Wednesday, 12 March 2008

This is from Medialens - please read, the topic is vital and the data is chilling!

ISRAELI DEATHS MATTER MORE

The horrific shooting of eight young people at a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem last Thursday was followed by saturation media coverage. International statesmen lined up with condemnations of the attack and condolences for the victims and their families.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced: "This is clearly an attempt to strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process.” (Jon Smith, Press Association, 'Brown: massacre "strikes at heart of peace"', March 7, 2008)

Foreign Secretary David Milliband described the slaughter as “an arrow aimed at the heart of the peace process so recently revived.” (Donald Macintyre and Eric Silver, 'Massacre in the heart of Jerusalem', The Independent, March 7, 2008)

The Guardian’s front page declared: "the descent into violence in the Middle East accelerated last night" in a "dramatic escalation". (Rory McCarthy, ‘Eight dead as gunman hits Jerusalem religious school’, The Guardian, March 7, 2008). A Daily Mirror headline read: ‘Kids Murdered In The Library’ (Allison Martin, March 7, 2008). The Telegraph asserted that the attack “is likely to be remembered as the moment the Middle East peace process died.” (Tim Butcher, ‘Hopes of peace in the Middle East are blown away in a hail of bullets’, Daily Telegraph, March 7, 2008)

The contrast to reactions to the killing of over 120 Palestinians, including many women and children, in occupied Gaza the previous week could hardly be more striking. On one day alone, 60 people died in a hail of Israeli firepower using F-16 planes, Apache helicopter gunships, tanks, armoured bulldozers and ground troops.

No Western leader was heard condemning the Israeli assault on Gaza as “an attempt to strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process.” To our knowledge, no reporter suggested that “the peace process” had now “died”. No headlines screamed of Palestinian babies “murdered” in their beds. In short, news reports from the Gazan bloodbath typically lacked the anguished details and tone that suffused the reporting from Jerusalem less than a week later.

Nor was there the same heightened pitch and intensity of news coverage following Israel’s deadly ‘incursion’ into Gaza in mid-January. 17 Palestinians were killed in one day, and around 50 injured, while President Bush was visiting the region. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said:

"What happened today is a massacre, a slaughter against the Palestinian people.

"Our people cannot keep silent over these massacres. These massacres cannot bring peace." (Al-Jazeera, ‘Abbas: Israeli raid “a massacre” ’, January 15, 2008; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/ exeres/0787158A-D180-44F4-9327- 7BE8DBBB197D.htm)

But for the Western media the massacres that really matter, the ones which “strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process”, are those inflicted on Israelis.


The BBC’s Propaganda Role

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is now at its worst since the occupation by Israel began in 1967. More Gazans are dependent on food aid than ever before: fully 1.1 million out of a population of 1.5 million. Hospitals are suffering the longest power cuts yet experienced, record levels of raw sewage are being pumped into the sea, and the economy is at its most dire with unemployment set to exceed 50 per cent. (‘The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion’, March 6, 2008; http://christianaid.org.uk/images/gazareport.pdf). Is it any wonder that the people of Gaza are in despair?

Our alert of March 3 highlighted the lack of attention given to the latest assessment by John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Territories. Palestinian terrorism, while abhorrent, is the “inevitable consequence” of Israeli occupation, noted Dugard. He warned: “the collective punishment of Gaza by Israel is expressly prohibited by international humanitarian law.” (Media Lens media alert, ‘Israel’s Illegal Assault On The Gaza “Prison”’)

The BBC’s official response to our challenge about its neglect of Dugard’s vital analysis was telling:

“We missed the original publication of John Dugard's report, but are intending to write about its formal presentation to the UN later today.

“Mr Dugard has, of course, repeatedly made very critical comments about Israel, some of which we have reported: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044148.stm

“It is fair to point out however that Mr Dugard's views are not those of the UN. Under international law, an occupied community is not allowed to adopt terrorist methods against the civilian population of its occupier. Occupied people remain under an obligation to conduct themselves according to the laws of war. So, while terrorism may be an ‘inevitable consequence’ of the occupation, that does not mean it is somehow legitimate. The UN, including the secretary general and the security council, have repeatedly condemned suicide bombings and rocket fire from Gaza: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi /middle_east/7273444.stm " (Email from “The BBC News website” [no name provided], March 6, 2008)

This response is noteworthy, even for the BBC's usual shameful record. There was no mention of Israel’s responsibilities as the occupying power, or its repeated and brutal transgressions of international and humanitarian law over forty years. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem in Israel, have documented many grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, constituting war crimes. Little of this fundamental context ever makes it into BBC news reports.

