Conference taveng::bagels

The headline in my local paper for the same story was something like:
"Arabs banned from Jerusalem". I was so depressed I didn't bother reading
the story. Thanks for posting .0.

Dave

From today's Boston Globe:

(1/2" bold type): Palestinian killed in riots on West Bank

(3/16" non-bold): 3 Israelis injured in separate attacks

	Here is a complete text of the broadcast on BBC World Service,
	23 October 1990 and 24 October 1990, relative to the Jews who 
	were stabbed, in additional violence by Arabs on 23 October 1990.  
	It's in the box below: 

	+----------------------------------------------------------+
        |                                                          |
        |                                                          |
	+----------------------------------------------------------+

	Here is a complete text of the broadcast on BBC world service,
	23-24 October 1990, reporting on the PLO statement, released 
	in Tunis 23 October, which congratulated the Palestinians on the
	violent stabbings of Jews:

	+----------------------------------------------------------+
        |                                                          |
        |                                                          |
	+----------------------------------------------------------+


	Here is a complete text of the broadcast on BBC world service,
	24 October 1990, relative to the Arab who was shot by another
	Arab while driving last night: 

	+----------------------------------------------------------+
        |                                                          |
        |                                                          |
	+----------------------------------------------------------+

	However, the BBC, this morning, 24 October, 1990 did have this
	"story:"

	"The Israelis sealed off the Occupied Territories this morning
	 to prevent further violence between Jews and Arabs."

	(That's the whole story...  I heard it in the car this morning.
	They gave that "headline", and no more details.  Full stop.)

don

                               The Camera Lies Best

                                 David Bar-Illan
             [Without Permission from Jerusalem Post, 19 Oct., 1990]


       Dean Reynolds of ABC-TV News has protested that the  report  on  his
       "World  News Tonight" program on the Temple Mount riots, featured in
       "Eye on the  Media  [in  the  Jerusalem  Post  -  ed]  last  Friday,
       contained inaccuracies.  Following is his complete transcript:

           Reynolds:  It was a battle on sacred ground on  a  day  when
           prayers  made  no difference.  Jews, driven from the Wailing
           Wall by Palestinian stones, Moslems  at  their  mosque  next
           door  shot  dead  by  Israeli police and American M-16s.  It
           started after a group  of  fundamentalist  Jews  arrived  to
           press  their  demands  to  build  a  temple  on  the  Moslem
           sanctuary.  Palestinians said they  were  defending  one  of
           their holiest shrines.

                Radwan Abu Ayyash:  We believe that  the  Israelis  are
           now  trying  to  implement  their plan to take over the holy
           place [sic!  - ed] of the Moslem world.

                Reynolds:  Israelis said the Palestinians  planned  the
           attack  for  today's  Jewish  holy  day to get attention for
           their uprising, to link this situation to the crisis in  the
           Gulf.

                Netanyahu:  We have no doubt that we are  dealing  here
           with  a  deliberate,  planned  provocation.   This was not a
           spontaneous eruption of violence.

                Reynolds:   In  any  case,  the  Israeli  response  was
           severe,  and  a  shocked  Israeli  army  officer  called  it
           excessive.  In at least on case, police prevented ambulances
           from  rescuing  a  wounded  man.   They  kicked  Palestinian
           detainees and left others dying in the streets.  Today marks
           the  highest single day for Palestinian death toll, not only
           during the three years of their uprising, but during the  23
           years  of  Israeli  occupation.   The  searing impact on the
           Palestinians is easy to see - but what  of  the  other  Arab
           nations,  the  ones  the  United  States  is  trying to hold
           together in a new and uneasy  alliance  against  Iraq?   How
           will they react to these pictures:  men, women, and children
           killed by America's oldest Middle East ally.  Dean Reynolds,
           ABC News, Jerusalem.

            Last Friday's transcript, faxed from the US and thought  to  be
       verbatim,  was  actually  an accurate summary.  One minor inaccuracy
       was caused by the absence of a description of what was seen  on  the
       screen.   As  Reynolds  recited "...police prevented ambulances from
       reaching a wounded man", an ambulance was seen on camera being waved
       away  by police from a man lying on the ground.  Reynolds is owed an
       apology for being accused of repeating a "hearsay allegation."

            But the ambulance in that case only serves  to  emphasize  that
       the camera lies better than words.  For what the camera did NOT show
       is the very same man being picked up by another  ambulance,  as  was
       clearly seen on the "MacNeil / Lehrer" show covering the same event.

            Following the ambulance scene on  Reynold's  show,  the  camera
       shows  a  policeman  kicking  at  a  running  man  - certainly not a
       "detainee" - while Reynolds intones "...they kicked detainees."

            Then the camera reverts to the same wounded man on the  ground,
       with Reynolds saying, "...and they left others dying in the street."
       Thus, the one injured  man  who  was  seen  being  evacuated  by  an
       ambulance  on  another  show, served as both the "abandoned wounded"
       and the "others dying in the street" on ABC-TV.

