The MSM Plays Devil's Advocate

"Battleship Potemkin" by Peter Howson 1992, Collection Mr & Mrs G. Mundy

 

Cross posted @ NewsBusters

The BBC is now teaching us the wonders of its biased vocabulary when reporting on the news in the Middle East. From the BBC World News Editor Jon Williams, already under extreme fire in his comment section for this incoherent babble, is advocating the word 'captured' rather than 'kidnapped' in the case of Israeli Corporal Shalit, and any other soldier who falls into the hands of terrorists :

But deployments - who goes where - are only part of what we've been wrestling with. As ever in reporting the Middle East, language - and the choice of words - is incredibly important. Was the soldier kidnapped or captured, were the Hamas politicians arrested or detained?

Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry value judgements. Our job is to remain objective. By doing so, I hope we allow our audiences on radio and television to make their own assessment of the story. So we try to stick to the facts - civilians are "kidnapped", Cpl Shalit was "captured"; since troops don't usually make "arrests", the politicians were "detained". Doubtless some will disagree. But that's, in essence, the heart of the story - two competing narratives.

Just for the record, Hamas denies recognising Israel: "We do not recognize Israel". Oh really?

Hamas - whose Charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state - rejected any suggestion the deal to end its damaging power struggle with rival Fatah could imply it now accepts Israel's existence.

WaPo doesn't tell you anything about the denial but spins it the usual way: "The violence overshadowed an agreement earlier in the day by leaders of Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that controls the Palestinian government, on a unified political agenda advocated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to ease the economic sanctions against the government." AP doesn't mention Hamas' renewed pledge to stick to its genocidal goals, but takes aim at, oh well, who knew... 'Israelis bomb camp, cut power and water'.

BBC surprises; well not quite. 'Hamas resists Israel recognition' is their title; resist says it all, doesn't it. It's subtle. Let's see, resist implies: Hamas 'withstands' the pressure to abandon its genocidal goals; it implies, 'struggle against' Israel's draconian demands; Hamas 'stands up against' the schoolyard bully... NYT calls "such an accord [...] a significant change" and goes to some lengths to diffuse the denial... but makes sure you are left with the impression that Israel rejects this hailed accord unjustly and, consistent with doctrine, arrogantly...

I wonder what they will do with this little bombshell today? More on this in my next post today 'Total War'

Comments

[Miss Carnivorous]

You are right Michael, the MSM here in the US showed a wedding in Gaza today and a funeral of a Hamas fighter that tried to creep up to tanks and take out the Israeli soldiers in that tank but was killed before he could succeed. His father said that he was happy his son died fighting the Israelis and then they showed mourners, who likely didn't even know this dead guy, but they all sobbed and carried on. These stories are meant to show how badly the Palestinians are suffering. Boo hoo. The MSM is spiraling into the toilet and there is nothing we can do about it.

[Michael van der Galien]

I agree completely. The BBC has taken sides. Not just the BBC though, the Dutch media are aggrevating... unbelievable. They constantly emphasize the 'hard time' the Palestinians will go through due to Israel's attack, while neglecting to strongly point out that dozens of rockets are fired at Israel every single day.
Just like the terrorists in Iraq. How do they call them? freedom fighters or resistance. Resistance? They're terrorists.

Funny enough the BBC also said they refuse to use the word terrorist.
That's right: using it would be 'biased' according to them. Well, I guess that one could argue that reporting the facts, indeed, is biased in the way that it convicts the Palestinians and makes one supportive of Israel.

[Miss Carnivorous]

Yes, the MSM termed the initial attack on the Israeli soldiers, an "audacious attack." The MSM thought the attack was just spiffy, until the Israelis got their usual revenge. Then the MSM got their panties in a twist as their little pets in Gaza began to pay dearly for the audaciousness of the attackers. I spend a lot of time yelling at the television and the newspaper as I read the incredibly loaded language that the MSM uses to describe the war on terror and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If the BBC is claiming to use language that does not carry "value judgments," they are full of it! They have clearly taken sides, long ago.