Sri Lanka vs. Israeli conflicts. Why the different coverage.

[Fencer X and Y]

I was a little hesitant in starting this thread given the history of threads dealing with similar topics however I hope that this won't devolve into a Israel good or evil flame posts but stay on topic.

Why is the coverage of the Sri Lankan war so starkly different from the coverage of the December Israeli offensive in Gaza? I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but in the US the war received minimum coverage. It got a little bit of attention when Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed but that was pretty much it. Only now reports are surfacing that up to 20,000 civilians may have been killed. On the other hand the Israeli conflict was covered round the clock with every civilian death (either real or alleged) reported and condemned. That Israel gets this kind of treatment from the UN is not surprising at all, (The UN doesn't even want to release the actual amount of civilians killed in Sri Lanka for fear of damaging their relationship with Sri Lanka. They of course did not afford the same courtesy to Israel, instead they embellished civilian deaths.) UN has always been highly anti-Israeli both in rhetoric and actions. What does surprise me though, is the coverage of the US media. Why such a disparity between the two nations? Could it be the latent anti-semitism (or just anti-israelism)? I don't think so. The US media isn't in love with Israel but it has usually been fair with it. Is it the disregard for the Tamili civilians? Or am I just completely wrong and both have been covered equally and objectionably? Again, I do not want to start a thread about who was right and who was wrong (on any of the sides) In my opinion the two conflicts are similar. But the coverage that they got in the US are very very different. Why?

[pigeonmeister]

1. Doesn't tie into relevant regional issues for Western notions of security (i.e Iran)
2. The Tamils' cause has garnered little sympathy
3. Harder for journalists to report in Sri Lanka
4. Tamils less publicity savvy than Palestinians or Israelis
5. Less relevant to US Arab allies- which has in the past had oil implications
6. Relatively tiny Tamil community living in West
7. Religious and ethnic context less familiar or accessible
8. The crisis has no capacity to spread anti-Americanism
9. No Islamic terrorist influence

There are probably more...

Historically, you could mention a few other insurgencies and wars: Indonesia and Timor, Indonesia and Papua, Vietnam and China, Mexico, Sino-Soviet border “clashes” of the 60s, Turkish Kurds, almost every insurgency and border fracas in Africa. All under-reported. All with shockingly high body counts, by American standards

To be fair, if you actually look there have been lots of reports on Sri-Lanka. Just not captured the imagination.

[Fencer X and Y]

1. Doesn't tie into relevant regional issues for Western notions of security (i.e Iran)
4. Tamils less publicity savvy than Palestinians or Israelis
5. Less relevant to US Arab allies- which has in the past had oil implications
6. Relatively tiny Tamil community living in West
7. Religious and ethnic context less familiar or accessible

Agreed. I guess this isn't that surprising, the media only wants to report on what others are interested in and obviously the western world isn't interested in the Tamil.

To be fair, if you actually look there have been lots of reports on Sri-Lanka. Just not captured the imagination.

I'm not suggesting that there have been some sort of a conspiracy to cover up the truth, just a complete lack of interest in the plight of the civilians caught up in the fighting. When Israel attacked Gaza there were marches and protests and not just by the Palestinians/Arabs but a large population of the young left (I hesitate to call them hippies but that's what they basically were) condeming Israel and calling for peace. Where are the same rallies for the Sri Lankans?

3. Harder for journalists to report in Sri Lanka

I'd actually have to disagree with you there as to my understanding Israel made it pretty hard for journalists to report on the Gaza conflict and yet we were not starved for information in that case.

8. The crisis has no capacity to spread anti-Americanism

This is actually really interesting. I've never actually thought about it this way. Could it be that the US and Americans only care about the welfare of other people as long as there is a possibility that the US will be blamed for their troubles?