Instead, the BBC focused exclusively in its reply on the obligations of “an occupied community” which has been continually attacked and impoverished by an Israeli state that is massively supported – financially, militarily, diplomatically - by Washington. The anonymous BBC official who wrote that “while terrorism may be an ‘inevitable consequence’ of the occupation, that does not mean it is somehow legitimate” was answering a strawman argument of his or her own invention. Neither Media Lens nor the UN Special Rapporteur claimed that Palestinian terrorism was “legitimate.” Indeed, had the BBC employee read the report, he/she would have seen that Dugard had condemned Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel’s civilians as “war crimes”.

As promised, the BBC news website did indeed write about the Dugard report; it devoted all of 168 words at the bottom of a short news item. The item noted blandly that unspecified “scheduling problems” meant that the report would now be presented to the UN in June rather than this month. (BBC Online, ‘UN alarm at Gaza-Israel violence’, March 6, 2008; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/7281711.stm). For the Special Rapporteur’s assessment to be shunted to one side by the ‘international community’, even as the slaughter in the Middle East continued, was horribly ironic. The possibility that power politics might have been at play in the alleged “scheduling problems” appears to have eluded the media’s scrutiny.


The Eternal BBC Claim: “We Will Not Be Cheerleaders For Anybody”

Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East news editor, received numerous emails that were copied to us. Many were in direct response to our alert, but others were sent spontaneously by people appalled at the coverage they were seeing and hearing from the publicly-funded broadcaster. After the killings at the Jewish seminary, Bowen defended the corporation’s recent unbalanced news coverage from the region:

“In the last week, we have reported very fully from inside Gaza as well as from Sderot and Ashkelon. We will continue to report on the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But we will also report fully from the Israeli side. The BBC's reporting will be as impartial as we can make it. We will not be cheerleaders for anybody.” (Email, March 6, 2008)

Bowen’s assertion simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In our March 3 alert, we cited the testimony of former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn who pointed out that ‘balance’ is “the BBC's crudely applied device for avoiding trouble”. This inevitably leads to a clear news bias towards the viewpoint of power residing in Israel, Washington and London.

The public can see for themselves the ‘neutral’ media language used to describe Israeli actions: ‘incursion’, ‘retaliation’, ‘military operations’. By contrast, Israel endures ‘terrorist attacks’, ‘slaughter’, ‘a bloodbath’. Careful analysis by Greg Philo and Mike Berry, of the Glasgow University Media Group, found a persistent, ugly pattern:

“In our samples of news content, words such as ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold-blooded killing’ and ‘lynching’ were used by journalists to describe Israeli deaths but not those of Palestinians/Arabs. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians, but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’.” (Philo and Berry, ‘Bad News From Israel’, Pluto Press, London, 2004, p. 259)

The reality is that by devoting disproportionate coverage to Israeli deaths over Palestinian deaths, the BBC’s claims to “impartial” reporting are simply demolished. With great consistency, lives in the ‘Third World’ are presented as being of far less importance than those who are ‘like us’. At its most brutal, we see a deeply racist attitude that also underpins the culture of killing in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Major General Bargewell's report into the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha by U.S. marines gave a glimpse of the prevailing mindset:

“Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as US lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business...” (Josh White, ‘Report On Haditha Condemns Marines; Signs of Misconduct Were Ignored, U.S. General Says,’ Washington Post, April 21, 2007)

And while the BBC and other news media continue to pump out propaganda about the Middle East, the “cost of doing business” is only too obvious to the victims and anyone who cares about them.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to: Jeremy Bowen, BBC’s Middle East news editor
Email: jeremy.bowen@bbc.co.uk

Write to Helen Boaden, BBC news director
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us:
Email: editor@medialens.org

This media alert is archived here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php

The Media Lens book ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. John Pilger described it as: “The most important book about journalism I can remember.” For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

Please visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board

8 Comments:

Blogger thedharmablues said...

Just to let you know, you may need to correct the links to Medialens. They appear to be faulty.

12 March 2008 at 11:07  
Blogger jason said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12 March 2008 at 22:20  
Blogger Raphael said...

Rupert

Why do you fall for such crap?

What is wrong with condemning with the uttermost clarity the deliberate murder of innocent civilians targeted because they were Jews?

Do you have evidence that the Israeli forces have deliberately targeted civilians?

Thousands of rockets have been sent from Gaza (from which the Israeli forces withdrew some time ago) on Israeli cities. What do you think would be the reaction of the UK if its cities had received thousands of rockets?