            There is no way of knowing why the police had  waved  away  one
       ambulance  and  had  the  man  picked  up  by another, but obviously
       Reynolds wanted to portray  Israelis  as  brutal  and  uncaring,  as
       people  who  kick  detainees  and  let them die.  And on television,
       facts have no business getting in the way.

            Seeing the actual program on the screen serves  to  dispel  any
       suspicion  that  one  may have over-reacted to the transcript.  When
       Reynolds says, "...It started after a group of  fundamentalist  Jews
       arrived  to press their demands to build a Moslem sanctuary" a dozen
       marchers with banners are seen  marching  toward  the  camera.   The
       unmistakable  impression  is  that  they are marching on the "Moslem
       Sanctuary"

            Only those who know the area well would notice  that  they  are
       marching AWAY from the Old City, toward the Shiloah Pool.

            The next camera shot is of a youth  throwing  stones,  and  one
       cannot but surmise that the stones are being thrown at the marchers.
       In fact, the dozen marchers were far from the  scene  when  suddenly
       thousands of stones began descending, their aim unmistakable, on the
       Jewish worshipers at the Wall.

            But in Reynold's version all of it started with the arrival  of
       a  group of Jewish fundamentalists.  On television shows, facts have
       no business getting in the way.

            No "World News Tonight" viewer could be  blamed  for  believing
       that  the  Temple  Mount  horror  was  nothing  but  an  unprovoked,
       murderous police assault on Moslem worshipers.  The only mention  of
       Arab  violence  is included in the line, "...Jews, driven from their
       Wailing Wall by Palestinian stones."  (stones,  which  one  assumes,
       were  self - propelled) followed by "...Moslems at their Mosque SHOT
       DEAD BY ISRAELI POLICE AND  AMERICAN  M-16s."  (By  Friday  morning,
       Reynolds  forgot  the  "Palestinian  stones",  referring to the Arab
       activity as a "demonstration".)

            Reynolds know that the mob had forced the police off the Temple
       Mount,  and burned down the police post.  But in his broadcast there
       is not one solitary mention of these assaults -  which  might  belie

       the   claim   of   innocent   "defense"   against   a  dozen  Jewish
       fundamentalists - nor of the size of the mob, estimated at  5000  by
       the London "Sunday Times."

            In fact, Reynolds did not bother to relate the Israeli  version
       of  the  events  at  all.   He could have done so with all the usual
       gimmicks [like] "the Israelis claim ...  but  others  say,"  but  he
       avoided even that much, lest it impugn, even by the tiniest bit, the
       credibility of his version.

            But his worst sin was letting Abu  Ayyash's  inflammatory  "the
       Israelis are beginning to implement their plan to take over the holy
       place of the Moslem world" go unchallenged.

            Reynolds knows all too well that only under  Israeli  rule  has
       there  been  complete  freedom  of  religion  and no infringement of
       anyone's religious rights in this  country.   He  knows,  too,  that
       propagating  Ayyash's  vicious  libel  could  unleash uncontrollable
       forces in the Moslem world.

            Reynold's parting words  are  almost  as  incedniary.   Showing
       bloodied  Palestinians, wounded and dead, he rhetorically demands to
       know "how will the Arab nations  the  U.   S.   is  trying  to  hold
       together  react to these pictures of more Palestinians - men, women,
       and teenagers - killed by America's oldest Middle East ally!" It  is
       the kind of incitement one expects in propaganda films like "Days of
       Rage", not in a news report.

            Perhaps the government press office  should  persuade  Reynolds
       and  some  of his colleagues to watch a video film taken at the Wall
       by an amateur and submitted to the  Zamir  commission.   Seeing  the
       sequence  of  events  in  real time, they may understand how cruelly
       unfair and distorted their reports were.

    Why do you expect anything different from TV?  It's been well-known
    among the reading public for some time that TV stories are slanted
    towards sensation and personal interest, and are generally incapable
    of presenting issues as opposed to two opposing personalities.
    
    Some of this is nature of the medium: pictures are real and immediate,
    with a high emotional impact--but they cannot be general statements,
    they cannot present an average or an overview; the number of words
    spoken in a typical TV news story is far shorter than the number in
    a typical newspaper article.  So TV new stories will have emotional
    impact, but no analysis or careful attention to the deep background.
    
    Some of it is the practitioners, who clearly have a political and
    social agenda, and use their stories to push it.  
    
    Some of it is the desire to please the TV audience, which (judging
    by what's popular) likes sensation and blood, personal interest features,
    saccharine sentiment involving children and dogs, but hates analysis,
    hates numbers, hates history, hates being presented with shades of grey
    rather than black and white in moral argument, and neither has nor wants
    any understanding of foreign affairs.  Worse, the general public in the
    US has no real belief in a world outside the US, but considers it
    somewhat ficitional when non-threatening, and demonic when threatening.
    