Historically, you could mention a few other insurgencies and wars: Indonesia and Timor, Indonesia and Papua, Vietnam and China, Mexico, Sino-Soviet border “clashes” of the 60s, Turkish Kurds, almost every insurgency and border fracas in Africa. All under-reported. All with shockingly high body counts, by American standards

To me this case stands out for its similarities and the proximity of the two events, and the hypocrocy of the media in reporting the two so starkly different. Of course the other side of that question is would over-reporting of the whole thing somehow hinder the Sri Lankan government? Obviously it's important for the Israeli goverment to have a positive image in the US media, but does it matter for the Sri Lankans at all?

[pigeonmeister]

I'd actually have to disagree with you there as to my understanding Israel made it pretty hard for journalists to report on the Gaza conflict and yet we were not starved for information in that case.

You are right to an extent. No journalists were allowed into Gaza. However, thousands were camped on a hill overlooking the place. Plus, Gaza had a media infrastructure of sorts. Plus there were many more aid agencies operating inside Gaza who could act as sources. My understanding is that the Sri Lankan authorities make it very difficult to report in the whole region...which is generally harder to report in anyway. One experienced journalist from the Guardian likened it to reporting in Zimbabwe

[jeff]

I've been thinking along the same lines as Fencer X and Y for a few weeks, as the curtain was coming down on the Tigers. Not just for press coverage, but for popular outrage and emotion. Not just there, but also right now in Swat where there is massive dislocation and suffering of the civilian population in the cross-fire.

Still this situation has eerie similarities, but on a larger body-count scale than Gaza. Where's the outrage? Where's the UN resolutions condemning the government?

I don't think lack of access to information is the issue - it's hardly a secret. It just hasn't struck the emotional chords that would (for example) provoke mass demonstrations in European capitals. Much of this is that (to use an American expression) most of the West "doesn't have a dog in this fight". The Israel/Arab conflicts permit acting out on anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim prejudices (substitute "pro" for "anti" where you see fit), but the conflict in Sri Lanka is between strangers.

I saw an article (where? sorry, I forget. Some place a little more right wing than I normally read) recently that the anti-Israel side in places like Europe and UK isn't specifically about anti-Semitism (though that's a substantial contributing factor), but a leftist anti-Western reaction along the lines: "Israelis came from Europe; Europe oppressed the 3rd World; Israel is the modern expression of colonialism; Boo Israel". That theory, if true, permits leftist bias against Israel without a religious basis. I think there may be some truth to this, but I think the answer is more like "all of the above"

[Inquartata]

That seems to me a bit too subtle a rationale for any but intellectual elites. Especially since the Europeans have only to look around their own back yards to see both "oppression" of immigrants from the Third World and the turbulence that elements of those immigrants cause all on their own.

For most people I suspect it's all about religion, "underdog syndrome", and plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism. ( After all, the Europeans are always telling us about their long histories and traditions, and there are few longer than their histories and traditions of anti-Semitism in western Europe. )

[fatfencer]

We dont have a lot of Sri Lankans here in the US but we do have a fair number of Jews.

They also control or own outright a great deal of media, I contend ALL of it, such that of course cover a great deal of Israeli issues and with a generally 'fair'(not equal, but 'loving') eye to Israeli and Jewish issues.

Media coverage isn't about fairness and equity, its about what matters to the people who watch the news FROM the persepctive of those who CONTROL the news.

I do wish that the lens with which they viewed these issues were a bit more objective, but thats a large quibble for another time.

Fatfencer

[Phaeton]

Well,

We have far greater political and cultural ties to Israel and what works out in that region of the world than we do with Sri Lanka. It highly doubt India cares too too much about what happens in Sri Lanka, so our economic need for caring there is not all that great.

I can't think of any Sri Lankan product or service I have bought or used in recent memory. I highly doubt Sri Lanka really has any effect on day to day life.


Israel OTOH has a very large tech sector, a number of imports to the United States, and strong military/political ties to the United States. The entire middle east is an important strategic area for the United States.

[fatfencer]

Well,

We have far greater political and cultural ties to Israel and what works out in that region of the world than we do with Sri Lanka. It highly doubt India cares too too much about what happens in Sri Lanka, so our economic need for caring there is not all that great.

I can't think of any Sri Lankan product or service I have bought or used in recent memory. I highly doubt Sri Lanka really has any effect on day to day life.


