|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Indymedia not so Independent? |
Current rating: 0 |
by Josh Michaels
Email: michals1 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified!)
Phone: 217-384-5341
Address: 312 W. Springfield #201 Urbana, IL 61801 |
26 Apr 2002
Modified: 30 Apr 2002 |
|
In this article I examine issues of bias in reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by Indy Media affiliates. |
It seems that today everywhere we turn there is bias in reporting. It’s hard to read a news article on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX without having to dig out the bias to get to the real story. Most of the reporters who write for Indy Media are generally aware of this problem, and many believe that Indy Media offers a great alternative to mainstream media without the bias. Though in most cases I would have to agree, many Indy Media reporters have done an absolutely awful job in reporting objectively on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The vast majority of articles written and posted to Indy Media sites, especially San Francisco and Jerusalem, are blatantly pro-Palestine, even when they are purely news articles. In the face of conflict many reporters at Indy Media have forgotten about the organizations core values of objective and fair reporting, and become as biased in their reporting as many of the major news organizations they challenge.
In order to make my case I will cite a variety of reporting that has been posted to Indy Media sites around the country over the last three weeks. To begin with, lets look at Indy Media’s coverage of the Israel Solidarity Rally on April 15th, 2002 one week before the A20 events. Wait a minute, there wasn’t any. More people rallied on Capitol Hill for the Israel Solidarity Rally than in all of the A20 rallies combined, yet somehow this event did not show up as important to Indy Media and it’s reporters. The A20 events and pro-Palestine rallies have been the headlines on Indy Media pages nationwide for weeks now; however there was never any headline story about the Israel Solidarity Rally. The few articles that were written basically blasted the speeches given by Benjamin Netanyahu among others at the rally.
Evidence:
Netanyahu Preaches Fascist War in U.S.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/125057.php
This article describes a rally that was for peace and solidarity as being Hilteresque.
Now let’s examine Israel Independence Day, April 17th, 2002. Around the United States Jewish organizations hosted picnics and cookouts on University campuses to celebrate Israel’s independence. They were met nationwide with protesters in support of the Palestinians, many who dressed up mocking the Israeli’s and IDF. Indy Media reporting from around the US was outrageously biased for the Palestinians in their reporting of these events.
Evidence:
Pro-Israel demonstrations celebrate independence, occupation
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/123092
Look at the headline of this article alone – were they really celebrating occupation?
What about the issues related to what happened when the Israeli army invaded the West Bank? There was an unprecedented amount of coverage on Indy Media sites slamming Israel for invading the occupied territories. Articles with titles like “Palestine Under Siege” painted a picture of the Israeli army driving in and killing innocent civilians at will. Though this alone is blatantly inaccurate and will be proven so in time, what bothers me is not that the actions of the IDF were reported on, but that the terrorist actions and retaliation by the Palestinians was not. They missed the part about the more than ten thousand terrorist attacks planed and executed by the Palestinians and in some cases the Palestinian Authority over the last 18 months that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands more. They missed the part about the Palestinians fighting back against the Israeli’s and actually waging war. These people weren’t just sitting there and having their houses bulldozed over, they were firing back with fully automatic weapons and bombs, not to mention terrorism. You won’t find an ounce of blame against the Palestinians in Indy Media press, but most objective observers would say that they certainly hold at least some of it.
For my grand finale I have put together critiques of the two most bias Indy Media sites with examples of their reporting. If you read lots of Indy Media, but haven’t hit these sites, I suggest you examine how blatantly biased and non-objective much of their news is.
Jerusalem Indy Media:
This site should truly be regarded as nothing more than a Palestinian propaganda machine. The contents of the site are unchecked, and there is almost no evidence that any of the Israeli’s side of the argument is reported on. Because the site does not use formal “articles” and rather continuous reporting, I do not have any specific articles to cite as evidence. Simply visit http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/ and you should be able to find strong evidence of bias in any of the sites writing.
San Francisco Indy Media:
Over the last few weeks the vast majority of front-page stories from the San Francisco branch of Indy Media have been directly Pro-Palestine, from organizing and supporting events to general reporting on issues related to the Middle East. At the same time dangerous articles have been posted comparing Israeli's to Nazi's and spreading mistruths about the situation in Israel.
Israeli Terrorism Expands In Massacre Of Palestinian People
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/124989.php
Since when is military response Terrorism? And since when is suicide bombing self defense?