    And some of it is the desire to present the important part of the
    story.  From a non-Arab and non-Israeli perspective, who started a
    fight is not important--what is important is the current level of
    tension in the Middle East, and how close we are to WW III as a result
    of that tension.  "Jerusalem closed down" is the equivalent of a 
    "yellow" reading on a tension meter.  Why it's closed is far less 
    important, particularly since any effort to uncover the roots of an
    incident result in a sequence of accusation and counter-accusation
    going back to ancient history.  From an outsider's point of view, this
    means that looking for "why" is pointless--conflict is a given.
    
    Given these factors, it's not surprising that TV news does the stories
    it does, or that it's slanted the way it is.  What's surprising is that
    anyone would expect differently.
    
    				-John Bishop

	You know, I have been getting a deep sense of dread lately. I look and
see signs of resurgent anti-Semitism, persecution and even indifference in every
nation, every corner of the world. The millions of Russian Jews are drifting
towards mass pogroms with every passing day. The doors around the world are shut
tight, just like in the 30's, with one notable exception. That exception is
Israel, and Israel is being set upon by every country in sight. The immigartion
wave is bolstering the country in human terms, and UN is about to call for the
economic sanctions, led by the Arab countries. The US Administration has sold
Israel down the river, to appease the shaky anti-Iraqi alliance. France is in
bed with Iraq already, and England presumes to pass moral judgements, its own
record notwithstanding. The UN is united for the first time - and it's about to
come crashing down on the Jews... 
	It seems to me, that once an arm of the nation comes under successful
attack, the rest of the Jews face increasing persecution around the world very
quickly. Sure, afterwards, the indifferent will proclaim sympathy, but it'll be
too late. Afterwards, the unaffected will admit to erroneously siding with the
evil, but it'll be too late. I just have this premonition that we are on the
edge of the precipice as a people, possibly as disastrous as the Holocaust.
	I wish I knew what to do... I wish I knew where to go, join a crowd of
demonstrators or something. This sense of individual helplessness is with me
every day now, and I hate the feeling. Maybe I am getting paranoid, maybe nobody
else shares this pain. It seems like we are the contemporary equivalents of the
American Jews of 1933, and in a few years we'll have to answer the question:
"What have YOU done?" Right now, I don't have an answer...

DG

.5>    Some of it is the desire to please the TV audience ...

"Some"?  For commercial television, at least, I'd say about 99%.  The
television executives, who decide what is shown and what isn't, judge a program
on the basis of what kind of audience a show gets.  If a show gets higher
ratings, advertisers can be charged more, and business is business.  The
executives don't insist on accuracy and impartiality from news shows any more
than they do from "I Love Lucy".

The same applies to newspapers, though perhaps to a lesser extent.  A newspaper
lives on its advertising revenue, and if an editor runs articles that make
people want to buy his paper, he's a success.  If the articles give a full and
accurate account of the events that they describe, that's no more than a nice
extra.

All of the above, of course, applies to news coverage of all events, not just
those in the Middle East.  Following the news certainly helps keep a person
well-informed, but one should always take the coverage with more than a grain
of salt.

    
    This is late, as I was out yesterday, but it is in reference to 988.4
    by Don Feinberg. In your vivid description of the aftermath of the riot
    and subsequent police action, you mentioned the scene involving one
    wounded person having the first ambulance waved off and being picked up
    by the second ambulance. You ask a very perceptive WHY?
       Having some background in emergency medicine, perhaps I may
    speculate upon some possible reasons. 
    Firstly, this was a classic multi-casualty incident which all EMT's of
    every level, basic through paramedic, train and retrain for, engage in
    mock exercises for, and most of all shake in their boots for.
    At a disaster scene, the first 1 through n ambulances park in the
    triage area and strip out ALL gear; bandages, backboards, radios...
    everything. They are not for transport. As many as are needed will then
    be used as treatment site support; fixed radio base, supply depot, etc.
    From ambulance n+1 till all victims are treated are under the direction
    of the scene medical officer and his assistants; triage officer,
    loading officer, communications officer, etc. These ambulances are
    directed to the pickup point at the triage site; they most emphatically
    are not permitted to stop and treat without instructions. All movable
    victims are brought to the triage site and categoried according to
    several factors;
    1. Severity of injuries
    2. Chances for survival with immediate intervention and treatment
    3. Effect of minor delay in transport (ie; will condition deteriorate) 
    4. Level of treatment required (basic, intermediate, paramedic)
    
    Next, the most serious *with the best chances* are transported PDQ.
    The priorities are worked down, with monitering of patients awaiting
    transport, untill the entire category 2 is done. Category 1 is dead and
    dying, category 3 is stable, can delay with scene treatment only.
    
    It is a tragic thing to do, but CPR is never given except by police and
    bystanders, and fatally injured cannot be saved. Decisions are made in
    a split second, and consequences remain with us forever.
    