Israel OTOH has a very large tech sector, a number of imports to the United States, and strong military/political ties to the United States. The entire middle east is an important strategic area for the United States.

Right, but how strongly would our policies and procedures be affected by a lack of an ally like Israel in the Middle East? That's the real litmus test.

I still don't like that term 'ally'. I really dont see them as doing anything valuable. Are they supplying troops to fight against Iraq? Somebody post some evidence that they are valuable in a significant manner. I cant find it.

FF

[thereom4]

Media coverage isn't about fairness and equity, its about what matters to the people who watch the news FROM the persepctive of those who CONTROL the news.

Fatfencer

I concur.

[pigeonmeister]

I still don't like that term 'ally'. I really dont see them as doing anything valuable. Are they supplying troops to fight against Iraq? Somebody post some evidence that they are valuable in a significant manner. I cant find it.
FF

How many threads on this question are you aiming at?

For what it's worth, I believe Israel stropped being of major strategic use to the US in the 1970s. They defeated Pan Arabic Nationalism (which threatened US oil interests and was broadly alligned with the Soviets). The peace Israel then struck with Egypt also realligned Egypt as a key strategic partner of the United States (it still is).

I think some would make the argument that Israel is a bulwark against Iran's (and to a lesser extent Syria's) projection of power in the region. I'm not so sure, but I believe it remains a widely held belief amongst US policy makers.

Political and economic benefits are more complex and probably endure.

[fatfencer]

How many threads on this question are you aiming at?

For what it's worth, I believe Israel stropped being of major strategic use to the US in the 1970s. They defeated Pan Arabic Nationalism (which threatened US oil interests and was broadly alligned with the Soviets). The peace Israel then struck with Egypt also realligned Egypt as a key strategic partner of the United States (it still is).

I think some would make the argument that Israel is a bulwark against Iran's (and to a lesser extent Syria's) projection of power in the region. I'm not so sure, but I believe it remains a widely held belief amongst US policy makers.

Political and economic benefits are more complex and probably endure.

I guess I'm aiming at all of them, and as long as people are being so civil I'll try and do likewise.

It seems to be that Israel really isnt an ally of a strategic use at all. I think we use that term FAR to liberally to mean 'mildly amenable to our various causes' or simply 'NOT an enemy'.

Thats ok and all, but I dont think it worth the yearly subsidy we pay them. Something on the order of $3billion.

What I'm most interested in at this point(my research has turned up empty) is just how much of an economic BENEFIT we derive from our relationship with Israel. I don't want it compared with other nations either. I think our relationships with ANY countries should be looked at for its own merit.

Meanwhile I think we can safely say that American Jewry wants the relationship to be and thus it is. So the 'Why' is established. I think the reasons aren't substantively economical at all. I think they are entirely religious/sociological, which means, sadly our tax dollars are being erroneously used.

Fatfencer

[pigeonmeister]

I think the reasons aren't substantively economical at all. I think they are entirely religious/sociological, which means, sadly our tax dollars are being erroneously used.

Fatfencer

Well I just gave you at least 3 strategic reasons why the US sees or has seen strategic benefits, but by all means stick to your polemics...

[Fencer X and Y]

We dont have a lot of Sri Lankans here in the US but we do have a fair number of Jews.

They also control or own outright a great deal of media, I contend ALL of it, such that of course cover a great deal of Israeli issues and with a generally 'fair'(not equal, but 'loving') eye to Israeli and Jewish issues.