Microsoft Throws Support Behind Israeli Occupation Forces
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/123945.php
Microsoft is slammed on IndyMedia’s main page for supporting Israel. Should we slam Indy Media for supporting Palestine?
In this article I have provided just a few examples that demonstrate a very strong and evident bias in reporting by reporters in the Indy Media organization against Israel and for the Palestinians. If as a news organization Indy Media believes that the media as a whole is slanted against the Palestinians, that’s an acceptable viewpoint to have. They are welcome to write about it and provide evidence to support that argument. However, as journalists it is not your job to report news only in support of Palestinians because you feel they are getting slanted in mainstream media - you must report fairly and equally on both sides of the line. This is a very hard job – that’s why the major media companies can’t even get it right – but Indy Media is the place where people are supposed to understand this.
The only way to make the news and media unbiased is to create unbiased news and media. If mainstream media only reports the right, and Indy Media only reports the left, we are only marginally better off than we were before. I understand that Indy Media is the news by the people for the people and that it can’t be held responsible for an article posted by an arbitrary citizen. However as an organization it is responsible for ensuring a certain level of fairness and accuracy in reporting, which can not be seen in many of the articles that I have cited.
I ask all Indy Media reporters to revisit any articles they have written related to the Israel/Palestinians conflict and attempt to look objectively at your article for signs of bias. I encourage you all to attempt to present both sides of the story in the Middle East, rather than just the story of the Palestinians. If Indy Media continues to have as great of a bias in reporting as they do today with the Middle East conflict, they will quickly loose credibility and become just like the news organizations they were trying to replace.
|
Comments
|
there is another explanation |
by mr. critical
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
I believe Indymedia should present perspectives that are not adequately addressed in the mainstream media. This will bias Indymedia against the predominant views of the mainstream media, but the two, taken together, will present a more complete and balanced picture than the mainstream media alone.
I agree that anyone who only reads Indymedia will fail to get a comprehensive view. But Indymedia is an open system, and anyone can download the software and set up an Indymedia site to promulgate whatever views they want to and host discussions on whatever topics they want to.
In a larger sense, the idea that it is possible to report without introducing bias is a myth, and claims of unbiased objectivity are often used by spin doctors like Bill O'Reilley and Fox News to glorify themselves and sling mud at their opponents. We should regard all of these claims skeptically, and focus not on whether there is bias (there always is) but on which biases we favor, and why. |
|
Diversity along the whole spectrum is the key... |
by Michael Feltes
mfeltes (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
However, as journalists it is not your job to report news only in support of Palestinians because you feel they are getting slanted in mainstream media - you must report fairly and equally on both sides of the line. This is a very hard job – that’s why the major media companies can’t even get it right – but Indy Media is the place where people are supposed to understand this.
You're certainly welcome to make this assertion, but I personally don't feel the need to follow that sort of prescription. While I certainly try to report fairly on stories that I'm working on, offering comment to a range of people, I don't feel the need to cover Israeli solidarity rallies. Those events already get quite a bit of play in the mainstream media, and I look at those sources as a critical consumer to get the info I want about them.
My key to having a good media experience is to have access to a wide range of reporting, written from all angles, and to look at all of those sources critically and talk back to them, to wonder (out loud sometimes), "What are the subtexts here? What isn't coming through?" I apply that same approach to anything I consume, Indymedia, CNN, The Nation, The New York Times. Diversity of spectrum, not diversity within each news organization, is the key.
I specifically want to call you on the issue of dismissing Palestine Indymedia in whole. Yes, there's a lot of hateful crap on that newswire. It is, however, the ONLY place where we could see on-the-ground accounts of what was happening in the Occupied Territories. In a situation where all the major news organizations rolled over and ran footage provided to them by the IDF (!!) because of Israel's media blackout and intimidation of journalists, Palestine Indymedia provided accounts of what was happening in Jenin, Bethlehem, Nablus that were unlike anything else available. Sure, it would have been great to have disinterested foreigners on the ground there. However, your dismissal of the accounts being provided on Palestine Indymedia by Palestinians and international solidarity activists because you didn't care for the biases they were bringing to the table was an abdication of the role of critical consumer, and you left yourself less informed by doing so. |
|
Balace by being an open publishing system |
by RDR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
Any pro-Israel reporter is welcome to post on Indymedia. There is no secret coalition of editors censoring pro-Israel stories. It’s probably simply a lack of reporters that feel the Israel side of the story is under-reported. Why write a story that already well covered by the local paper and radio?