    The important thing to remember is in a scene of mass confusion and
    hysteria, the EMS (Emergency Medical Service) system must function with
    as much communication as is possible (very little) and each person has
    several critical jobs to do well at all times. So what looked confusing
    to the rest of the world may have been right for that ambulance crew,
    and they certainly could not stop and explain.
    
    At least that is the way the system is supposed to work in
    Massachusetts. It may be different in other parts of the world but it
    certainly has a logic to it everywhere, and it may not function as well
    in a real scene as during training, but it is the best we've got.
    
    
    Sorry if I got longwinded.
    
    Don Levine, NREMT-I
    

    re: .6
    
    DG,
    
    In my opinion, the US is wrong to support the 2 UN resolutions (that
    I'm aware of).  The first being a condemnation of Israel for responding
    to the stonings at the wall, the second being a condemnation of Israel
    for refusing to allow a UN investigation.
    
    In the first case, Israel has officially said that they regret the
    deaths of those Arabs.  Everyone does.  That's a horrible thing. 
    However, the shooting (and tear gas etc.) was in response to the
    stoning of Jews praying at the wall.  And of course it's deeper than
    one can describe in a notes conference.
    
    In the second case, since the UN has apparently already made up its
    mind that Israel acted improperly, how fair with their independent
    investigation be?
    
    AS to your question - what do we do?
    
    Today, I am writing to President Bush, telling him that as an American,
    I am distressed and disturbed by the actions we've taken against
    Israel.  I will ask him to reconsider his policy.
    
    Perhaps if all who share your concern would let the President know
    about it, perhaps...things might change.
    
    In the meantime, I personally will continue to pray for the peace of
    Jerusalem.
    
    Steve

    Re. .6
    
    I feel the same way DG.  With your eloquence I don't think it 
    would hurt to write to some influencial politicians that care 
    like Barney Frank, Lois Pines, and Ted Kennedy (are there others?).
    I'm going to, may be they can offer us some advise.  I'll be
    in touch with Rabbi Schneider tonight, I'll let you know what
    he suggests.
    
    Best regards,
    Bernice
    
    p.s. Does anyone know where Abba Eban is and what he's doing?
    
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    Representative Barney Frank
    1030 Longworth
    House Office Building
    Washington DC 20510
    
    Senator Lois Pines
    State House
    Room 518
    Boston, MA  02133
    
    Senator Ted Kennedy
    315 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington DC 20510
    

    Rabbi Schneider said that we have to voice our opinion out
    loud to the White House, to our Senators and Representatives.
    He feels that placating to the Arab nations in this way while
    at the moment it may appear to be politically expedient, it's
    moral suicide for the US.  How can you trust a country that
    exhibits such unfairness (referring to the condemnation of
    the Israeli police (15 Druse officers) acting in defense of
    of a well prepared assault by 2000 Palestinians.  Did we hear
    a condemnation of Syria for the murder of 700 Christians?
    
    About the slantedness and prejudice of the media:  Again he
    said you have to voice your opinion, you have to let them 
    know that you're going to cancel your subscription, you're
    going to turn off your television and radio unless you get 
    a completely unobjective presentation of the facts untainted
    by prejudice and hypocrisy.
    
    And he said Israel needs your dollars desperately to assimilate
    the thousands who are, thank G-d returning.  
    
    Bernice

Re: .6

Dmitry,

Your note is very moving, and eloquently expresses the most profound
thoughts of many, many Jews who either cannot express it themselves
or are petrified to the core of facing the terrifying prospects you
address. But we must not and cannot emulate ostriches anymore. In
every generation Jews have been faced with these issues, and we have
learned in the past century that "modern," "civilized" man differs from
his low-technology ancestors only in his infinitely greater ability to
wreak destruction on humanity.

>You know, I have been getting a deep sense of dread lately. I look and
>see signs of resurgent anti-Semitism, persecution and even indifference in every
>nation, every corner of the world. The millions of Russian Jews are drifting
>towards mass pogroms with every passing day.

        Among those nations you shall find no repose, not a foot of ground
        to stand upon, for there the L-rd will give you an anguished heart
        and  wasted  eyes and a dismayed spirit. You will live in constant
        suspense and stand in dread both day and night, never sure of your
        existence. (Deut. 28:65,66)

>The doors around the world are shut
>tight, just like in the 30's, with one notable exception. That exception is
>Israel, and Israel is being set upon by every country in sight.

        Lo, it is a nation that dwells alone, and is not counted among the
        nations. (Num. 23:9)

>The US Administration has sold
>Israel down the river, to appease the shaky anti-Iraqi alliance. France is in
>bed with Iraq already, and England presumes to pass moral judgements, its own
>record notwithstanding. The UN is united for the first time - and it's about to
>come crashing down on the Jews...

The following Midrash (recently popularized because of its reference to the
Persian Gulf region) echos the fears you express (free translation):

        Said Rabbi Isaac: Immediately preceding the arrival of the Messiah,
        all the nations of the world will be at war. Persia and Babylonia
        will be involved, and will involve Aram (Europe). There will be
        great destruction...and the Jews will quake and tremble and say,
        "where can we go? where can we go?" (Yalkut Shimoni, Is. 60:499)

>        I wish I knew what to do... I wish I knew where to go, join a crowd of
>demonstrators or something. This sense of individual helplessness is with me
>every day now, and I hate the feeling.