Do you even try to understand the issues that you're posting about or are you stuck on some sort of a "let's-blame-the-Jews-for-absolutely-everything-that's-going-on-in-the-world" trip? If what you were saying was true and the Jews really did control the media then their coverage of the Israeli-Gaza conflict would be equal to that of the Sri Lanka conflict. That's right, if the US media was controlled by the Jews partial to Israel then we wouldn't get an up to the minute coverage of every Palestinian casualty. Instead somewhere on page 3 of your local paper they would mention that Israel started an offensive in Gaza. And then 2 weeks later you'd see another article about how the Offensive is over and the UN is still trying to figure out how many casualties there were but they don't want to release the exact numbers for fear of damaging their relationship with Israel. That didn't happen did it? But that's exactly the kind of treatment that Sri Lanka got. Jeff already covered this in an earlier post, there were no condemnations of the Sri Lankan government, no protests, no calls for boycott, nothing. And it looks like the casualties in the Sri Lankan conflict were 20 times higher. (We can't get the exact numbers because for some strange reason the UN doesn't want to release them). So no, FF, the difference in coverage is not because the Jews control the media. I was asking why there was such a difference. I got an answer that it's because we basically don't care as much about what happens in Sri Lanka. I still slightly disagree with that because I get the feeling that the left-leaning media would jump at any chance to condemn the big-bad govenrment from cracking down on the poor Tamil "freedom fighters." But that's not important. What's important is just how blatantly wrong you are. Do you have any sources to prove that the Jews control the media? And please no more articles by people who say the AIPAC caused 9/11.

[Inquartata]

R Somebody post some evidence that they are valuable in a significant manner. I cant find it.

Sharing of intelligence, if nothing else.

I could mention the Osirak reactor strike.

But probably most of their help is covert and not reported on CNN...

[fatfencer]

Do you even try to understand the issues (CUT FOR BREVITY.. FF) So no, FF, the difference in coverage is not because the Jews control the media. I was asking why there was such a difference. I got an answer that it's because we basically don't care as much about what happens in Sri Lanka. I still slightly disagree with that because I get the feeling that the left-leaning media would jump at any chance to condemn the big-bad govenrment from cracking down on the poor Tamil "freedom fighters." But that's not important. What's important is just how blatantly wrong you are. Do you have any sources to prove that the Jews control the media? And please no more articles by people who say the AIPAC caused 9/11.

In an earlier post I listed who currently owns/ceo's most of American media. And yes, all jews. And no, for the record nothing I posted said AIPAC CAUSED 9/11. I did post from a site though that believes, quite puzzlingly, that no Jews died during the 9/11 crash and that they were all warned to stay away that day. I don;t know that I buy into that. It's certainly possible. Truth is stranger than fiction, but there's no proof behind it so I dont buy in. If it IS true that no jews died during 9/11 I would say that it is damn near a statistical impossibility for that to happen.


What I believe is that AIPAC has an extremely effective lobby with the US and that as a result the US does things that may, IMHO not be in the US's best interests.

And it isnt JUST that the jews own media in the US that makes the difference. That isnt what I said. But I do believe its certainly a LARGE part. I ALSO said that we dont have a significant populace of Sri Lankans here and so our reporting is skewed away from covering that stuff much at all. And when we do cover it I suspect that we cover it more thoroughly to sort of counter balance with other atrocities being done elsewhere.

I think that often media coverage of the same Israeli action is covered differently and not necessarily pro-israel, either. Here? You'd be hard pressed to find coverage not pro-Jew. I think you'd be hard pressed to differ with that statement.

Why would you say I'm so blatantly wrong, many here have agreed with me about many of the things I've posted in re Jews. They just don't like how uncivil I become when people throw slurs at me.

But here, since you asked so nicely read thru the internal cites in BOLD:

Joel Stein, for example, columnist for the Los Angeles Times newspaper and regular contributor to Time magazine. In his column in the LA Times (Dec. 19, 2008), Stein says that Americans who think the Jews do not control Hollywood and the media are just plain "dumb."

"Jews totally run Hollywood." Stein proudly admits. He then goes on to provide a long, long list of Hollywood/media chieftains-all Jews!-to prove his point. On his list: Fox News President Peter Chernin; Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey; Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor; Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton; Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer; CBS CEO Leslie Moonves; MGM Chairman Harry Sloan; and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker.
That's just the top brass at the studios. Then there are the actors and entertainers - predominantly Jews, from Barbra Streisand and Gwyneth Paltrow, from Adam Sandler to Ben Stiller...Jew, Jew and Jew again. As Stein wryly remarks, even the head of the Actors' Union, the Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, is a Jew.