We balance the mainstream press by covering under-reported stories not by repeating well reported stories. If you want well reported and under-reported stories both on Indymedia feel free to report on the well reported stories on Indymedia.
Just my opinion. |
|
A Few Examples... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
The use of a few examples may work for characterization of the dominant media, but it's a bad way to shape a theory about Indymedia. The examples used were from just two of the many individual IMCs in the IMC network. They each set their own editorial policies, so any attempt to lump them all together is baseless in any case. In the examples cited, there were no IMC feature stories except those which appear on the IMC Jerusalem site.
A wide range of opinions appears on the IMC Newswire and no one should draw any conclusions about editorial stands by any IMC based on anything other than the feature stories which they post. Features are the only articles that actually undergo anything that resembles a conventional editing process and it is usually very minimal. Everything else is simply the opinions of the writers themselves. IMCs provide space for people to publish, but otherwise do not edit, screen, or determine what goes on the Newswire (as long as it doesn't represent a violation of the individual IMC's editorial policies.)
If the majority of people posting on IMC tend to report these things in a way which you find objectionable, it may be because the majority of world opinion finds the conduct of the current government of Israel to be repugnant. Even so, those who disagree still appear here on the Newswire. You won't be finding such a wide range of opinions and the ability of readers to give feedback in any of your, I assume, hypothetical unbiased media. I'm unsure as to which unbiased media you are referring to by such a claim anyway, because I have never found any such animal. |
|
Other Perspectives... |
by Josh Michaels
michals1 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
I agree with the perspective that Indy Media is an open publishing system, and thereby people on either side are welcome to post arguements. But there are two ways to make a balanced system:
1) Have a LOT of people post from all perspectives and walks of life
2) Have reporters who report on both sides of the story
It is in my personal opinion that reporters, unless writing an editorial, should always be reporting both sides of the story. Having lots of perspectives is good, but very hard to accomplish. I don't think it's realistic to say "we can be bad journalists because anyone can be a bad journalist and all the bad journalists biased opinions will add up to a whole."
And in response to the comment that I only gave isolated examples, I believe my example of Indy Media having 0 coverage of the Israel Solidarity Rally is a primary example of how the entire system neglected an event because of the members political motivations. Because in the broad sense a lot of the American counter-culture anti-war folks are pro-palestine, and a lot of those folks are the reporters on Indy Media, an event that was the size of A20 and was ALSO PRO PEACE AND ANTI-WAR was completly ignored, and in some indy media articles compared to a rally put on by Hitler. That scares me.
-josh |
|
one last thing... |
by Josh Michaels
michals1 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
I wanted to reply to one more comment:
It is, however, the ONLY place where we could see on-the-ground accounts of what was happening in the Occupied Territories. In a situation where all the major news organizations rolled over and ran footage provided to them by the IDF (!!) because of Israel's media blackout and intimidation of journalists,
In reply:
First off, this Israel Media Blackout thing was blown severly out of proportion. The US media was not allowed on the front lines of the war in Afghanistan until just recently. The media is blocked at military operations around the world because it is simply not safe to have them there. In *most* cases, this is ALL Israel was doing, and the media blew it big time out of proportion.
Second, the accounts that are on Jerusalem Indy Media CAN NOT be trusted. The Palestinan authority is well known for exaggerating these accounts, and every single time the Palestinans make an estimate about number of dead, and then that number is actually investigated, it is found to be grossly exaggerated. Now you can trust Jerusalem Indy Media all you want - if you have faith that their reporting is accurate and that they are truly giving you accounts of what is happening, that's fine, go with it. But from what I've been able to read on 50+ news sources, and what I've seen on Jerusalem Indy Media, there is a lot of stuff that doesn't add up, and doesn't seem quite true, and I'm not prepared to trust it.
The Palestinans are PR wizards. They always have been, they always will be. I just fear they may begin to take advantage of this "open" system we have by flooding it with disinformation as they have their news, media, textbooks, and schools. When I see an Indymedia article titled "Jews use blood of Palestinan Children in Ceremonies" I'll know to run for cover. |
|
independent, not unbiased |
by Brian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Apr 2002
|
The Independent media movement is not about being unbiased. Instead, it's about pointing out that all reporters, in fact all people, are biased and will construct their language to reflect that.