The Midrash concludes, however, on a different note:

        And they are answered: My children, fear not - all that I've done has
        been for your sake. Why are you afraid? The time of your redemption
        has arrived! And this redemption will be different from previous
        redemptions -- for no suffering or oppression will ever follow it.(ibid.)

Actually, the events which you yourself allude to can be seen as unrelated
only by those who wear blinders:

>The immigartion
>wave is bolstering the country in human terms

Is the sudden immigration of tens of thousands of previously imprisoned Jews
simply a haphazard event? How about the seeming unraveling of the USSR
itself, with the attendant plans for disarmament of unparalleled proportions?
I've even heard of some talk about using tanks and other military vehicles
for agricultural purposes!

        And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
        into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation
        neither shall they learn war any more. (Is. 2:4)

Even the greatest cynic must realize that these are extraordinary times. We
are witnessing momentous events which will by all accounts change the face
of civilization. Why a resurgence of Jew-hatred now? Guess what - it's always
been there, but masked because of pragmatism. The Messiah, however, does not
allow hypocrisy:

        He will not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither decide after
        the hearing of his ears. (Is. 11:3)

Once the haters are exposed, the stage is set for the fulfillment of G-d's
promise:

        The L-rd shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be
        smitten before thy face: they shall come against thee one way and
        flee from before thee seven ways. (Deut. 28:7)

But ultimately, our fate is in our own hands...

        The L-rd shall establish thee as a holy people unto himself, as He
        has sworn unto thee, *if thou shalt keep the commandments of the
        L-rd thy G-d, and walk in his ways*. (ibid., v. 9)

...the choice is completely our own.

Jem

    	I was thinking of responding in the topic on the specific incidents
    last weekend, but this topic has begun to address the more general
    problem which underlies it.

    	In .12, Jem concludes that the outcome is "in our hands," and in a
    way I agree with him.  However, "we" have not acted wisely; we have
    chosen poor leaders for this time.  I place a major piece of the blame
    for the way Israel gets treated (e.g., by the UN and the press) on the
    leaders of the Israeli government.

    	For heaven's sake, the Intafada has been going on for nearly 3
    years now.  The strategy of the Palestinians is clear.  They are
    dealing from a position of weakness, in terms of force, economics,
    justness of claim, and so on.  Therefore, they have elected to fight
    the battle in the one arena they have a chance, the battle for
    publicity and world sympathy.  Their tactics are simple, clear, and
    obvious.  They generate a series of small incidents which they can
    control the scope of, they make sure that there a small number of
    martyrs constantly being created (until lately, it always seemed that
    there was usually one victim in each incident--enough to generate
    headlines, not enough to impact their ability to carry on), and they
    make sure to get the optimum camera angle.

    	So, where is Israel's leadership through all this?  Whining about
    unfair press coverage?  Responding to each provocation with deadly
    force?  How intelligent is that?  Have they no strategy to turn the
    tables, to show who the real aggressor is, to make themselves be seen
    as the victims rather than the villains?  All we get from Shamir is
    stiff-necked posturing and the attitude that we don't care what the
    rest of the world thinks.  Well, it does matter what the rest of the
    world thinks, as the Intafada strategy has shown.

    	In the latest incidents, the news distortions are indeed gross. 
    But why isn't Israel able to respond in a way to bring out the evil of
    the other side?  Why didn't they disperse the rock-throwers with fire
    hoses?  Then there would have been no bodies, no ambulance, no funeral
    processions...just a big pile of rocks as the damning evidence of who
    had planned the whole thing.  Yes, I know, there had to be a reaction
    to a dangerous situation, but Israel doesn't seem to have yet figured
    out that they need to get up to date on riot control.  You only have to
    recall the events of Chicago '68 to see how an unarmed protest group
    could turn into international heroes, and swing a major election
    campaign, by being attacked by ill-prepared police.

    	Israel has needed new leadership in a desparate way for years now. 
    The latest events only emphasize how out of date and out of touch the
    current leaders are.

    			David

A newspaper or television network sends a reporter into the middle of a "story"
that has a terribly long and complicated background.  That reporter, despite
knowing virtually nothing of that background (or even how to find out about
it), is expected to file a report that clearly and accurately describes what's
going on around him.  In these circumstances, it's impressive if he gets a
reasonable proportion of the facts straight.

re: .-1

>A newspaper or television network sends a reporter into the middle of a "story"
>that has a terribly long and complicated background.  That reporter, despite
>knowing virtually nothing of that background (or even how to find out about
>it), is expected to file a report that clearly and accurately describes what's
>going on around him.  In these circumstances, it's impressive if he gets a
>reasonable proportion of the facts straight.