"The Jews are so dominant," writes Stein, "I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies." "But lo and behold," Stein says, "even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew!"

"As a proud Jew," says Joel Stein, "I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."

ADL's Foxman Admits Jewish Control

Stein says he then called Abe Foxman, Chairman of the Jewish ADL, to ask him, why don't more Jews just come out and boast at this great accomplishment? Foxman responded by admitting that yes, it's true that most of the top execs "happen to be Jewish." In fact, Foxman told Stein, "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."

Ben Stein (no relation to Joel), the well-known Jewish actor, economic commentator and writer, when asked "Do Jews run Hollywood?" stared blankly at the questioner, then retorted, "You bet they do-and what of it?" Shahar Ilan, writing in haaretz.com, the internet division of Israel's top daily newspaper, commented, "The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge."

Neal Gabler, also a Jew and a noted media researcher, wrote an entire book outlining Jewish control of Hollywood. It was entitled, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. But to really see how the Jews, in their own publications and press, view the reality of Jewish control of the media, all one has to do is take a look at a recent issue of the Jewish Daily Forward, which featured an article entitled, "Billionaire Boychiks Battle for Media Empire."

Billionaire Jews Battle for Media

This fascinating, look-see article discussed how the Jews had for decades owned the media and now were competing; that is, vying, to buy one of America's most powerful media companies, Tribune Company, which owns 23 television stations, a baseball team, and many major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

"However, it turns out," gloated the Jewish mag, "we'll have a Jew in charge of the (LA) Times, which was once one of old Los Angeles' most famous WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) institutions. What a great day for old LA Jews"

The publication noted that among the Jewish billionaires ("boychiks") vying for the Tribune media empire is "Liberal, Jewish, media mogul David Geffen."

And who, pray tell, is the current owner of the Tribune Company? Why, that would be Jewish billionaire Sam Zell. Zell is a major donor to Israeli, Zionist and Jewish causes. His own rabbi proudly reports that Zell is "a committed Zionist, a generous supporter of Israel, and a member in good standing of the synagogue."

Asked who his own favorite newspaper columnists were, Zell quickly answered, "Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and David Brooks." Surprise! The trio are all ardent Zionist whack-jobs who clamor over each other demanding the U.S. attack Iran, provide billions more in foreign aid to favored nation Israel, and so forth.

Local Newspapers Owned by Foreign Agents

So powerful is the Jewish control over the media that Nathanael Kapner, a rare Jew who converted to Christianity and now is adept at reporting these things, asserts that no longer can we trust our local daily newspaper. "Zionist Jews have taken over the 'local newspaper' in America," Kapner writes. Indeed he explains that there basically is no local newspaper anymore, because, "Most local newspapers are owned by companies controlled by Zionists whose offices are hundreds of miles away."

Kapner provides manifold evidence of Zionists' dominating control of the media at all levels. The Newhouse Empire of the Jewish brothers Samuel, Donald, and Theodore Newhouse, Kapner says, "illustrates the insatiable appetite for opinion control:"

"Today, the Newhouse Empire owns 40 local newspapers across the U.S.A. These include the Newark Star Ledger, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Portland Oregonian, and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat."

Then, there are the vast array of magazines run by the Jewish Newhouse family-including the New Yorker, Vogue, Golf Digest, Glamour, Gentleman's Quarterly (GQ), and the massively circulated newspaper insert, Parade magazine.

Jewish Media Spew Out Pro-Zionist Propaganda

The fact that Zionists control virtually every media outlet in America is no doubt why the American citizenry hears only one version of events in the Middle East-the pro-Jew, pro-Israeli side. This led Dr. Kevin MacDonald, professor at California State University, to write:

"In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world."



So in short, all of these quotes are from prominent Jews saying EXACTLY what I have said all along. And FROM pro Jew places like haaretz.com and the Jewish Daily Forward.

Perhaps I am not so wrong. Now I have, though I am CLEARLY negating the concept that "I am so wrong", brought evidence to show that perhaps this is not so.

