NPR'S anti-Israel bias

[Herschel]

cut

IT IS to undermine this moral status of Israel, indeed its very legitimacy, that its enemies in America are striving. Leading the onslaught is National Public Radio, the BBC's ideological partner.

For a decade, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has been meticulously documenting its charge of "false and inflammatory reporting on Israel" by NPR. CAMERA has exposed many instances of bias, fabrications, and lies employed by NPR and its correspondents (see www.camera.org).

A recent example of NPR's bias is its seven-part report on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict "The Mideast: A Century of Conflict." This report pretends to represent a pluralistic viewpoint, a narrative woven around the views of experts. But these "experts" are anything but impartial. They were carefully selected and deployed to back up NPR's biased narrative. They include eight harsh critics of Israel – four Arab radicals, such as the late Edward Said and an unofficial spokesperson of the PLO (a fact NPR hides) Phillip Mattar, plus four extreme left-wing Israelis who want to see Israel denuded of its Jewish nature.

cut

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1076506711168&p=1006953079865

One would hope NPR would provide a balanced view.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I'm a big fan of NPR

and the only person I saw raising objections to the miniseries was Daniel Pipes.

PBS has the best coverage out of any other news station, whether it be cable or regular. They go in depth into the issues, and they actually have Arab scholars on their news programs like MacNeil Lehrer Newshour, as oppose to stations like CNN, Faux, and MSGOP. They had Juan Cole the other week and a woman from the National Library on.

They also bring on people who are pro-war and anti-war, pro-Bush, anti-Bush. And if an issue requires more than two viewpoints, they bring on multiple ones. It is very balanced if you ask me.

I mostly watch PBS on TV, not the radio.

[ithacan]

2. that is absolutely ridiculous!!

unless by "balanced" you are using the term in the Fox way.

[drewb]

3. Perhaps Nixon was right...

I will leave it at that...

:loveya:

[bowens43]

4. Does ' anti-Israel bias' mean

not bowing down to Israel and presenting more then one side of the argument.

[GabysPoppy]

7. NO

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. I've Noticed It

It's subtle, but definitely true.

[mobuto]

6. Not the dreaded LEFT WING!

In addition to the awful - but unnamed - leftists, the panel also contained the following which you left out:

To create an appearance of even-handedness, the panel also includes one American, a former pro-Arab official from the State Department , and three Jews sympathetic to Israel. The researcher and moderator of the series is Mike Shuster, known for his anti-Israel reporting.

Now, I'm really sorry. You can make the case that the BBC is decidedly anti-Israel. In fact, I would do just that. But NPR? Because they interviewed someone on the Israeli Left? I'd like to see substance to this argument, not just namecalling along the lines of, well they interviewed nameless leftists "want to see Israel denuded of its Jewish nature." A little intellectual honesty just might be called for.

Is Mike Shuster really "known" for being anti-Israel? I don't know. The Jerusalem Post doesn't make the case for that either. I could just as easily write that Daniel Doron is a known cheat and liar - but known by whom?

Maybe NPR is biased against Israel, but if so the bias is fairly subtle to this listener, and you're going to need to do more to prove your case than just dish out shallow character-attacks.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mobuto]

9. No but there are plenty

who unlike the late Professor Said believe that non-violent resolution is possible and that Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to find a way to co-exist if they want to survive.

Of course NPR might have run into the persistant problem - that Hamas summarily executes the Palestinians whom they accuse of harboring pro-Israeli sympathies. I'd imagine that cuts down on the numbers of willing interview-ees.

[ihaveaquestion]

10. Israel and the US

are going to have to deal with Hamas and others in power in Palistine or this will never be solved. Refusing to speak with "terrorists" and ignoring the reality of the situation gets everyone nowhere.

The British finally learned this in Northern Ireland and dealt wtih the IRA. Israel will have to do the same.

[mobuto]

11. That's fine in theory

but first you have to find somebody in Hamas worth talking to. If you start from the position that the Zionist entity must be destroyed, you're not going far. The IRA, even at the worst of its violence, still had Sin Feinn, and it had a limited political objective. Hamas, on the other hand, is maximalist.

[ihaveaquestion]

13. Hard as it is,

it still has to happen and the onus is on Israel and the US.

[mobuto]

14. I don't think it really matters

who the Israelis talk to, as long as they find somebody in a position of power worth talking to. I'm skeptical such a person exists in Hamas.

The much bigger need is for the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to come to conclusion that compromise is necessary, that to continue down the present course means ruin for both parties, and that they urgently need to prepare their respective peoples psychologically for peace.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. NPR provides a balanced view

That is the problem the Jerusalem Post and CAMERA have with it.

[BrokenSegue]

16. Kick

[BrokenSegue]

15. NPR

I have some questions for you Herschel.
Have you heard the entire series? I should hope you have. If you plan to post this here.

I heard the entire series as it was played on my local NPR station and I found it quite informative and interesting. Don't you have a bias, so everything that is unbiased looks unbiased to you? I'm pritty sure that's right.
I also hope you know that NPR selects no stories for airing.C orespondnets go out and make stories. Then NPR airs them. There is no censoring of information by NPR. The corespondents are ther ereporting on the facts making interviews etc. Most of the those stories were simple interviews of people on the street in different places throught the country. One episode may seem biased but together with the others they create a realistic portrait of a country.
If you want more Israeli coverage you do a story and submit it.

Finally CAMERA is evil. NPR's coverage of Israel is spread far and wide. Many times they enlist BBC reporters authors etc. I don't want to hear that both BBC and NPR, two of the biggest radio news services of the world are corrupt and dead set against Israel. THey always cover bombings and the atrocities of the war. They also though cover Israeli troop movements and bulldozings.

Maybe just maybe they are right. It just looks biased from where you stand.

I assure you, I listen to much more NPR than you do. They have a slight lean to the left but besides that they are fine.

I'd like to clear NPR's name by saying morining edition, the show I belive that appeared on, is not connected to the other shows on NPR.

As the old saying goes
"If one pot is made then smash it to the ground, you never know when it will be used to hold some oil. If two pots are made smash it to the ground, But if the pots are made, make a pottery wheel."

P.S. Isn't a bit late to still have lieberman's picture?

[tinnypriv]

17. CAMARA has some of the most shocking and ridiculous lies

On its website, so what do you expect?

To name two (off-hand):

Lie 1: CAMARA says that the Geneva Accords allow a Palestinian refugeee to "insist" on return to Israel. A quick check of the full english text and the Hebrew explanation on the official site shows that any return would be subject to Israel's approval.¹

Lie 2: CAMARA trumpets the fact they got a "correction" from NPR since they stated that Israel's military is the "fourth largest". Fair enough, but there is no denunciation on that site of the Hebrew press in Israel, which has reported that:

* Israel has larger and more advanced air and armoured forces than "any NATO power", the only exception being the United States.²

* Israel is the "strongest in the Middle East" (direct quote) by a very long way, and it massively outmatches its enemies. Furthermore that disparity has only increased since the war in Iraq (which erased the "eastern front"), and the gap between Israel and the Arab states is "larger than ever".³

The most interesting thing is that anyone takes their idiocy seriously.

-----

1. heskem.org.il, "Principles", section 5.
2. Ha'aretz, 16 March 2002.
3. Ma'ariv, 22 September 2003.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrokenSegue]

19. really?

Not giving all of your support to Israel isn't Anti-Semetic.
By the way I'm Jewish.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. Well said, shalom.