Jews are being framed by the media/Hezbollah

[BWahlberg]

The scary underlying tone is that some guys on this thread and other threads hint that we should not adhere to the Geneva convention, we should kill women and children during a war and that we should fight just as dirty as our enemy.

 

[Hells bells]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-31T212727Z_01_L31883392_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ASSAD.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

 

[BWahlberg]

double post, my bad

 

[BWahlberg]

ok then, maybe if the UN with the USA's support was to call for a cease-fire and bring both parties to negotiations/talks to remove Hezbollah Syria wouldn't be readying to defend Lebanon.

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Syria won't do shit. They have had their asses handed to them before. They may sneak around and do the "hide behind civilians" thing, but that's it. When this all started, the IDF airforce buzzed Assads house. HELLO. Wake up call. Do a bit of reading on Syrias effective army. Just another bunch of sneaking sand moles. F##k them.

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Did someone say that isn't true, it's more proof that we're the better people/soceity, we (for the most part) regret the loss of the innocent opposition/enemy while some countries cheer the deaths of their opposition.

I'm with you. Let's be skins cause it is so hot in that neck of the woods.

 

[grizonbob]

Can anyone provide me with an actual example of the mainstream media reporting what's going on in Lebanon in a way that makes Hezbollah look good? That's the accusation that's being made here but I'm just not seeing it. I've seen plenty of reports that make Hezbollah look evil (e.g., the started this whole mess by kidnapping soldiers; they escalated it by firing rockets into Israel, and the Iranian gov't is concerned because they are close to Hezbollah, and the weakening of Hezbollah may serve to weaken its deterrent against Israel). I've also seen some reports that make Israel look less than perfect (e.g., the accidental bombing of the UN personnel), but I haven't seen anything that actually portrays Hezbollah in a positive way (which is the accusation Alpha made in this thread).

So -- sorry to be long-winded, but can anyone provide an example?

Thanks,

--GL

Here's what Richard Engel of NBC had to say on the evening news a couple nights ago:

"I got no indication [the people of Qana] were being held against their will. Just the opposite, it seemed Hezbollah was helping these people, providing them with food and water. These were some of the [poorest] people in the town, those with money had already left. They were staying in this section of town because there was food and water. Hezbollah were giving them supplies and relief."

As for allegations that Hezbollah exploited the Qana situation, Engel said: "Whether they [Hezbollah] took advantage of that to launch a rocket, I don't know. We didn't see evidence of that."
He also neglected to mention that the Israeli govt. released video showing rocket launches from Qana.

Further, he made when asked if he saw "any anti-American sentiment," he said: "Clearly. Everyone we came up to was expressing that sentiment very clearly. They were saying that it is American weapons that are being dropped on these villages and they believe that the US and Israel [are working] hand in hand."

ALSO, here's a few quotes from a July 24 NY Times story that describes the Hezbollah leader as a folk hero:

"For the south, which suffered for more than a decade under Israeli occupation, Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is a folk hero who helped drive out the Israelis."
"...The situation is made all the more complicated by the nature of Hezbollah. It functions as a civil aid group as well as a militia, helping with schools and in hospitals, and in many cases providing essential public services at times in the years of the war when the government was simply not able. It has a savvy media operation, with a spokesman who takes groups of journalists on tours of the devastation in southern Beirut with a truck that blares Hezbollah fighting songs from rows of speakers."

To be fair, this story does note that many Lebanese resent the presence of Hezbollah. And while I think that many MSM stories have portrayed the Israelis as the bad guys, the overall coverage is more fair than what we normally see.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Hezbo escorted media?????? You portray yourself a bit smater GAS.
Oh well, I guess it works for(on your brain) you. :thumb: you got the propaganda part right anyway.

 

[Hells bells]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

and it missing several facts that should have been in the report...

:shocked:

but hey, that is a shocker...right?? :beer2:

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

and it missing several facts that should have been in the report...

:shocked:

but hey, that is a shocker...right?? :beer2:

From reading the actual words he said, it seems to me that he probably hadn't seen the video.

I'm a little confused ... I see that people are still using the worn-out "liberal media" playbook here to make the same old tired arguments about the evils of the "MSM," but are you guys sure that script really works? Aren't most Jews, ummm, Democrats? And don't most Jews kind of side with Israel?

If anything, conventional wisdom would tell you that the evil liberal democrats that run the MSM are probably discriminatory against Hezbollah ... that sure complicates things, doesn't it?

It seems easier to just quit trying to find bias in the legitimate media. If something is there, call it out, but it gets really silly when people try to extrapolate virtually anything into evidence of media bias against their "conservative" position ... especially when they actually hold what is most accruately called a quite liberal position (monetary and military support for Israel or intervention in any military action that doesn't directly involve our own direct safety).