	In 1988, when we were first "permanently" in Israel, my wife met 
	another woman in her ulpan.

	It turned out that that woman was the wife of the (then-) new
	local reporter for the Chicago Tribune, which is a major American
	newspaper. They had just been assigned to Israel after an assignment 
	in Turkey.

	She spoke to them. She found that they didn't speak even one word of 
	Hebrew, though they spoke some Arabic.  Husband was not intending
	to go to ulpan ("not enough time").  They didn't know anything at 
	all about Israel.  Yet, here they were, to cover stories with 
	"terribly long and complicated" backgrounds,  with many different
	"sides", without even slight ability to access even one word of 
	primary sources (like interviewing people). Not even the ability
	to read a local newspaper (except the then-left-wing Jerusalem 
	_Post_!). The man was almost completely dependent on hearsay.

	Now, this person sends "the truth" back to Chicago, where _his_
	story is further edited by people who know nothing, for the 
	edification of an American public who don't know the difference.
	We saw one of his articles, within a couple of months after they
	arrived here.  It was total garbage; all at least fourth-hand.

	Not bad, what?  :-(

don

From the Jerusalem Post's weekly "Eye on the Media" column, concerning
Time magazine's coverage of Kahane's funeral:

    Time reported: "20,000 followers marched through Jerusalem chanting
    Death to the Arabs! ... they searched stores and markets for Arabs,
    beating one unconscious and injuring three others."  (Quite a poor
    showing for 20,000 able-bodied chanters).

Of course the chanters were only a handful compared to the thousands who
came to pay last respects to a fellow Jew who was murdered.

986.75>    Yes, those crazy 60 minutes people.  Imagine their believing the
986.75>    film they'd dug up ...

Some years ago, I saw a film in which Julie Andrews, playing Mary Poppins, used
an umbrella to fly through the air.  Even though I was considerably younger
than the author of 986.75 is now, I was pretty sure that there was some kind of
catch.

"60 Minutes" has a history of interesting usage of film.  Some years ago, Mike
Wallace interviewed some Syrian Jews, and the film showed them denying that
their rights were being violated.  The film did not show the Syrian police who
were in the room at the time, observing the interview.

Mike Wallace is an OK actor, but I'll take Julie Andrews any day.

To help everyone feel secure in the knowledge that the good old BBC is still
running true to form, I quote an item heard on the BBC news:

  "An Arab woman was shot and wounded in Ramallah when she attempted to attack
an Israeli."

In fact, the 22 year old woman, holding swaddling clothes as if to conceal a 
baby, pulled out a kitchen knife, shouted "Allahu Akhbar", and stabbed an 
Israeli in the back.  Only then was she shot in the shoulder.

How different would the BBC news item have sounded if it had stated:"An Arab
woman was shot and wounded in Ramallah, after she stabbed an Israeli in the
back."?  

Or am I being over-sensitive?

Shalom
Baruch

RE:-1

Are you being over-sensitive?  Maybe - Maybe not.  Compared to what is 
usually reported that wasn't too bad.  It would usually be reported as 
this:

"A young Palestinian woman was wounded by (Fill in official Israeli 
 group here) today."  

No mention of her stabbing anyone.  Maybe the SCUD missiles helped bring 
back the  Jew as victim image that Israeli's had before.  The world loves 
a victim.

Warren

re:  .-1, .-2

>>Are you being over-sensitive?  Well, maybe.

On the other hand, I have reproduced here the complete text of the BBC World
Service report on the stabbings by the Arab of the 5 women in Jerusalem.
Here's the text: 

	+-----------------------------------------------------------+
        |                                                           |
        |                                                           |
        |                                                           |
        |                                                           |
        |                                                           |
        |                                                           |
	+-----------------------------------------------------------+

I thought you'd like to know.

don feinberg

    re:-1
    
    <Please read with appropriate sarcasm>
    
    Things are improving.  At least they didn't blame the attack on the
    women.
    
    WS

        re:     <<< Note 988.20 by TAV02::FEINBERG "Don Feinberg" >>>

        I think you and I must be listening to different versions of the
        BBC World Service.  I certainly heard a report that a man had
        stabbed three women to death and wounded a fourth.  The man was
        shot in the leg and arrested.  He was reported to have said "This
        is for Baker" (or was it Bush?). There was no mention (that I
        heard) of a fifth victim.

	I have never found that the BBC distorts news or "loads" the
	reporting.  On the other hand, they usually withhold stories that
	are unconfirmed, so you're likely to hear it somewhere else first,
	and when they do make a mistake, they say so as soon as the facts
	are clear.

	The BBC domestic and external services pride themselves on the
	accuracy of the news they broadcast.  They have no axe to grind,
	and when they offer commentaries by partisans of any side, they are
	careful to allow spokesmen from the other side (or sides) to state
	their viewpoint.  

	They are, however, staffed by human beings, and therefore are not
	infallible.
	
