The other view deserves to be shown

[ALYAZAN]

Peace upon you

i think that there is a great gap between the media direction and "directing" between Arabian and Western mass media ..

i think that even the attitude of designing the sites shows a lot of the gap's features you can see it here in Aljazeera chanel site (the most famous in middle east) ...
in arabic (just look at the designing)
http://www.aljazeera.net/Portal/
and in english
http://english.aljazeera.net/

and i liked this topic .. it is very objective , argumentative and reasonable
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/2009110112723260741.html

this one of the Arabian newspaper that is written in english "the gulf today"
http://www.godubai.com/gulftoday/
another one ...
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/index.asp?cu_no=2&lng=1&template_id=37&temp_type=42

written in english newspapers in arab world
http://www.al-bab.com/media/newspapers.htm


i want to say that every body should watch every case from every side available ...

it's my view .. i think that western societies are generally affected by directed media in plenty of casews .. and this is what I've seen in Damascus, Dubai, Amman, Morroco and other places within the Arab world .. where a lot of western people swaped totally their believes and views of the whole case ..

my last word is for the most respected evo
dear evo ..
give free space for opinion and other opinion .. this how science .. inventions and world had made progress .. please .. let other express their feelings .. their views .. let us respect every view and every opinion ..
my respect to u .. dear respected evo


best wishes for every body

regards

 

[seycyrus]

Are you ofering any points of discussion or just trying to direct traffic to al-jazeera's biased viewpoint?

And please stop with the colored font.

Peace be with you.

 

[BobG]

Are you ofering any points of discussion or just trying to direct traffic to al-jazeera's biased viewpoint?

And please stop with the colored font.

Peace be with you.

Considering how some people think the press was too 'unincredulous' about Iraq prior to the invasion because of the post-911 zeitgeist and considering how some people think the press has a liberal bias, I think it would be naive to believe Al-Jazeera is bias free.

However, before 9/11, Al-Jazeera was THE independent press in the Middle East and was extremely well respected. It actually originated as a division of the BBC and went independent when the BBC cut funding. Before 9/11, Al-Jazeera was the only news source covering things like Afghanistan.

I'm sure they're as susceptible to bias as the US media is, and I'm sure things that have happened since 9/11 has created some bias. I'd be surprised if they're any more biased than the US news media, though, even if their bias would be distinctly different.

I would say it would probably be best to take news from Al-Jazeera with about the same skepticism (or maybe a little bit more) as one does from any news source.

Personally, I listen to things on MSNBC (Olbermann and Maddow in particular) and Fox with a great deal of skepticism and I'd find it hard to believe Al-Jazeera was more biased than either of those two stations.

 

[drizzle]

hey there, it's really as you described, I mean why there should be two completely different thoughts about this ((WAR)) while the fact is one, and it seems that people should hear from the people who are affected by this war -Palastenians- which is not seen in the western media..

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u

Dear seycyrus

it's just an opinion ..

mine is this ... i guess that it's not fair to say that Aljazeera an generally Arabian press are biased ... why ?? because they let you watch pix and videos that is not shown in some western media ??

they are just letting you see the missed part of the picture ..
killed civilian .. hunted children .. attacking non-military places and other things are facts ... it's up to you to believe or not .. and no one would obligate you to watch some thing and not to watch the other .. it's your personal freedom ..

but in the end .. the truth would never been shown in one side ... you must listen to every bodys' opinions and broadcasting in order to form a picture and figure out the truth ..

as example i read in Gulf Today and read in The Gaurdian, Washington Post too ..

and i'll help as much as i can to say that we must not be attracted by one side's media .. as long as they are varying ..

drizzle .. BobG ... thank you a lot for expressing your opinion .. my respect ..

 

[Borek]

i guess that it's not fair to say that Aljazeera an generally Arabian press are biased

It is just as unfair as stating that western TVs and press are biased.

To some extent all are.

Apat from multiplication table, where two times two is always four, there are no universal truths, especially when talking about human interactions. Each person humble opinion is always biased, each person can misread other peoples actions and intentions, no matter how objective one tries to be.

 

[siddharth]

I think it helps the discussion if one can give a source (which is hopefully accurate) to support an opinion instead of making arbitrary claims. In my opinion, there's enough evidence to clearly suggest that IDF did not do enough to protect the lives of Palestinian citizens.

For example, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghh3i-gp2cb36Mu7jxu6-xfBtnHw where the UN cites palestinian witnesses who claim,

The UN report said that "according to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors. Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."
...
"Those who survived and were able walked two kilometres to Salah Ed Din road before being transported to hospital in civilian vehicles. Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," OCHA said.

The same story has also been reported by the BBC.

Then, from a report from the Red Cross,

In one house they discovered four small children, alive but too weak to stand, next to the bodies of their dead mothers. In all their were 12 dead bodies lying on mattresses.

In another house they found 15 survivors of the Israeli bombardment, several of them wounded, and in a third, three corpses. At that point they were ordered to leave by Israeli soldiers manning a post some 80 metres away, but they refused to do so. ...

The ICRC said that it believed there were more wounded sheltering in the ruins of other houses in the same neighbourhood, and in an unusually robust public statement issued by the organisation's Geneva headquarters it demanded that the Israeli military grant it immediate access to search for them.

"This is a shocking incident," Pierre Wettach, the ICRC's head of delegation for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, said. "The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestine Red Crescent to assist the wounded."

The ICRC accused the Israeli military of failing to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and remove the wounded, and called the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable.

