaining nameless.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 July 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't be fooled. This is hardly an unbiased study:

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/About_us.asp


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 01:53 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is you can not call Reuters unbiased or accurate and they are a much larger news source the Canwest media. It is important to scrutinize all news sources. None should be left unchecked they are other organizations that critique the news from different points of view each is equally important. No information should be taken for granted or unchecked. This study thoroughly proves the Reuters is biased and one sided. If they were unbiased they'd report on all the incidents, killings etc… in the same manor but they clearly have a one sided point of view.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 July 2003 01:56 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Give me a break. Israeli considers any news source that independantly gathers and reports information free of the Israeli Information Minister to be biased.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 20 July 2003 06:57 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The study thoroughly proves..." to me that Honest Reporting's stated goal is exposing what they consider anti-Israeli bias. Not all biases, not biases relating to Mideast conflict, just biases against Israel.

As such, they're, er, well, BIASED.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 July 2003 10:17 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good God, yes. Thanks for the link, josh.

I don't think anyone around here is so naive as to think that any news source is completely without preconceptions or "bias." That study of Reuters is still absurd, Justice, my opening query being just one example of what's questionable about it.

The voices I admire most, actually, are those of reporters who are self-aware enough to be up-front about any commitments they may have, who are also therefore comfortable about being self-critical as well.

Groups like this (HonestReporting ), which claim to be defending "objectivity" while clearly aiming to do nothing but spin, are just another pathetic by-product of toxic NAmerican PR-think. There's no business like show business, eh, Justice?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You wouldn't say that about other organizations like FAIR. You wouldn't say that about Michael Moore. Face it now your being biased and one sided about honest reporting. They took time to heavily research and scrutinize the topic. In a fair scientific manor.

The manor in which they conducted their research this topic is as accurate as you can get. So either you can accept the facts, or you can sit back and hear what you want to hear. Talk about show business eh???

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 11:20 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Give me a break. Israeli considers any news source that independantly gathers and reports information free of the Israeli Information Minister to be biased.

Now that’s one of the biggest load of BS I heard in a long time. This is Israel we're talking about not Iraq or some other dictatorship in the middle-east there are hundreds of different news papers in Israel with different points of view that scrutinize the government from the left and the right. Haaretz is but one example.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 11:22 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anyone ways you should all try and stick to the topic of Reuters anyone who wants to prove otherwise should go do the research if you can bring facts that contradict honest reporting research by directly getting quotes and info from Reuters then maybe you might be right but right now you have nothing so good luck.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 July 2003 11:23 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Poor Justice.

(I have no idea what FAIR is. I would certainly admit that Michael Moore is several parts show biz -- but then, so would he. That is part of his genuine charm, and what makes him trustworthy.)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 11:29 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is all showbiz face it. Anyone can stitch together pices of film to show what ever point of view they want. That's not objective or trust worthy when you research hundreds and thousands of articles or items now that is being objective.

If you want to prove something research it.

And if you can call Michael Moore trust worthy then "conflict Concordia" is more then a creditable piece of work.

Fair

a little broder similar idea. I must haven't checked them out enough to see if they are really researched

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From josh's link:

quote:
In response, HonestReporting was founded to scrutinize the media for examples of anti-Israel bias, and then mobilize subscribers to respond directly to the news agency concerned.

HonestReporting has succeeded in shaking up the media and putting them on alert. They think twice, knowing they may be called to task for a particular article or headline.


That sounds ominous, doesn't it? Write your stories with our bias, or we'll get our huge membership to lean on your ass, and then we'll call it objective.

WhatEVER.

I find it interesting that they claim the BBC is not objective because of that quote from one of their reporters, when the stated aim of Honest Reporting is to do exactly the same thing for the Israeli side.

As such, Honest Reporting will get, from me at least, all the attention they deserve - practically none, except for the occasional snicker.

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
think twice

is there something wrong about asking people to use their heads more?

I believe people should.

If you want to share your point of view put it in a column or editorial not a headline it is not news.

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 July 2003 11:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, by "objective" you appear to mean grossly quantitative.

OK: if we are going to get gross and quantitative about goings-on in Israel-Palestine, we are forced to admit that there are more dead Palestinian bodies than there are dead Israeli bodies -- and therefore, by your logic, there should be considerably more stories about Palestinians who have been killed in this conflict.

All stories about houses being bulldozed would focus on Palestinians.

Et cetera.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 06:34 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I wish there were more inquiry done then you'd see that the majority of Palestinians killed were when Israeli forces have come under fire and these were unintentional by standards.

Further more we'd see that for the amount of missions the Israel forces do in the west bank and Gaza the causality rate of the Palestinians is really low.


example

quote:
Dan is proud that in the hundreds of operations
that have been carried out, the men of the
reconnaissance unit have not killed a single
Palestinian civilian. "In the clash in which
Mandel was killed, he was shot from inside a
building in which there were 80 civilians," he
says. "The soldiers did not respond with wild
shooting. We took all the inhabitants out of
the building and only afterward, the wanted man
was killed. No one harmed the other two wanted
men who shot at us. In the end, they turned
themselves in to us. In our unit, prisoners
don't get beaten up on the way to detention."

source

However don't want to slide into that we should stick to how the news is reported

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 July 2003 06:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Give me a break. Israeli considers any news source that independantly gathers and reports information free of the Israeli Information Minister to be biased.
Really and would that imclude, Ha'aretz, Ma'ariv, The Forward, to name a few?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 July 2003 07:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, you are right. Excuse me.The Israeli lobby ...
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 July 2003 08:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Oh, you are right. Excuse me.The Israeli lobby ...
And for clarity sake, who would you define as the Israeli lobby?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2003 09:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
Further more we'd see that for the amount of missions the Israel forces do in the west bank and Gaza the causality rate of the Palestinians is really low.

I agree. I would say that Palestinian causality for the amount of missions the Israeli forces do in the West Bank is low indeed. Finally, we agree on something!

(Sorry, but that was just too sweet to resist. You can all tell me I'm lame now. )


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 20 July 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I agree. I would say that Palestinian causality for the amount of missions the Israeli forces do in the West Bank is low indeed. Finally, we agree on something!

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but do you see this as something negative???

Do you think more would be better???


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 20 July 2003 11:03 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Twas a spelling flame, Justice. That is why she apologised.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 July 2003 11:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you but do you see this as something negative???

Do you think more would be better???


*unplonks*

I just had to tell you I saw something go WOOOOOOOOOOSH! about a kilometer over your head and sail into the blue yonder.

*re-plonk*

[ 20 July 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca