> You mean like this? <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm> "It now has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament and has built broad support by providing social services and health care. It also has an influential TV station, al-Manar."Is this the only passage in that text that you think is biased? (i thought you were objecting on grounds of omission rather than inclusion) It can be broken down in to 4 statements, 1] Hezbollah has managed to become an important presence in the Lebanese Parliament
They just left out - by killing opposition leaders and threatening others.
2] It has gained support for this power by providing [unnamed] social services
They left out - by conterfeiting US currency and receiving funding from Iran.
3] It has gained support for this power by providing health care [to an unnamed population]
Ditto. And ask those southern Lebanese how they feel about those health services now. Hezbollah built ammo dumps under schools and hospitals. Did the BBC tell you that?
They left out - a virulently anti-semitic terrorist propaganda outlet that spews so much hatred that they've been banned from every Eurpopean country.4] It has a tv station, which is influential [it is not stated if this is a cause or an effect]
Are any of these statements incorrect?
They are literally true and truly false. They portray Hezbollah as some humanitarian outfit that just wants to help people, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's like aaying, "Hitler was a strong leader who brought stability to Germany and helped them rebuild after WWI."
Literally true and completely misleading.
Do these statements imply things that are incorrect?
Obviously they do.
You walk down the street and see a guy brandishing a gun. He shoots someone dead right in front of you. When the media reports the story they say, "He came from a broken home and was very troubled and no one actually saw him shoot anyone." because, when they questioned you, you said, "I didn't see anything", and they took your word for it.please, if these statements are incorrect, provide me some further information that could conclude that the misreporting is due to personal (on behalf of the reporter), government enforced or other bias, please also state _your_ reason as to why you think there is a bias.
Is the story true? Is it also truth?
I think you need to read the whole article to put these points into context. I see no personal bias in these statements. (although I cannot vouch for their correctness)
I'm not surprised.
History with what issue? Hezbollah? I'm well aware that they've been firing artillery into Israel for years, completely unprovoked. I'm aware that they have manipulated the media (both photographers and journalists) and the media refuses to admit they're being manipulated. I'm aware that photos of the war were altered, using Photoshop, and Reuters was forced to remove the photos and fire the photographer because bloggers, not the media, exposed the deception.do you have a history with this issue? it seems that you _might_ be confusing bad journalism with bias because something is clouding your judgement.
Is that what you mean?
I see your point but without sources to back up your claims they are little more than speculation. How do I know that you are not part of a more effective, Israeli propaganda machine.
You don't. Do your own research.
Please supply some substance to your outlandish statements.
Google "fake" "ambulance" "rocket" and "Lebanon". Or just read this: <http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/> Paul Schmehl (pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Attachment:
p7sNLYOP2nxNY.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/