        Any correspondent who repeatedly sent slanted reports would not
        last long at the Beeb.  If you know of this happening, I suggest
        you write to them and at least give them the chance to answer the
        accusations.

        Is there any news service that you trust to be unbiased and
        reasonably accurate?

	Delia

    RE: .22

�	They are, however, staffed by human beings, and therefore are not
�	infallible.

    I personally find it very interesting to watch for the nuances or
    "sophisticated slants" in news reporting.

    By chance I was listening to the BBC World Service last night. There
    was an item on the news about the cross-border infiltration from
    Jordan.  It basically said that four GUNMEN were killed by Israeli
    Defense units during an infiltration attempt.  What caused me to prick
    my ears up, was the use of the word GUNMEN and not guerrillas. 

    The use (or misuse) of these terms normally indicates the news slant. 
    
    [Why am I sensitive to these terms on the BBC ?  Its just that when I
    was living in England (many years ago), the BBC used to describe the
    IRA as gunmen or terrorist. The European and American press sometimes
    described them as guerrillas or freedom fighters (sic) ]

    Perhaps I should start listening to the BBC and see if there are any
    more shifts in their terminology :-) :-(

    FWIW
    						.... Monty

    

>>	I have never found that the BBC distorts news or "loads" the
>>	reporting.  On the other hand, they usually withhold stories that
>>	are unconfirmed, so you're likely to hear it somewhere else first,
>>	and when they do make a mistake, they say so as soon as the facts
>>	are clear.

	There was recently (3 months ago?) a correspondence between one of
	the editors of the (new) "Jerusalem Report" and the BBC.  The
	editor reported on the dicussion (with details). I don't have the 
	text in my office, but the report was something like this:

	1)  BBC/WS ran a series of stories on the intifada which were 
	    extremely biased, but ran them as "news", not as commentary.

	2)  The editor protested to BBC in writing.

	3)  BBC quickly responded that their broadcast was specifically trying
	    to give the Palestinian point of view -- it was an "editorial"
	    piece.

	4)  Editor wrote back asking two questions:

		(a) If this was specifically a "point of view" article,
		    why was it carried in the news broadcast, and not
		    labelled as "opinion?"

		(b) When did the BBC plan to carry a broadcast specifically
		    trying to give the Israeli point of view?

	5)  No response received from the BBC.

	6)  Editor writes again to BBC with same questions as (4)

	7)  No response from the BBC.

	8)  Editor calls BBC on telephone; the person who made the
	    response in (3) above refuses to talk to him...


	In fact, the reporting of the BBC on the middle-east is *normally*
	heavily slanted -- especially with things that are truly hard to 
	"prove otherwise".  I have dozens of examples, in my own experience, 
	but I will give only two good ones here:

	(A) I heard a broadcast about 6 months after the beginning of the
	intifada, which was trying to show how Israeli settlers were 
	beginning to abandon the settlements in the Shomron.  They gave
	an example of one of the "founding families" of settlement "X"
	leaving "X" -- how they came, struggled to build the settlement,
	etc., but were now leaving.

	Unfortunately (for the BBC) I know a number of families in that 
	settlement. I asked what was going on.  It was indeed true that
	that family was leaving settlement "X".  The BBC was right...right?

	BUT: It was also true that they were leaving "X" to move to a different
	settlement in the Shomron -- so their son could go to a different
	school. This, BBC "conveniently forgot" to mention.


	(B) BBC a few months ago ran a series of opinion pieces on "occupied
	peoples" all over the world.  One segment was on "the Palestinians".

	The segment opened with an (actress portraying an) Arab woman giving
	a soft, warm description of Yafo "before the Israelis came", to
	some nice background music.  She gave some very specific references 
	--  to the "view" from this place, how wonderful, easy, and 
	pleasant their life was; what the village was like.  And then, how 
	everything changed so dramatically "when the Israelis came".

	Very smooth!  But it was almost totally *wrong* in fact.  There are 
	thousands or photographs available showing what Yafo was like in
	those days, as well as many newspaper accounts, books, and papers.
	Leave it to just say that the primary sources give a *dramatically*
	different picture of the place and situation.  But you have to
	have either *been there*, or to be familiar with these sources to
	know the difference.  I can describe what life must have been like
	for Arabs in Yafo in 1948 (I wasn't there!!) in a number of ways, 
	but "wonderful, easy, and pleasant" are somehow not the first words 
	which come to mind.

	The average American, Englishman, Indian, Australian, ..., listening 
	to this program doesn't have a clue! How would they know that if you 
	did some book work you'd find that the impression the BBC was giving 
	was totally false?  How would they know to look in the first place?  
	In this, the BBC did a superb job.

	(And this is to say nothing of the comment about "...when the Israelis 
	came." Part of the Arab campaign to show that there were no Jews here
	before 1948; somehow the Jews just "arrived" here in 1948...
	Also very smooth.)

	I was amazed by BBC's reporting of "Operation Solomon",
	but perhaps I shouldn't have been.

