the media legitimizing Palestinian terrorism?

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone else sick of the media trying to legitimize Palestinian terror? I'm not talking about Arab media specifically, but other Western media as well.

For example, in the Globe and Mail (Canadian news source), they had an article on the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shait, and they were saying how his release was through a deal to release 1027 Palestinian prisoners. Some of the prisoners were serving life sentences, for plotting attacks against Israeli civilians, and I didn't like how the article was really passive, saying that it is a "debate" of whether these people are heroes fighting for their country or mass murderers. I guess the author of the article was just trying to point out the reality of how not all Palestinians consider the terrorists to be terrorists but they consider them to be freedom fighters. But the fact that the article gives it attention seems to legitimize the acts of terrorism. Its funny how you never see an article talk about the views of Al-Qaeda and how they are trying to justify other attacks of terrorism such as 9/11, or the 7/7 London subway/bus bombings. I'm sure its because it will offend many viewers.

I have no problem with an article that addresses the issues of the Israeli occupation, or Palestinian viewpoints that their rights are not fully recognized, but it seems to cross the line when you portray acts of terrorism as "neutral acts" and nothing criminal in nature about it.

So you don't like neutrality from your news?

I bet you wouldn't see the same 'neurality' if it was an Israeli citizen who perpetrated terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians. So that's BS.

Oh in that case it just would not be covered.

If everything in the world had complete neutrality it would be anarchy, since people would do what they feel like doing and no one is going to stop them because doing so would be "not neutral" and telling someone what they are doing is "negative".

He wouldn't go to jail in the first place. According to the media, killing palestinians is A-OK.

I don't think everyone should be neutral but I would love a
news source run by sociopaths with a compulsive interest in telling the truth.
I love moral sentiment in my life but despise it in the news.

How are they not telling the truth? The truth is that in any country with a stable government, you would be sentenced to several years in jail at minimum if you randomly kill civilians in public.

The news media in the United States is decidedly pro-Israel across the board.

Maybe this would change if the Palestinians learned how to behave decently. Right now they are dedicated killers and death worshipers. They could change this any time they wanted. Apparently they do not want to.

As the late Abba Eban said of the Palestinians: The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

ruveyn

I did not say they were not telling the truth I said I do not require a Moral spin
on my information I like it raw. I do not see it as the duty of the news to educate me in morality.

I think you misunderstand what a sociopath is because "compulsively honest sociopath" is an oxymoron. "Pathlogical lying" and "Conning/manipulative" are two of twenty items on Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist – Revised, and the DSM-IV-TR includes, "Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure," as a diagnostic criterion of antisocial personality disorder. I will use psychopath hereon because I assume you're referring to a person with a congenital defect in the ability to empathize, feel remorse, and other social/moral sentiments along with a proclivity towards antisocial/sociopathic behaviors.

Psychopaths place no value on ideals like truth, fairness, justice, neutrality, objectivity, integrity, etc. A news organization run by psychopaths would churn out lies, propaganda, misinformation, and rank sensationalism. The only goals would be profit, control over public opinion, and the thrill of having successfully "put one over" the public. Profit and leverage over public opinion could come from pay-offs from politicians who want to buy a favorable story, pandering to humans' basest instincts as "news," presenting known falsehoods as the truth or everyday commonsense, etc. Such people shouldn't even be called journalists. Any resemblance between this hypothetical psychopathic news organization and Fox News or other Rubert Murdoch/News Corp. holdings is purely coincidental.

I am sorry, but I intended the tension in the phrase.
an Amoral truth-teller? would be better?

So you'd prefer an emotionless machine programmed to carefully attend to facts producing your news, I take it?

sho nuff I can use my own carefully crafted moral sense to decide what I feel about it.

I still like Pathologically truthful sociopath better. But I like to be wrong.

Because I am not an idiot I'll say that a Palestinian who attacks Israeli civilians in Israel is as much of a terrorist deserving of ire as anyone else who uses unwarranted agression against civilians.

They're also unislamic ironically, since attacking civilians is forbidden according to the Qur'an. I guess Osama bin Laden had wax in his ears when that sura was being recited.