These rockets are sent from densely populated areas. Hamas is using civilians as human shields. This is not a claim that need to be demonstrated, Hamas is proud of it:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/03/13/we_desire_death_like_you_desire_life.php

Hamas is proud of the deliberate murder of civilians targeted because they were Jews: In Gaza, the Islamist group Hamas issued a statement praising the attack. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, said his group "blesses the heroic operation in Jerusalem, which was a natural reaction to the Zionist massacre"

Raphael

17 March 2008 at 23:39  
Blogger Rupert said...

Raphael;
I am sorry that you feel the need to make such rhetorically-dubious claims here.
It is now well-estabished that the Israeli Gaza operation is a collective-punishment op, illegal under international law.
Gaza is a tiny crowded open-air prison. Where are Hamas supposed to fire their rockets from: the sea? {Which Gazans are not even allowed access to, in almost all cases, btw.)
It is easy for powerful militarily-superior nations to call upon insurgent groups to fight them in open conflict on a battlefield. It is a ludicrous pretence of moral superiority, by a nation that is engaged in an illegal occupation and is repeatedly resorting to war crimes and breaking international law.
As for your final quote: how sad. You fail to make the elementary distinction between Jews and Zionists. The U.N. declared that Zionism is racism: is it any wonder that violent and aggressive Zionism [Have you watched the brilliant film, 'Route 181'?] gets responded to violently? Attacks on Jews just because they are Jews would be another matter: it would be a disgrace and an abomination.
Though, in my own view, all violence is abominable. I myself am a Quaker, an advocate of non-violence. As far as I am concerned, both Israel and Hamas are to be condemned for what they are doing. But for a rich and powerful nation to kill far far more than its ragged opponents, and to do so in a posture of moral rectitude -- that really makes me sick.

18 March 2008 at 09:53  
Blogger Raphael said...

Rupert

To be clear, is it OK to kill Zionists?

The implications from your email are that it is, that Zionists, whoever they are, armed or unarmed, children or adults, are legitimate military targets in this war.

This is quite worrying to me because I have been called more than once, on internal email lists of the GP, a Zionist. And this, because of my opposition to the boycott of Israeli academics, and, possibly, because of my Jewish (or should I say Zionist?) name...

Is praying in a Yeshiva, "violent Zionism"? - and for my personal sake, is arguing against the exclusion of Israelis, and only Israelis, of the cultural life of humanity, "violent Zionism" ?

If you target people praying in a Yeshiva, do you target Jews or Zionists?

You endorse in your comment the infamous UN resolution of 1975 "zionism = racism". This UN resolution was adopted under the pressure of an organized antisemitic campaign led by the Soviet Union and supported by Arab states. Of course, this campaign was not motivated by human rights concerns but by the Soviet Union's own imperial ambitions in the region. That this is the case is well documented, for example, in the article on the history of the boycott, by Stan Crooke of Workers Liberty:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1368

Furthermore, the resolution was rescinded in 1991, because, understandably, Israel made it a condition for entering the Madrid peace conference. The resolution rescinding the "zionism = racism" resolution was adopted with a majority of 111 to 25; of course, conspiracy theorists may argue, that this just demonstrate further how powerful the powerful Lobby is. The 25 who courageously opposed the "Lobby" included such exemplary human right pioneers such as Iran and North Korea.

Yet this is the kind of argument that you are using from your position of "moral rectitude".

Why don't you comment on Hamas praising for this killing and the fact that Hamas is proud to use human shields? Is it because you don't take them seriously?

Raphael

18 March 2008 at 14:15  
Blogger weggis said...

Rupert,

Just because the western press is biased, it does not mean that we should be also.
The situation is both difficult and complex and taking sides does not help. We ought to be objective and work towards reconciliation by bringing both sides into the frame. Boycotts just fan the flames.

If you are opposed to violence and racism then you ought to be opposed to it wherever and however it manifests itself.

Attacking the one-sidedness of the press is one thing, taking sides in a conflict situation is another. I am sure that the latter is not what you intended, but it sure comes across that way.

It is a characteristic of Britishness and the “left” to support the underdog, but it is not always the right thing to do.

Weggis.

18 March 2008 at 17:56  
Blogger paternosterlift said...

Rupert, you are one to talk about balance! I searched your post for Hamas, and I searched it for Islamic Jihad - nada. What of the grads and qassams going into Israel? Your omissions indicate bias and this bias, given your demands for better reporting, shows you as either ignorant or a breathtaking hypocrite.

Why are so many people who claim to speak for Palestinians such an embarassment to Palestinians at the moment?