	Over the weekend, Israel rescued 16,084 Jewish people from 
	Ethiopia in 19 aircraft, making 40 round-trip flights, over a 
	distance of ~4000 km each way -- in a period of 33 hours, total. 

	Yet yesterday, 26 May, in the news on BBC World Service at 0400 GMT,
	the airlift was mentioned only as a one sentence "by-line" in a
	larger story about the Ethiopian rebels as they begin to take the
	remainder Ethiopia over.

	*One sentence!* -- in a 1/2 hour news program, the morning after
	it happened.

	And last evening, in the news at 1600 GMT:  NOT ONE WORD was 
	uttered about it.

this might console you, but the story was on page one of the new york times
shabbos and sunday (i didn't get to read the story on shabbos but i saw the 
headline walking to shul :-) 

what can one say?  ye'asher kochachem to all involved - and for keeping it out
of the papers until it was finished!!!

Louuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
(4 weeks left!!!)

I, too, saw the story in the newspaper but have not heard a word in any
broadcast medium.

Dave

    The NBC network news and the local NBC affiliate here in New York
    carried the story this weekend.  Did not see the other networks.
    
    The New York Times article was very good.  The Newark Star-Ledger even
    had an article on page 1.
    
    	-Barry-
    

NPR mentioned it on Friday.  The Boston Globe had a page 2 article over the
weekend (I forget which day).

    NPR coverage was extensive.  After Addis Abbaba (sp?) fell to the
    rebels, though, NPR did not cover the airlift anymore.  Did all our
    brethren get out?  Baruch Hashem!

    Actually, I have some rather mixed feelings concerning the
    international reporting of the event.
    
    I was returning very late home from a Bar-Mitzvah last Saturday night,
    so I was able to listen to a lot of reports and stations.
    
    The BBC World Service did report the airlift on the 01:00 (sunday) new
    report. As there was not that much info. available, they more or less
    translated the official reports coming out of Jerusalem. 
    
    What I picked up (well ... I'm very sensitive to the nuances that the
    BBC use for some of their reporting) was the fact that the BBC kept
    emphasizing that it was all being run by the Israeli military. Nearly
    every sentance kept using the word military. It was like the words
    government and military were synonymous. 
    	Oh well perhaps I am little too sensitive :-(
    However, by the morning, that item had been pushed off the top news
    item. 
    
    What I do find very "interesting", is the latest international edition
    of Newsweek. 
    
    The cover and main news item is quite rightly about Rajiv Gandi's murder. 
    The only mention about the airlift is the following sentance in a page
    article about the flight of Mengistu. "Alarmed, Israel launced a huge
    airlift, evacuating roughly 15,000 Ethiopian Jews to Tel-Aviv".
    				Thats all
    
    This story was page 27, which means that it follows thought provoking
    stories :-) such as "From Russia - with Love?  Mail-order brides for lonely
    British bachelors" and "Banishing the "Devil Dogs" from Britain".
    
    My first reaction was that Newsweek missed a good story and especially
    a very colorful photo story, as probably they didn't have any reporter
    or news-team in Israel.
    
    However, the following page did have a story on Israel. "Israel's
    Yuppie Settlers" - a very rehashed (and IMHO a very one-sided) story,
    on the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
    
    So what were Newsweeks reporters doing over the weekend when other
    reporters were being taken to Ethiopia ???
    
    Shabbat Shalom,
    							.... Monty

    I heard, from a usually reliable source, that there were about 2,000
    who did not get out because they could not get thru to the airport.
    
    	-Barry-
    

.22>	I have never found that the BBC distorts news or "loads" the
.22>	reporting.

I have.  For example, the other day their world news headlines included a story
that Palestinian leaders in the territories have called for an end to the
killings of "collaborators" by Palestinians.  But there has been virtually no
coverage of the killings themselves during the 3+ years that they have taken
place.  Why is a call to end the killings more newsworthy than the killings
themselves?  I assume that this is because the former makes the Palestinians
look better than does the latter.



.22>   Is there any news service that you trust to be unbiased and
.22>   reasonably accurate?

I do not trust *any* news service to be unbiased; I always try to take likely
biases into account when reading/listening to/watching any news story.


Overall, the BBC certainly has the best broadcast news coverage that I have
ever come into contact with.  In fact, they may well be the best in the world.
But they still have serious shortcomings.

Some creative omissions from ABC News and The New York Times from last week.

I saw ABC's "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" coverage of President
Bush's trip to Babi-Yar on Wednesday (Thrusday?) night.  It featured a small 
clip of his speech there (Bush looked and sounded really choked up - I was 
impressed).  

In Jennings' blurb about the trip, there was one notable admission:  there
was no mention of the fact the most of the people killed there were JEWS.

Also in the NY Times the next day, there was a picture of Bush standing in 
front of the memorial, but scant mention of what went on at Babi-Yar.

I can't comment on the speech itself - all I've seen of it was the short clip 
on ABC.  Can anyone post a copy?

Louuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu