Posts Tagged ‘bias’
(JNi.media) New Wave Research, an Israeli member of Nielsen International, a worldwide leader in market research, information, and data analysis, was hired by Israeli financial magazine Globes to determine what Israeli information consumers think about their communications media.
The question posed to the 500 adult Israeli Jews was: In your opinion, is the manner in which Israeli media reports on different security events in the last few weeks right-biased, left biased, or unbiased? The answers were:
Not biased at all……………..33%
Globes’ Li-or Averbach tweeted the results, and one of the insights he received was that while the results may or may not represent the reality of media reports in Israel, they do represent with eerie accuracy the political division between right and left in Israel. About 50% of adult Jews have voted for right-wing parties, and they also typically believe the media are left-biased. About 33% of the Jewish vote went to center parties — whose voters are not as irked by the notion of media biases. And, finally, about 17% of Israeli Jews are dyed in the wool leftists — feeling that they’re surrounded by right-leaning media.JNi.Media
The slings and arrows of Israeli election campaigning is so much more interesting than that which takes place in the United States. People really roll their sleeves up and get right down into it, you know?
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went straight to social media on Monday to blast the owner of Hebrew-language newspaper Yediot Acharonot and its online news service, Ynet over claims of biased coverage. His own rebuttal was also in Hebrew, translated into English courtesy of the Independent Media Review and Analysis watchdog group (IMRA).
“It’s time to put it on the table: the main factor behind the wave of calumny against me and my wife is Noni Mozes, the publisher of “Yediot Acharonot” and the website Ynet,” the prime minister wrote on his Facebook page. A similar charge also was posted to the prime minister’s page on Twitter.
“There’s no limit to what he is willing to do to bring down the Likud government under my leadership, to close the Yisrael Hayom newspaper and regain the destructive domination that Yediot Acharonot had on print news.”
Netanyahu accused the news outlet of attacking him and his wife Sarah “almost every hour, and sometimes every half hour on the Ynet website” with “ridiculous, false and biased smears.”
The prime minister acknowledged that not all the criticism aimed at his office came from Mozes. “There are many elements in the media who faithfully do their jobs,” he wrote. “They criticize the government on a substantive and sharp basis.
“But this is something else entirely: a businessman who has a strong presence in various types of media engaging in a systematic smear campaign against an incumbent prime minister to replace the ruling Israeli government to serve a clear business interest and personal financial gain.”
Netanyahu added that his own accusations were “just the tip of the iceberg” and vowed to “expand on this in the future.”
Stay tuned…Hana Levi Julian
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Monday named a panel of three in Geneva to determine whether human rights violations were committed in the conflict between Israel and Arab terrorists this summer.
The investigation by the UN Human Rights Council is to be led by a known critic of Israel, international Canadian legist William Schabas.
In the past, Schabas called for the indictment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former President Shimon Peres before the International Criminal Court at The Hague. He accused Israel of having committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 and January 2009, and praised the author of the infamous UNHRC Goldstone Report – former South African Judge Richard Goldstone, who himself had second thoughts about the conclusions his panel reached after the report was submitted.
Also participating in the three-member panel will be Doudou diene of Senegal, a past UN special investigator on racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia; and British-Lebanese attorney Amal Alamuddin, engaged to marry Hollywood actor George Clooney.
The three-member panel tasked with the probe is specifically assigned to find those responsible for “violations of international humanitarian law” in Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and Gaza.
Basically, a witch hunt.
The Foreign Ministry announced Israel does not plan to cooperate with the investigation, which it compared to a ‘kangaroo court.’
“When the decision about the creation of the committee was announced on July 23, the prime minister and foreign ministry announced the the human rights council had long ago become the Terrorists’ Rights Council, a kangaroo court in which the results of its ‘investigations’ are predetermined,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
“If we need more evidence of this, the appointment of the chairman of the committee, whose opinions and positions on Israel are known to all, proves beyond any doubt that Israel cannot expect justice from this body, and that the committee’s report is already written. What has just been determined is who will sign it.”Hana Levi Julian
Originally published at Rubin Reports.