18 March 2008 at 19:46  
Blogger Rupert said...

The level of hostility to me in a couple of these posts says everything about those posts and nothing about me.
I made my own position crystal clear. If you want to ignore it, that's your look-out.
My own position, as a Quaker and a Buddhist, is that I abhor and condemn all violence. From Hamas, from Israel, etc. I could not condone any of it.
Is that clear enough for you all?
It should already have been so, if you were able to read.
I will not respond to the nefarious details of/in some of the comments here. They do not I'm afraid deserve the dignity of a point-by-point response.

19 March 2008 at 14:09  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.
This is from Medialens - please read, the topic is vital and the data is chilling!

ISRAELI DEATHS MATTER MORE

The horrific shooting of eight young people at a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem last Thursday was followed by saturation media coverage. International statesmen lined up with condemnations of the attack and condolences for the victims and their families.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced: "This is clearly an attempt to strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process.” (Jon Smith, Press Association, 'Brown: massacre "strikes at heart of peace"', March 7, 2008)

Foreign Secretary David Milliband described the slaughter as “an arrow aimed at the heart of the peace process so recently revived.” (Donald Macintyre and Eric Silver, 'Massacre in the heart of Jerusalem', The Independent, March 7, 2008)

The Guardian’s front page declared: "the descent into violence in the Middle East accelerated last night" in a "dramatic escalation". (Rory McCarthy, ‘Eight dead as gunman hits Jerusalem religious school’, The Guardian, March 7, 2008). A Daily Mirror headline read: ‘Kids Murdered In The Library’ (Allison Martin, March 7, 2008). The Telegraph asserted that the attack “is likely to be remembered as the moment the Middle East peace process died.” (Tim Butcher, ‘Hopes of peace in the Middle East are blown away in a hail of bullets’, Daily Telegraph, March 7, 2008)

The contrast to reactions to the killing of over 120 Palestinians, including many women and children, in occupied Gaza the previous week could hardly be more striking. On one day alone, 60 people died in a hail of Israeli firepower using F-16 planes, Apache helicopter gunships, tanks, armoured bulldozers and ground troops.

No Western leader was heard condemning the Israeli assault on Gaza as “an attempt to strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process.” To our knowledge, no reporter suggested that “the peace process” had now “died”. No headlines screamed of Palestinian babies “murdered” in their beds. In short, news reports from the Gazan bloodbath typically lacked the anguished details and tone that suffused the reporting from Jerusalem less than a week later.

Nor was there the same heightened pitch and intensity of news coverage following Israel’s deadly ‘incursion’ into Gaza in mid-January. 17 Palestinians were killed in one day, and around 50 injured, while President Bush was visiting the region. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said:

"What happened today is a massacre, a slaughter against the Palestinian people.

"Our people cannot keep silent over these massacres. These massacres cannot bring peace." (Al-Jazeera, ‘Abbas: Israeli raid “a massacre” ’, January 15, 2008; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/ exeres/0787158A-D180-44F4-9327- 7BE8DBBB197D.htm)

But for the Western media the massacres that really matter, the ones which “strike a blow at the very heart of the peace process”, are those inflicted on Israelis.


The BBC’s Propaganda Role

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is now at its worst since the occupation by Israel began in 1967. More Gazans are dependent on food aid than ever before: fully 1.1 million out of a population of 1.5 million. Hospitals are suffering the longest power cuts yet experienced, record levels of raw sewage are being pumped into the sea, and the economy is at its most dire with unemployment set to exceed 50 per cent. (‘The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion’, March 6, 2008; http://christianaid.org.uk/images/gazareport.pdf). Is it any wonder that the people of Gaza are in despair?

Our alert of March 3 highlighted the lack of attention given to the latest assessment by John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Territories. Palestinian terrorism, while abhorrent, is the “inevitable consequence” of Israeli occupation, noted Dugard. He warned: “the collective punishment of Gaza by Israel is expressly prohibited by international humanitarian law.” (Media Lens media alert, ‘Israel’s Illegal Assault On The Gaza “Prison”’)

The BBC’s official response to our challenge about its neglect of Dugard’s vital analysis was telling:

“We missed the original publication of John Dugard's report, but are intending to write about its formal presentation to the UN later today.