The corporate media insists that there is an unbiased language, and that they use it in order to present "just the facts." However, a fact in one scenario may become a theory in another (remember it was a fact that the sun revolved around the earth). Even the arguement that something is unbiased is biased, in that it excludes point of view (which it actually doesn't).
The corporate media needs people to believe that there is such a thing as unbiased reporting, so that they have a chance as being seen as credible. If people understood that a report comes from a point of view, then their credibility will come under fire, ruining their potential profits. "After all, that's just your opinion" wouldn't allow newspapers to sell, even though that is what reporting is, but constructed to look objective (i'd ask why did you see this event this way, rather than that way). Perhaps a better reporter would recognize that there are other points of view, and try to represent those that agree and disagree with hers.
The strength of the word Independent in the IMC movement refers to the reporter not having her point-of-viewed report of an incident or idea framed by advertisers, corporate interest, or profit-motivation, but framed by other avenues that tend to be ignored (personal experience, passionate involvement, comradeship, environment, etc.). Therefore, the slant of the writing comes from her desires rather than from her boss's desires. This is the voice that is often ignored or "underreported" in corporate-oriented media. This is the voice that the IMC encourages to flourish. |
|
open publishing means that |
by nessie
nessie (nospam) sfbg.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Apr 2002
|
if you think there aren't enough pro Israeli posts, and you yourself have failed to post enough to satisfy you idea of a quota, it's your own fault. Nothing is stopping you from posting pro-Israeli articles. Go right ahead. Pleanty of other people do. We've been deluged with this crap. Most days, there is more Zionist propaganda on the SF-IMC newswire than there is truth.
Bottom line:
Israeli is a fascist, racist, aggressor state. Indymedia has NO BUSINESS supporting fascist, racist agressors. To do so would be no different than telling the Nazi's side of the story as well as the side of the Warsaw Jews, "in the interest of fairness and objectivity."
It is nothing short of appalling that you would even consider that we should do anything whatsoever to further Zionism. What's WRONG with you, anyway? Have you no decency? Zionism is EVIL. Period. End of story. |
|
Facist, Racist Aggressor |
by Josh Michaels
michals1 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Apr 2002
|
> Bottom line:
> Israeli is a fascist, racist, aggressor state. Indymedia has NO BUSINESS supporting fascist, racist agressors. To do so would be no different than telling the Nazi's side of the story as well as the side of the Warsaw Jews, "in the interest of fairness and objectivity."
Let us examine this statement for evidence of fact:
In Palestinan schools, they teach that Jews have horns. They teach that Jews use the blood of Palestinans in their ceremonies. They teach their children that being a suicide bomber and killing Israeli Civilians is the ultimate thing to do when you "grow up." Is this not racist? Is this not facist? But Indy Media supports the Palestinans? Have you read a Palestinian textbook? Have you watched any Palestinian media? If not, I suggest you do, and then compare it to the contents of what is taught in Israeli schools, and what is shown on Israeli media.
The Jews, and Israel, have wanted nothing but peace from day one. If you know the history of Israel, you'd be aware that when Israel declared its independence in 1948 they did NOT INCLUDE the West Bank in the territory claimed to be Israel. They didn't even include Jerusalem! They weren't satisfied with what the UN said was theirs, but they decided that they would accept it anyway. All that time the Palestinans could have declared the West Bank as their state, with Jerusalem as the capitol. But what happened? Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and the Palestinans all attacked Israel in an attempt to take back the small piece of land Israel declared as theirs (and was inhabited by a large majority if Israeli's, as defined by an investigation by the United Nations.) And Israel defended itself, and survived. Is Israel really an aggressor state when all it has ever done in its history is defend itself? Since when do aggressor states give back land? Israel has never attacked a foreign nation in attempt to gain land. They have only defended themselves against attacks from neighbors and gained land in the process, most of which they have given back over time.
Saying that Israel invading the West Bank is like Nazi Germany invading France is completly unfounded. The comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany HAVE TO STOP because they are based on almost no fact and all fiction. Israel gained the West Bank as part of its land as a result of DEFENDING ITSELF against attacks from the outside, not through BEING AN AGGRESSOR. |
|
Critical thinking is the answer, not unbiased reporting |
by Paul R.
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Apr 2002
|
Josh, you say unbiased reporting is hard, that's why the mainstream media are unsuccesful. I think that analysis must be taken further -- unbiased reporting is practically impossible.