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Hezbo escorted media?????? You portray yourself a bit smater GAS.
Oh well, I guess it works for(on your brain) you. :thumb: you got the propaganda part right anyway.

Roughly what percentage of your posts involve an insult of another poster and what percentage have any actual on-topic content?

Are you running about 90%/10% on those metrics? That ain't bad.

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Blah, blah, blah. You should know that any media outlet that gets access to S. Leb and the areas of conflict are subject to Hezbo permission. And the whores of the media will report what they are shown, AND, no more, in order to continue to receive that access. Don't be naive. Why are the media there?. Is it Money perhaps? CNN paved the way. Or did you miss that. :thumb:

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Hezbo escorted media?????? You portray yourself a bit smater GAS.
Oh well, I guess it works for(on your brain) you. :thumb: you got the propaganda part right anyway.

Roughly what percentage of your posts involve an insult of another poster and what percentage have any actual on-topic content?

Are you running about 90%/10% on those metrics? That ain't bad.

Nice response debater. Step into the deep end?

 

[ursusmissoulus]

For the record, it's mostly you bucko. Never did appreciate a snob, much less a bobkitten snob. And your percentages are off. You should know since you are at Egriz 24-7. :laugh: If you keep it real and not be such a snpb I'd be OK with that.

 

[grizonbob]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

So you would argue that journalists should only report what they see and hear, and not provide any context or background? If reporters go to a news conference by President Bush, and they hear him announce that the economy has never been better, that things are going swimmingly in Iraq, and that Dick Cheney is the best VP ever, they should simply wrote what was said, and how Bush looked great in saying them, and not note that there are some people who think he's full of it?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Blah, blah, blah. You should know that any media outlet that gets access to S. Leb and the areas of conflict are subject to Hezbo permission. And the whores of the media will report what they are shown, AND, no more, in order to continue to receive that access. Don't be naive. Why are the media there?. Is it Money perhaps? CNN paved the way. Or did you miss that. :thumb:

So I assume you dismiss all of the reporting of the embedded reporters with the U.S. troops in Iraq for similar reasons? They too were nothing but whores of the U.S. military? Was their reporting flawed and biased?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

For the record, it's mostly you bucko. Never did appreciate a snob, much less a bobkitten snob. And your percentages are off. You should know since you are at Egriz 24-7. :laugh: If you keep it real and not be such a snpb I'd be OK with that.

Actually, you just don't like anyone that disagrees with your political views. You have proven to not have any problem at all with someone being a snob or being condescending (as witnessed by the plethora of conservative posters doing the same -- yourself included) as long as they are on your side of the debate.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

I might be missing something, but nothing in the previous post seemed to suggest a pro-Hezbollah position, but rather was just reporting facts as the reporter saw them on the ground.

To do anything else would be propoganda, wouldn't it?

So you would argue that journalists should only report what they see and hear, and not provide any context or background? If reporters go to a news conference by President Bush, and they hear him announce that the economy has never been better, that things are going swimmingly in Iraq, and that Dick Cheney is the best VP ever, they should simply wrote what was said, and how Bush looked great in saying them, and not note that there are some people who think he's full of it?

Okay ... from what you wrote, it appeared that this TV reporter was reporting from a war zone, and was passing the information that came to him there, correct?

So in that context, the information he should pass back is probably limited to what is going on in that particular place ... and that sounds like exactly the information that he passed along.

Then they would probably switch over to another correspondent in some other place ... let's say Israel ... for another perspective. That correspondent would probably not say much about the local chatter in Lebanon, but would probably speak to what they were hearing from people in Israel.

So I assume you copied your blurb from a blog someplace ... did that blog happen to note whether another correspondent was spoken to during the newscast, thus giving a full accounting of the story?

Or, rather, is this just something taken out of context and spun weakly in hopes that somebody would find bias in the fact that the guy on the ground in Lebanon happened to only report on the first-hand information available to him in Lebanon?

 

[ursusmissoulus]

Blah, blah, blah. You should know that any media outlet that gets access to S. Leb and the areas of conflict are subject to Hezbo permission. And the whores of the media will report what they are shown, AND, no more, in order to continue to receive that access. Don't be naive. Why are the media there?. Is it Money perhaps? CNN paved the way. Or did you miss that. :thumb:

So I assume you dismiss all of the reporting of the embedded reporters with the U.S. troops in Iraq for similar reasons? They too were nothing but whores of the U.S. military? Was their reporting flawed and biased?

Wrong. Did SF fall into the ocean???? Are you a new country??? :laugh: :laugh: Way to sidestep slick>