Reply #64: Well here's the problem

[whosinpower]

you wrote....but when they go overboard, lie by omission and comission, etc., then they can't be trusted.

That is true. Totally true.

It is also true that there are those who write about bias, "moonbats", that are made to paint the whole world being against Israel as some sort of grand conspiracy - and they go overboard, lie by omission and comission, etc and they also cannot be trusted.

And the effect is that the truth is twisted to whatever agenda you wish it to be, regardless of which side of the fence you wish to sit on.

I did read the article. I have to say initially, it is not so easy to read it from a neutral viewpoint when the title is - Today's example of Ridiculous Media Bias Against Israel

The author makes a couple valid points and then finds bias where I do not see. AP and Yahoo should make corrections - the israeli's were not on Lebanese land. I agree with this.
But he is trying to find bias where I simply do not see - example
snip - The New York Times also takes a "neutral" approach: "Each side blamed the other for the flare-up, trading accusations of violating the United Nations Security Council resolution that underpins the four-year cease-fire." But what is most amazing is the additional information that tells us more about contemporary journalism than almost anything you can read:

"Israel said that its forces were engaged in routine maintenance work in a gap between the so-called Blue Line, the internationally recognized border, and its security fence, and that it had coordinated in advance with the United Nations peacekeeping force in South Lebanon, Unifil."

Yeah, so Shira - I read and reread this several times, and I am not "getting" what that is supposed to tell us about contemporary journalism. Because, now, according to Rubin - The NYT clearly should of contacted Unifil to verify Israel's claim. Why? No one was questioning Israel's claim in the article - the article stated that each side blamed the other - which is technically true - yes? Both have traded accusations of violating UNSC - that is also true - yes? The article does not take sides, and I guess this is what Rubin takes issue with....and even by not taking sides....that is somehow conflated to bias. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to accept. I guess a person will see what they want to see regardless if it matches the facts on the ground.

He goes on...

snip - Oh, and then there's this amazing little example of bias in the article:

"Israeli and Lebanese army troops exchanged lethal fire on their countries’ border on Tuesday, in what was the fiercest clash in the area since Israel’s month-long war against the Lebanese Hizballah militia in the summer of 2006."

Is that biased? Really? Let's try something here....I am making something up....
"American and the Taliban exchanged lethal fire on the border of Pakistan on Tuesday, in what was the fiercest clash in the area since America's eight year war in Afghanistan against Al qaeda terrorists in the summer of 2000.

If I were to subsribe to the Rubin's viewpoint - then by not talking about 911 - somehow my statement is biased against the americans. Amazing...... stretch that is.

He goes on to point out that if the media cannot be trusted to report the truth, then it cannot be trusted to report accurately the following...and he goes on, point by point several issues.

The problem that I have is that his example - the New York Times did report the facts...it just didn't portray Israel as a victim, and therefore, according to him - this is biased.

But, you are absolutely right Shira - when they go overboard, they cannot be trusted. Same can be said on both sides of the fence.

By the way, I did a bit of reading on Amos Oz. Interesting fellow....too bad he isn't the Prime Minister. I especially like this quote -
"Once in a while it is worth turning on the light to clarify what is going on ..."