If you want to understand how the far left controls campuses, consider this story.
There is no university more supportive of the Arab nationalist (historically), Islamist, and anti-Israel line in the United States than Georgetown’s programs on Middle East studies. Every conference it holds on the Middle East is ridiculously one-sided. The university has received millions of dollars in funds from Arab states, and it houses the most important center in the United States that has advocated support for a pro-Islamist policy.
One day in 1975, not long before he died, the great Professor Carroll Quigley walked up to me when I was sitting in the Georgetown University library. Everyone was in awe of this brilliant lecturer (remind me to write him a tribute explaining why he was so great).
[In fact the classroom where Carroll Quigley taught his main class was Gaston Hall, where decades latest Obama demanded to cover up the cross before he spoke there! What would this pious Catholic have said!]
I thought he might have remembered me from my extended explanation of why I was late for class one day because I had rescued a sparrow and taken it to a veterinarian (true). I vividly recall that detail, because I couldn’t think otherwise why he would want to talk to such a lowly person.
“May I sit down?” he asked.
“Of course!” I said, stopping myself from adding that it was an honor. Without any small talk, he launched into a subject that clearly weighed on his conscience. “There are many who don’t like your people.”
What was he talking about? I thought, is he talking about Jews?
He explained that he had just come from a meeting where it was made clear that the university had a problem. They were getting Arab money, but on the secret condition that it was for teaching about the Middle East but none of it could be used to teach about Israel. How was this problem to be solved?
Simple. They would call the institution to be created the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. It was explicitly expressed that this was how the problem would be dealt with. Quigley was disgusted. Ever since then, I have referred to that institution as the Center for Contemporary Arab Money.
Georgetown was the place where the university accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi–who was, of course, very active in promoting anti-American terrorism–to establish an endowed chair in Middle East studies. When the president of the university backed down due to bad publicity, the professor who had been named to the post responded by calling the Jesuit university president a “Jesuit Zionist.”
This same professor–and I am not joking in saying that compared to today, he was a fine scholar and a comparatively decent man given what goes on now–was also a personal friend of Palestinian terrorist leader Nayif Hawatmeh and an outspoken Marxist.
To his credit, he told me in 1974 on a visit of mine to Lebanon, “One day we will be ashamed of all the terrorism [against Israel].” But I don’t think he ever spoke out publicly. At my Ph.D. oral exams, he said something like this as his question: “I don’t care whether you believe it or not, but give the Marxist analysis of development in the Middle East.” He did not ask me to critique it! As a Marxist, atheist though, the son of a Muslim imam, he did participate in the traditional glass of scotch after they passed me. And they did pass me, something I would never assume might happen today. These professors really did believe in scholarship and balance in the classroom.
Another professor (you can guess I was sure he was not on my board), however, was an example of the new generation of indoctrinators. One day, I was standing in the line in the campus post office shortly after I had clashed with him in class. The two girls I could overhear were talking about the disturbing incident in class. To my relief, they took my side. I guess that, too, wouldn’t happen today.
This teacher’s radicalism and knee-jerk hatred of Israel was so terrible that we used to joke about it. A right-wing Zionist in the class did an experiment. He wrote an exaggerated version of a Marxist, anti-Israel rant. It read like a satire. He got an “A” from this professor. In retrospect, however, we should have seen that the field was getting far worse.Barry Rubin
UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East peace process Robert Serry attempted to clarify Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s seemingly conflicting statements regarding anti-Israel bias at the world body, stating that Ban did not retract his original statement confirming the existence of that bias.
On Aug. 16, Ban told university students at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem, “Unfortunately, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias and sometimes even discrimination.”