The IDF are also http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpsd7GlgD5FkIQiK2upUs2akmBTw , where the potential for the loss of civilian life is significant.

Finally, while I think that Hamas is completely wrong in its terrorist act of firing rockets into Israel, I believe the scale of Israel's assault and the number of civilian casualties is completely disproportionate to the threat. In a previous thread, Russ had asked what I think an acceptable number of civilian casualties would be. I think it should be zero. IMO, the truce seemed to be moderately working in preventing the deaths of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens, and I think that this current assault was completely unnecessary.

While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israelis_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel_and_Palestinians_killed_by_Israelis_in_Gaza_-_2008.png" is from wikipedia, I believe that the data it presents corroborates well with other sources. I want to emphasize the fact that prior to the current assault, the period of truce seems to have been effective in preventing the deaths of Israeli citizens.

Infact, some sources (this opinion piece from the WSJ, for instance) claim that Israel was also guilty of violating the cease-fire

But on June 19, 2008, Hamas and Israel commenced a six-month truce. Neither side complied perfectly. Israel refused to substantially ease the suffocating siege of Gaza imposed in June 2007. Hamas permitted sporadic rocket fire -- typically after Israel killed or seized Hamas members in the West Bank, where the truce did not apply. Either one or no Israelis were killed (reports differ) by rockets in the half year leading up to the current attack.

Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians. In the following days, Hamas continued rocket fire -- yet still no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against this escalation, because it was provoked by Israel's own violation.

 

[ALYAZAN]

peace upon u

i didn't say niether that western press is biased .. nor that arabian is so ..

i'm just wondering why this great gap apears ??

we can accept the deffirence in opinions .. but when it comes to facts on land .. variation in opinions are less acceptable .. i mean .. some people may say apple is sweet others say it's just delicious but not sweet ! so we can vary in our opinions about how does the appple taste .. but it's not reasonable to have deffirent views about whether it's on the tree or not .. this must push you to go to the tree and find out the truth yourself ..
while when you see a killed child or broken hearted women it's less accepted to neglect this case and insist on other issues .. it must push you to think

finally i really respect every opinion ... and apreciate western media efforts .. and that's what make me read in The Gaurdian (for example)

thank you a lot dear Borek .. it's a good point

my best wishes

 

[devil-fire]

I think Aljazerra offers an valuable perspective on just about everything going on in the middle east, if for no other reason then it is so popular there. When it comes to politics and how nations interact, facts are not as relevant as opinions because facts do not make policy, people do. If a westerner wants to understand the middle east, and would like western polices to reflect that knowledge, they can't reasonably ignore what middle easterners have to say.

I think even the people who scream "but Aljazerra is a terrorist organization and they just want everyone to hate the west!" should pay attention to Aljazerra because then they would at least understand what is influencing the actions of the people there.

 

[seycyrus]

I think it helps the discussion if one can give a source (which is hopefully accurate) to support an opinion instead of making arbitrary claims. In my opinion, there's enough evidence to clearly suggest that IDF did not do enough to protect the lives of Palestinian citizens.

I think your definition of "enough" is extremely subjective and biased. Israel is doing a lot more to protect the lives of innocents than Hamas does! Intent matters here as it does in every other aspect of life!

For example, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghh3i-gp2cb36Mu7jxu6-xfBtnHw where the UN cites palestinian witnesses who claim,.

As was mentioend in the first thread that brought this up, accidents happen in war and tragically people die. What is your implied contention? That Israel herded peopel together so they could bomb them later? Ridiculous! If Israel were so callous they would have simply executed them originally, not saved them for later.

Finally, while I think that Hamas is completely wrong in its terrorist act of firing rockets into Israel, I believe the scale of Israel's assault and the number of civilian casualties is completely disproportionate to the threat. In a previous thread, Russ had asked what I think an acceptable number of civilian casualties would be. I think it should be zero. IMO, the truce seemed to be moderately working in preventing the deaths of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens, and I think that this current assault was completely unnecessary.

I do not think you would be so unpassionately objective if it was your children being shot at by neighbors across the street, who just happened to be missing alot.

There is a lot of blame to pass around on the present situation in Gaza. Primarily the blame lies with the cowardly Hamas terrorists who hide behind the skirts of women and children. The smallest blame lies on the Israeli's who are trying to stop the thousands upon thousands of rocket attacks coming into their land.

In between those two extremum, blame must be assigned to society and the members of soicety.

How is it that we have allowed society to evolve to the point where somehow it is *ok* or *less bad* for terrorists to intentionally try to kill innocents, if they fail. Somehow it isn't *so bad* because they are inept??!

What madness is this?

Noone would accept such a proposition in their personal, intimate lives, but because it is happening on a television screen far away it is acceptable?

If someone was trying their very, very, very best to try to shoot you in the head, you wouldn't pretend they were innocent, just because they failed. Intent matters. To pretend otherwise allows atrocities to perpetuate.

 

[seycyrus]

peace upon u

i didn't say niether that western press is biased .. nor that arabian is so ..

i'm just wondering why this great gap apears ??
...

It would be helpful if you were more specific in your inquiry. What specific gap are you referring to?

The generality of your post makes it appear to me that you are trying to steer traffic towards al-jazeera.

 

[Evo]

Ok, this is exactly the same as previous threads on this. Now we're getting into misinformation about the number of civilians versus Hamas killed, people saying "look, dead people". Of course there are dead people. Again this is going nowhere and our main goal is to not make any group of members feel uncomfortable or unwelcome and this thread is doing exactly that. It is the same reason we do not allow religious discussions.