as for objective journalism---ha. This is the real world, not kindergarten. Tell me with a straight face that your journalists are objective, and I will laugh about how none of them are.
Your diverting onto yet another tangent is noted. If you don't believe reporters should be objective, then I believe you have lost perspective.
You can note that after you've noted your complete mishandling of the facts---and you trying to divert from that situation by bringing this objective misplacement Not much else to discuss there I suppose. I believe reporters SHOULD be objective. If you believe the majority ARE, I'm laughing. I wonder how you got your misplaced soundbyte, for example.
Reporters are human and humans have viewpoints. An obviously biased viewpoint is when a reporter calls one side of a conflict scum. Her being reassigned was the right call, and easy to make.
Any journalist worth her salt with report and investigate facts so the reader can best understand the whole issue. This was a tweet describing the situation on the front linein the great of the moment. If a group of people threatened to bomb your car unless you didn't write favorably about them, you might utter 'scum' or something similar and that wouldn't violate any journalism ethics or standards.
Where did call one side 'scum'? That tweet referred to a group of people on a hill who threatened to bomb her. It was not meant to be against all Israelis or even about Israelis. Just those specific people.
Admittedly this is why Twitter isn't optimal for this. Too easy to be misconstrued. Better to have left out the word scum or elaborate and say it was aimed specifically at the threatening people.
It's not even the reporters that are the worst part of this. Media outlets selectively choosing stories, and how narratives are played out for views---that is the main problem. Human emotions are secondary to the deliberate machinations that go into what stories are looked in, and which ones are reported. An example we have here is somebody who is so misinformed, that they've mistaken one journalist for another, and used some soundbyte to muddle the issue. They want to claim that the emotional response to being physically threatened is what keeps a reporter from being objective---not the fact that their editor has leeway over what gets reported or not, and the news cycle moves a certain way. I think that's quite laughable. Any fodder-y reason why Ayman Mohyeldin is not objective at this point if we unconfuse him with the media narrative surrounding Diana Magnay (a riotous mess of misinformation that substitutes triviality for real hard-hitting questions)?
I think calling people who threaten journalists scum has a kernel of truth. I can see why a journalist shouldn't be caught saying that (though I LOL at the notion that it's better if it's left hidden)---but with so many journalists laying their lives on the line for facts on the ground, I will objectively claim as somebody who supports the CPJ that you are morally, a terrible human being if you threaten journalists in order to alter their coverage. Something some might describe as "scum" in their more emotional moments.
The sinister behind the scenes plot over which stories are covered is ratings. (in the US) The media bias is something you just put up with. If it bleeds it leads. Do you know how many times I see BS reporting on guns? If a SKS is used in a crime every report will show a picture like this Instead of this accurate portrayal. The media cannot change peoples viewpoints.
I would argue that the former is true with the added caveat that coverage must fall within a range of proscribed, accepted views in order to ensure corporate funding. Similar to how political candidates are vetted by their access to money---and so truly innovative ideas never come to the fore. You vote, but you vote along a range. Similarly, you consume media---but you consume it along a safe range. Even "radical" views are just a slight tilt away from the accepted norm. It frames and shapes debates. You and others are coming into this whole thing with a set of beliefs. It has changed your viewpoint because it changes where you look: at Gaza, raging in flames, rather than at the political implications of a Hamas-Fatah unity government, and what roadblocks this is forcing Fatah into---and what is happening in the West Bank as a response of Gaza---and what longstanding implications killings here will have there on a PA trying to hold to non-violence. Instead, it boils down to Israel vs Palestine, two blobs contesting over a set of numbers---because that is what sells views easily, and that is what fits into an accepted narrative. I suppose thinking too hard is never sexy---and can even be dangerous.
Supposedly NBC is sending him back to Gaza -- no word on why they pulled him in the first place. I used to watch him on al-Jazeera.
I don't expect reporters to be objective -- I expect them to be professional. Gideon Levy, for example, is very left-wing, and has made a career of being critical of the establishment. He managed to write about the crowd cheering on the Gaza bombing without having a twitter meltdown. Or Amira Hass who is hated by many for being a commie (might well be true) but has made a career from the point of view that "Just as reporting about England should be from London and about France from Paris, so reporting about Palestine should be from Palestine". She's the only Israeli living full-time in the territories and while she's brtually critcal of the Israeli government, she's also extremely critical of Hamas and the PA, and is often the only source of a lot of extremely important news. Lots of people hate her, but way fewer refute the accuracy of her reporting. The newer generation, like Ayman Mohyeldin are native Arabic speakers from western countries (Moyeldin is Egyptian-American), but I've met Lebanese-Australians, Palestinian-Brits, and so on in journalism circles in Israel that work for the major wire services like Reuters and AP to cover major events in the whole region (uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, civil war in Syria, etc, besides Palistian-Israeli stories). I'm sure there is a bias, but I wouldn't expect young versions of Tom Brokow or Peter Jennings or Dan Rather to waltz in to these places and get the same access and perspective. These people still ultimately work for Western media, are western educated and understand who they are reporting for and who pays their salaries.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uzFgIhFKII8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Palestinians have always been their own worst enemy, if they had accepted the 2 state solution in 1937, odds are, none of this would be happening
Haha as if he's a scholar on the issue. There was no 'two state solution' in 1937. And Zionism has always been Palestinians' 'worst enemy' because Zionists have tried to ethnically cleanse that land for over a century now to some degree or another. Today to a very large degree most evidently.
The islamophobia in this forum is very concerning and reflects a jingoistic and hateful strain in our society. I wonder if Clutch knows about this hoard of bigots in D&D. Not a good look at all. Prejudice is prejudice regardless of the target. And when you call them out on it, they really do get scared. The changing world around them absolutely terrifies them and our words are painful reminders to these racists that their attitudes are wholly unacceptable and anathema to developed societies today.