But when later pressed by reporters in New York about his statements regarding UN discrimination against Israel, Ban answered, “No, I don’t think there is discrimination against Israel at the United Nations. The Israeli government in fact, you know, raised this issue that [there is] some bias against Israel.”
In an interview on Israel Radio on Sunday, however, Serry said that Ban meant what he originally said.
“I’ve been in touch with the Secretary-General’s office in New York, and I can assure you that what he said there in New York was not meant as a retraction,” Serry said on Israel Radio.
“[Ban] has said, unfortunately, because of the conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism, and suffered from lies and sometimes even discrimination,” Serry added. “This is what I know he has been saying here, and I know this is what he stands for.”
The American Jewish Committee (AJC) welcomed Serry’s clarification of Ban’s comments.
“We are pleased that Mr. Serry has reiterated the Secretary-General’s belief that Israel is not treated fairly, and does indeed suffer from ‘lies’ and ‘discrimination’ in the world body,” AJC Executive Director David Harris said in a statement.JNS News Service
Last July, I went to the President’s Conference in Jerusalem, invited as a blogger and treated with much respect. My political agenda is pretty obvious to anyone who takes the time to read about my writings. I am, if nothing else, intellectually honest in my feelings. I object when someone says I hate Arabs – I don’t. I don’t object when someone says that my political realities leave no room for the hope that peace is just around the corner. It isn’t.
When I was first invited to the conference – I was a bit surprised. Truthfully, I despise much of what Peres has done in his life and certainly, dislike many of the words that come out of his mouth. I think at age 90, he has finally found his niche and he’s an excellent president – if he would just stay out of politics. But he won’t, and I won’t, so he and I have a nice truce most of the time. He talks; I write. I was concerned that being invited meant I’d have to write his words, break this quiet truce we’ve had going for the last 20 years – I couldn’t agree to that.
But I was assured that I had complete freedom to be, to write…and the promise was most definitely delivered – I wrote what I wanted…I did. I blasted several of the speakers. I called them naive. I argued that some had no right to come here and draw lines on the map or lecture us about how we can do more. And the one who amazed me beyond all others, was the one who spoke in direct contradiction to most of what Shimon Peres believes. “Even if you give them Jerusalem,” Ayaan Hirsi-Ali said, “even if you give them Jerusalem, there will be no peace.”
So I went, I wrote, and felt that I had fulfilled two commitments – the first, to attend and write as much as I could to provide the noise and the bang any conference organizer wants associated with an event, and second to be true to myself. Obviously, the conference organizers agreed, because I was invited back again this year.
It truly is an amazing event – and this year, Professor Stephen Hawking was invited to attend and speak – and he agreed. And then, as would be expected, Palestinians started writing to him demanding that he boycott Israel and the conference and – amazingly enough, as would not be expected, this intelligent man, this icon of British intellectualism, caved in and agreed. He wrote the organizers that he has agreed to the boycott of Israel and will not be coming.
I have no problems with his boycott. I understand and respect his sentiment. I ask only one thing – that he be true to his convictions and boycott Israel entirely. Do not come here, do not speak here. In fact, if you want to be intellectually honest, don’t speak at all. You see, the device that you, Professor Hawking, use to communicate despite your crippled body, includes a computer with an Intel Core i7-based communication system, which runs on a chip designed in Israel. So you see, Hawking, every word you say bears testimony to your hypocrisy.
Please go ahead – truly boycott Israel – I can think of no easier way to silence your absurd position. You don’t want to come to Israel to thank those who enable you to sustain a higher quality of life – no problem, don’t come. This year’s President’s Conference has a rich list of speakers and unlike some others, I personally don’t think you’ll be missed.
But I do hope a man of your…um…intellectual honesty…will have the decency to truly fulfill the boycott you support. I wonder if maybe the scientists in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon have developed an alternative device…yeah, I didn’t think so either. In the meantime, there’s always pen and paper…
Visit A Soldier’s Mother.Paula R. Stern