The methods used by conventional professional journalism in order to produce the appearance of objectivity are nothing more. We have been habituated to the "tit for tat" style as being fair, balanced and unbiased without exploring the assumptions that underlie that method. Can you really match argument to argument? Are there only two sides to any given story? Mainstream journalism would argue that such simplification is necessary to tell the story in just 500 words. The question is "why is it necessary to tell the story in just 500 words?"
Simply put, it is more profitable to appear authoritative and unbiased, whether or not you are. At base it has nothing to do with the supposed superiority of such a method or even its reality.
Prior to the 20th century there was no such thing as unbiased or balanced reporting. All news was biased, and readers were expected to understand and recognize the bias of what they were reading. People recognized that reporters, contributors and editors had points of view and that these would come through in their papers. The fact of these inherent biases has not changed. What changed was perception.
Frankly, which is better: a reporter who tries to repress his own views unsuccessfully and so has them bias his story even though it's touted as unbiased, or a reporter who clearly displays his biases and makes no bones about it?
Doesn't the first one sound like a liar?
Josh, you've been seduced by an ideology that doesn't match reality. Humans are biased and act according to their beliefs. Nothing is going to stop that and wishing for it to be different is like wishing for all your lead to turn to gold. It's in the interest of the profit-seeking mainstream press for you to believe this myth, since it makes you believe that you can trust them and only them.
You're hold Indymedia to a standard that it cares not one whit about. You may contribute and counterbalance as you see fit. You've already done so with your post here. Neither New York Times nor the News-Gazette would allow this except in a little tiny portion of their letters page.
Finally, I'll point out that your post shows you just as biased as you see Indymedia to be. I see no hint of balance or unbiasedness in what you write. Clearly you wish to see Israel's actions defended, and it comes through. So why do you somehow expect more of others than you do for yourself? |
|
Unbiased Writing Impossible |
by Josh Michaels
michals1 (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Apr 2002
|
Paul,
I'll agree with you on every single point you make. I'd like you to step back for a second though and attempt to grasp my perspective on this situation, so you can see where my arguement is coming from.
Now imagine you went to A20, came home, and saw a bunch of writing about how the event was a "Neurenberg Style Nazi Rally." That'd piss you off, wouldn't it? If you went to a rally for peace, and against war, and all reports in the indymedia/counterculture community essentially say that it was a rally for war, that would irk you, would it? That is essentially what I am trying to get at in this article. If people want to write their opinion on a situation, that's ok. But what isn't OK is for people to report on events that they didn't attend, and to make such reports as far from the facts as they can possibly make them. The article by SF Indy Media comparing the Israel Solidarity Rally to a Nazi Rally was 95% pulled out of thin air and was based on nearly no fact. I was there - I saw the rally - it was for peace. And you know what, I should have probabily written an article for Indy Media about it. That's my own shortcoming, as this is my first time attempting to get involved with writing for the organization. What I am in fact upset about is not that people are posting biased opinions, but that people are posting baseless opinions that do not reflect any fact of what happened at events they are reporting on. You can't sit at home and write about an event you didn't attend based on clips you pick up from TV and print news. That's not journalism.
So, I'm more than willing to step back from my arguement that all writing needs to be unbiased, I agree, that's pretty much impossible to ask for. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people who are writing about this situation do a better job taking both sides into account than they have been. It's one thing to expect people to be completly unbiased, I admit, that's not possible. It's another to expect them to report more closely on what actually happened at an event, rather than simply skew the context of the event to support the cause that they are backing.
-j |
|
get some guts |
by sf-imc volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Apr 2002
|
My responses as an sf-imc volunteer speaking for myself:
1. Get some guts. Posting it on UC-IMC without also posting it to SF-IMC shows you aren't really interested in dialogue with the "offending" IMCs.
2. If you really did your research, you would know that as a group SF-IMC issued a statement of solidarity with Palestinian resistance. This is also not "objective" reporting, is it?
3. You need to understand that your liberal interpretation of what IMC should be is not shared by everyone in Indymedia. I have never said that IMC is "objective" ... it is clearly a people's news/information dissemination group. If it was not this, and tried to be more "objective" by your standards, I would quit working with Indymedia.
4. Get used to it -- the world is seeing that Israel's policies of ethnic cleansing and military occupation will never guarantee them security, and more and more people are believing that this is a good thing, showing solidarity with Palestinian resistance, etc. Palestine will be free. Sorry this doesnt fit with your Zionist agenda. |
|
and another thing... |
by sf-imc volunteer
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Apr 2002
|
"an event that was the size of A20 and was ALSO PRO PEACE AND ANTI-WAR was completly ignored, and in some indy media articles compared to a rally put on by Hitler. That scares me."