You, affirming, must bring some evidence that the Jews do NOT control US media. I suspect you will find that quite difficult.

I dont know if its just you want to be right or if, as a card carrying Jew you just don't want us non-Jews to know the truth.... but either way the evidence thus far, is mounting against you.

FF

[I_luv_saber]

Even working under the assumption that Jews do control the media... that does not equal unwaivering support for Israel. There are plenty of Jewish people living in America who do not support the actions of Israel.

As far as the reason why the Israel situation is reported more than Sri Lanka, I think it is actually not an unfair thing to say it is at least partially due to the fact we have a much higher Jewish population. But that has nothing to do with "Jews controlling the media"... that has to do with the media reporting on what people care about. Probably, more Jewish people (really almost everyone, but here especially) are going to care more about what happens in Israel than Sri Lanka. And since there is a very high Jewish population here, it makes sense for news companies to cater to that (which sort of ties into my previously stated beliefs on how the media is run, but I won't get into that again, especially here).

I think this, plus as has been pointed out, we "have a dog in that fight" more than we do in the case of Sri Lanka pretty much sums up why it's reported more. I don't think it's anything so dark or conspiratorial. It simply gets more airtime because more people care about it.

[Phaeton]

Shhh. Be careful I_luv_saber..

I hear that logic is a foul Jewish debate tactic meant to brainwash us!

He might found out that F.Net is run by our evil trans-national organization as well.

Comintern got nothing on Damintern: the international brotherhood of blood, Jewish blood to be exact.

[fatfencer]

Even working under the assumption that Jews do control the media... that does not equal unwaivering support for Israel. There are plenty of Jewish people living in America who do not support the actions of Israel.

As far as the reason why the Israel situation is reported more than Sri Lanka, I think it is actually not an unfair thing to say it is at least partially due to the fact we have a much higher Jewish population. But that has nothing to do with "Jews controlling the media"... that has to do with the media reporting on what people care about. Probably, more Jewish people (really almost everyone, but here especially) are going to care more about what happens in Israel than Sri Lanka. And since there is a very high Jewish population here, it makes sense for news companies to cater to that (which sort of ties into my previously stated beliefs on how the media is run, but I won't get into that again, especially here).

I think this, plus as has been pointed out, we "have a dog in that fight" more than we do in the case of Sri Lanka pretty much sums up why it's reported more. I don't think it's anything so dark or conspiratorial. It simply gets more airtime because more people care about it.

Oh just to point out I said all this in my earlier post. "dog in hunt" is probably the main thing in action here.

I just put my last post in becuase XY was so bent on telling me I'm wrong about the ownership of Media in the US. Hardly.

What seems to be tenuous is the link between ownership and that CAUSALLY affecting the 'amorousness' of the coverage of Jews in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

We can all agree that in general the Media focuses on what it perceives its constituents (Jews in this case more than Sri Lankans) to want. So there is Jewish causal media control from that perspective.

But the real question is... is there BIAS?
According to Eric Alterman, CUNY Prof of Journalism, 2002:

According to CUNY professor of journalism, Eric Alterman, debate among Middle East pundits, “is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising Israel”. In 2002, he listed 56 columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel “reflexively and without qualification.” Alterman only identified five pundits who consistently criticise Israeli behaviour or endorse pro-Arab positions. [32] Journalists described as pro-Israel by Mearsheimer and Walt include: the New York Times’ William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, David Brooks, and Thomas Friedman (although they say that the latter is sometimes critical of areas of Israel policy); the Washington Post’s Jim Hoagland, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and George Will [33] ; and the Los Angeles Times’ Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg and Jonathan Chait.

