No Media Bias, Huh?
Go and read the news article at uk.news.yahoo.com. It's from Agence France-Presse, an organization not entirely known for it's factful reporting.
The article starts off with:
This sounds terrible. Israeli soldiers opened fire on a Palestinian mother of five and shot her dead. With stuff like this going on how in the world can any intelligent person have any sympathy for the Israelis.
But a bit later, twelve paragraphs later, several sub-stories later, we finally discover that:
Ahhh, so unless we waded through 11 other paragraphs about different topics we would never have learned that the Israeli soldiers were acting in a defensive way, not an offensive way as was implied in the first paragraph.
And how does "mother of five", as was stated in the first paragraph, have any real relationship to the story? Certainly it was used to illicit sympathy.
And once we know the whole story do we find that the attacker's wounds were made not in a "kill" action, but rather the soldiers purposefully shot her in the lower part of her body in an attempt to only wound her.
You see, the Palestinian attacker, the "mother of five", the "married woman", was the "bad guy" here, not the soldier. Did you think that after reading only the first paragraph? Should this important-to-the-whole-story information be stated a bit earlier that the 13th paragraph, a place where most readers have already moved on to another story?
And two paragraphs later we learn that:
Yeah. "withdraws from all occupied Palestinian land". What the Palestinians mean, and what they have already publically said, is there will be no peace until Israel withdraws from the entirety of the middle east. And with blatently biased "news" articles like this, Agence France-Presse is trying their best to help the Palestinians achieve just that.
The father of modern terrorism, Yassar Arafat, was very clear that there would be no peace until Israel was pushed into the sea. This ideology lives in Hamas, the controlling influence in Palestinian schools. We see it in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, - in so much of the middle east. Radical Islam is a cancer on civilization - you will either destroy it or succumb to it.
The article starts off with:
Calm in Gaza as Israelis kill Palestinian
AFP Tuesday October 4, 07:54 PM
GAZA CITY (AFP) - Calm returned to the Gaza Strip after deadly internecine clashes and police protests over dire insecurity problems, as Israeli soldiers shot dead a Palestinian mother of five in the West Bank.
This sounds terrible. Israeli soldiers opened fire on a Palestinian mother of five and shot her dead. With stuff like this going on how in the world can any intelligent person have any sympathy for the Israelis.
But a bit later, twelve paragraphs later, several sub-stories later, we finally discover that:
Despite the calm in Gaza, Israeli soldiers Tuesday shot dead a Palestinian mother of five at a checkpoint in the northern West Bank after she stabbed a female soldier in the face.
Haifa Hindiya, a 36-year-old married woman, was killed after she slashed the female officer in the face with a knife near the town of Nablus.
"During an attempt to control the Palestinian ... thinking she might stab someone else, the force opened fire at the lower part of her body. The Palestinian woman was wounded," she said.
Palestinian medical sources said the mother died of her wounds as she was being treated. The soldier was lightly to moderately wounded and evacuated to an Israeli hospital, an army spokeswoman said.
Ahhh, so unless we waded through 11 other paragraphs about different topics we would never have learned that the Israeli soldiers were acting in a defensive way, not an offensive way as was implied in the first paragraph.
And how does "mother of five", as was stated in the first paragraph, have any real relationship to the story? Certainly it was used to illicit sympathy.
And once we know the whole story do we find that the attacker's wounds were made not in a "kill" action, but rather the soldiers purposefully shot her in the lower part of her body in an attempt to only wound her.
You see, the Palestinian attacker, the "mother of five", the "married woman", was the "bad guy" here, not the soldier. Did you think that after reading only the first paragraph? Should this important-to-the-whole-story information be stated a bit earlier that the 13th paragraph, a place where most readers have already moved on to another story?
And two paragraphs later we learn that:
Palestinian militants repeatedly use such attacks to justify their own campaign of violence, which they say will only end when Israel withdraws from all occupied Palestinian land, not just the Gaza Strip.
Yeah. "withdraws from all occupied Palestinian land". What the Palestinians mean, and what they have already publically said, is there will be no peace until Israel withdraws from the entirety of the middle east. And with blatently biased "news" articles like this, Agence France-Presse is trying their best to help the Palestinians achieve just that.
The father of modern terrorism, Yassar Arafat, was very clear that there would be no peace until Israel was pushed into the sea. This ideology lives in Hamas, the controlling influence in Palestinian schools. We see it in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, - in so much of the middle east. Radical Islam is a cancer on civilization - you will either destroy it or succumb to it.
posted by Anonymous @ 10/08/2005 01:16:00 AM
|
<< Home