“Mr Dugard has, of course, repeatedly made very critical comments about Israel, some of which we have reported: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044148.stm

“It is fair to point out however that Mr Dugard's views are not those of the UN. Under international law, an occupied community is not allowed to adopt terrorist methods against the civilian population of its occupier. Occupied people remain under an obligation to conduct themselves according to the laws of war. So, while terrorism may be an ‘inevitable consequence’ of the occupation, that does not mean it is somehow legitimate. The UN, including the secretary general and the security council, have repeatedly condemned suicide bombings and rocket fire from Gaza: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi /middle_east/7273444.stm " (Email from “The BBC News website” [no name provided], March 6, 2008)

This response is noteworthy, even for the BBC's usual shameful record. There was no mention of Israel’s responsibilities as the occupying power, or its repeated and brutal transgressions of international and humanitarian law over forty years. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem in Israel, have documented many grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, constituting war crimes. Little of this fundamental context ever makes it into BBC news reports.

Instead, the BBC focused exclusively in its reply on the obligations of “an occupied community” which has been continually attacked and impoverished by an Israeli state that is massively supported – financially, militarily, diplomatically - by Washington. The anonymous BBC official who wrote that “while terrorism may be an ‘inevitable consequence’ of the occupation, that does not mean it is somehow legitimate” was answering a strawman argument of his or her own invention. Neither Media Lens nor the UN Special Rapporteur claimed that Palestinian terrorism was “legitimate.” Indeed, had the BBC employee read the report, he/she would have seen that Dugard had condemned Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel’s civilians as “war crimes”.

As promised, the BBC news website did indeed write about the Dugard report; it devoted all of 168 words at the bottom of a short news item. The item noted blandly that unspecified “scheduling problems” meant that the report would now be presented to the UN in June rather than this month. (BBC Online, ‘UN alarm at Gaza-Israel violence’, March 6, 2008; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/7281711.stm). For the Special Rapporteur’s assessment to be shunted to one side by the ‘international community’, even as the slaughter in the Middle East continued, was horribly ironic. The possibility that power politics might have been at play in the alleged “scheduling problems” appears to have eluded the media’s scrutiny.


The Eternal BBC Claim: “We Will Not Be Cheerleaders For Anybody”

Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East news editor, received numerous emails that were copied to us. Many were in direct response to our alert, but others were sent spontaneously by people appalled at the coverage they were seeing and hearing from the publicly-funded broadcaster. After the killings at the Jewish seminary, Bowen defended the corporation’s recent unbalanced news coverage from the region:

“In the last week, we have reported very fully from inside Gaza as well as from Sderot and Ashkelon. We will continue to report on the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But we will also report fully from the Israeli side. The BBC's reporting will be as impartial as we can make it. We will not be cheerleaders for anybody.” (Email, March 6, 2008)

Bowen’s assertion simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In our March 3 alert, we cited the testimony of former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn who pointed out that ‘balance’ is “the BBC's crudely applied device for avoiding trouble”. This inevitably leads to a clear news bias towards the viewpoint of power residing in Israel, Washington and London.

The public can see for themselves the ‘neutral’ media language used to describe Israeli actions: ‘incursion’, ‘retaliation’, ‘military operations’. By contrast, Israel endures ‘terrorist attacks’, ‘slaughter’, ‘a bloodbath’. Careful analysis by Greg Philo and Mike Berry, of the Glasgow University Media Group, found a persistent, ugly pattern:

“In our samples of news content, words such as ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold-blooded killing’ and ‘lynching’ were used by journalists to describe Israeli deaths but not those of Palestinians/Arabs. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians, but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’.” (Philo and Berry, ‘Bad News From Israel’, Pluto Press, London, 2004, p. 259)

The reality is that by devoting disproportionate coverage to Israeli deaths over Palestinian deaths, the BBC’s claims to “impartial” reporting are simply demolished. With great consistency, lives in the ‘Third World’ are presented as being of far less importance than those who are ‘like us’. At its most brutal, we see a deeply racist attitude that also underpins the culture of killing in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Major General Bargewell's report into the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha by U.S. marines gave a glimpse of the prevailing mindset:

“Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as US lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business...” (Josh White, ‘Report On Haditha Condemns Marines; Signs of Misconduct Were Ignored, U.S. General Says,’ Washington Post, April 21, 2007)

And while the BBC and other news media continue to pump out propaganda about the Middle East, the “cost of doing business” is only too obvious to the victims and anyone who cares about them.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to: Jeremy Bowen, BBC’s Middle East news editor
Email: jeremy.bowen@bbc.co.uk

Write to Helen Boaden, BBC news director
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us:
Email: editor@medialens.org

This media alert is archived here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php

The Media Lens book ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. John Pilger described it as: “The most important book about journalism I can remember.” For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

Please visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board

30. 31. 32.