If you think the "pro-Israel" rallies have anything to do with peace, I suggest you go to Jenin. I suggest you go to a checkpoint. I suggest you go to Bethlehem. When Israel says "peace," it means more settlements, more ethnic cleansing, more occupation, more humiliation of Palestinians. The pro-Israel rallies might have the word "peace" in their title, but that is the real propaganda. Furthermore, your characterizations of the A20 rallies as being "anti-war" is not entirely accurate ... more like pro-Palestinian ... many people support the legitimate and armed resistance of the Palestinians against the illegal aggression of the Israeli Occupation Forces. |
|
A few more comments... |
by gehrig
zemblan (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2002
|
It might be useful here to make a distinction between IMC's structural mandate -- which, as I understand it, does not allow UCIMC to take sides on any issue except, as far as I can tell, free speech itself -- and the pragmatic effect of having a channel which is largely, if not completely, progressive in political stance. While it's technically true that an open channel like UC-IMC can't be sectarian by definition, it's also true that, on a pragmatic level, there isn't much Zionist input here. A lot of this, I'd suspect, has to do with the amazing stridency of some of those with a direct line to the truth.
You know the sort, because there are some in this very set of comments -- "What's wrong with you anyway? Have you no decency? Zionism is evil. Period. End of story." The Latin designation for that mode of argumentation is, if I recall correctly, "nanny-nanny-boo-boo."
As far as the usefulness of the Palestine IMC, I'll agree that it's frustrating to have to sift through a lot of nazoid nonsense to get to the stuff with actual merit. (I mean "nazoid" literally, by the way; there's stuff that gets posted there every week that I recognize having been posted by neo-Nazis recruiting in alt.revisionism at least five years ago.) Certainly it's got -- in the English part, at least -- about the lowest signal-to-noise ratio I've seen on the IMCs. The posts there I find most useful are reposts from B'Tselem; you may want to go to www.btselem.org directly for those.
And as far as the near-hysterical tone a lot of the reporting on the mideast takes -- well, you just have to dig in and try to separate the facts from the commentary. If a Palestinian sneezes on an Israeli, somebody (probably somebody from Bay Area) will publish a story headlined MORE EVIDENCE OF UNEQUAL HEALTH CARE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES; if an Israeli sneezes on a Palestinian, the headline will be EVIL ZIONISTS TURN TO GENOCIDAL GERM WARFARE. That's just the way some folks are; ya hafta deal with it.
And there will always be people who just can't figger out why it's such a skanky thing to equate Israelis with Nazis, just as there are people who could never find anything wrong with going up to Mary Todd Lincoln and saying, "Other than the bullet, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" (Of course, there are those who do it exactly _because_ they know how offensive it is and because they get off on pissing off Jews.) But you can't legislate morality, and neither can you write cluefulness into someone else's head. Again, ya just hafta deal with it.
I still hope you take the opportunity to get involved with the UC-IMC. There is a real commitment to consensus here, and the key is good faith: when you show it (and maybe a little sweat equity), you'll get it in return. Most of the folks at the IMC know that my perspective is slightly different from theirs -- although they also know I'd be as happy as any of them if Sharon accidentally swallowed his tongue -- but that hasn't made me a pariah.
Any open channel is going to have its excesses -- there has no shortage of anti-Islamic propaganda on Israel's IMC, for example -- but you just have to take each post on its own terms.
@%< |
|
Another View on Biased Reporting |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2002
|
|
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=176937&group=webcast |
|
in summary: |
by mr. critical
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Apr 2002
|
in summary:
1. Indymedia is an open publishing system which does not exclude material based on viewpoint.
2. It admittedly reflects the biases of people who post to it.
3. People who post on Indymedia have various biases.
4. Some of them are less even-handed than others, but they're all biased.
thus:
No one should expect "objective" reporting from Indymedia sites. Rather, readers should approach the stories on Indymedia with skepticism and critical thinking. After all, this is how readers should approach any news source, no matter how objective it claims or does not claim to be. |
|
Perfectionism |
by C M Bee
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Apr 2002
|
"No account is completely unbiased" means we shoudn't even try? How does that follow? What a cop-out, a total abdication of responsibility. Frankly, I don't think I've heard a weaker, more convenient argument yet this year. |
|