And heres another piece from Stephen Zunes, a professor from the University of San Francisco and author. http://wapedia.mobi/en/Media_bias_in...ed_States?p=10

Stephen Zunes writes that "mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government." [31]

So clearly there is some amount of bias going on, a purposeful bias. But just in case you dont like the sources folks, here's one that says it best:

Jewish Daily Forward 2002

As The Forward observed in late April [2002], 'rooting out perceived anti-Israel bias in the media has become for many American Jews the most direct and emotional outlet for connecting with the conflict 6,000 miles away.'" [35]

The Forward relates how one individual feels:
"'There's a great frustration that American Jews want to do something,' said Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis. 'In 1947, some number would have enlisted in the Haganah,' he said, referring to the pre-state Jewish armed force. 'There was a special American brigade. Nowadays you can't do that. The battle here is the hasbarah war,' Youdovin said, using a Hebrew term for public relations. 'We're winning, but we're very much concerned about the bad stuff.'" [36]

And this is the best quote of all.....

Indicative of the diversity of opinion is a 2003 Boston Globe profile of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America media watchdog group in which Mark Jurkowitz observes: "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage." [37]

Former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that the result of this lobbying of the media was: “Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticising Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.” [38]

SO I have CLEARLY proven Jewish media bias. Using sources that are not, by any stretch of the imagination racist, or anti-Jew, anti-Semitic, etc.

Earlier someone mentioned "dark and conspiratorial". Well honestly I don't think anything is "dark" about it necessarily, but conspiratorial? Quite probably.

The Jews who run the media in the US have a definite Zionist bent, a la Sam Zell, etc. above. They control the media and I have shown above that they are very good at exercising pressure at preventing anti-Israeli spin whenever possible.

Is it possible that we are not getting a non-biased story then when we get reports of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Absolutely...

Fatfencer

[I_luv_saber]

But the real question is... is there BIAS?

{huge snip to avoid wall-o-text}

SO I have CLEARLY proven Jewish media bias. Using sources that are not, by any stretch of the imagination racist, or anti-Jew, anti-Semitic, etc.

No, you have not. Correlation does not equal causation. Again, for the sake of argument we'll work under your assumption that the media is so heavily controlled by the Jews. This does not mean "Jews are biased towards Israel". Even if there IS bias involved (of which I'm not convinced), it is not necessarily due to the fact the owners are Jewish. In fact, if you look around, America as a whole (regardless of religion or race) tend to be more pro-Israel than Europe, for example. A more accurate statement would be that AMERICANS as a whole are biased, not just Jewish owners trying to brainwash the American people.

Note I'm not calling you a racist, but these ideas are racist in nature... Hitler himself believed (or at least claimed to believe in order to spread propaganda and wipe them out) of mass conspiracies by the Jews and that they were behind most of the world's atrocities...

Not trying to drag my opinion of the media too much in here, but since it applies here I have to: IF any bias is going on in this situation, I would argue ti has far more to do with the media playing what people want to see/hear rather than trying to control the populace into believing what it wants it to believe.

Earlier someone mentioned "dark and conspiratorial". Well honestly I don't think anything is "dark" about it necessarily, but conspiratorial? Quite probably.

Oh, please... these people (and I refer to people in these high positions, not Jewish people, but go for the joke if you wish) care far more about money than how Israel is seen in the eyes of Americans. I don't give them enough credit as to believe they care more about that than what profits are at.

As far as lobbying is concerned, there are tons of lobbying groups that have us doing all sorts of things we should not. Should we simply ban lobbying? Is there something wrong with this, and if so, what do you intend to do to stop it while preserving freedoms?

EDIT: Also, I've been searching the owners of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC... some of the biggest names in the biz.

The biggest names I came up with were Jeff Zucker, Jeffrey Bewkes, Rupert Murdoch, Philip I. Kent, none of which have the word "Jew" or "Jewish" on their Wikipedia pages, though the discussion page for Zucker does mention it.

Wikipedia pages for Jeffrey Bewkes, Rupert Murdoch, and Jeff Zucker's discussion page. I note that Zucker is NBC, hence probably considered less influential than Fox or CNN, and that it is specifically pointed out in Murdoch's discussion page that claims of him being Jewish are false, with a citation showing so. Any allegations otherwise are dubious, at best.

EDIT EDIT: A quick search on CNN also reveals an article (the first I found with the word "Israel" in it, the other I found on page 1 being neutral, simply reporting about war drills) that isn't terribly favorable towards Israel. It can be found here. Where are you finding this bias?