When a victim is a murderer.

[Art]

Yomar, this is mostly for you and your unbiased BBC loving self. But, I found this amusing as a lead to their article about today's murders in Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3040827.stm

A suicide blast has killed at least three people in a shopping mall in the northern Israeli town of Afula.

At least 48 people were wounded in the blast - the second suicide attack against Israelis on Monday and the fifth in three days.

The bomber - a 19-year-old female student from the West Bank - was among the victims.

Now, is it unbiased to say the person who blew themselves up is a "victim" of the action, or is it unbiased to have said the terrorist, bomber, murderer, killer, etc., was among those killed? Simple points that stand out when looking for unbiased coverage.

[Larry Brown #43]

That is pretty ironic. At least the article didn't refer to her as a "freedom fighter." :puke:

I always find it interesting that the Palestinians blame Sharon and the Jews for all their problems when Arafat himself chooses to direct the financial aid sent to help his people to his wife's overseas bank accounts.

[luckydevil]

Another story on BBC

http://www.epnworld-reporter.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/473/BBC_'Bias'_Row:_Editor_Steps_Down.html

Conflict of interest?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1552281.stm

Palestinians in Britain are trying to have retired Israeli general Shaul Mofaz arrested for war crimes. Amazingly, even after it’s been disproved by a UN report and an Amnesty International report and the Palestinians themselves (who now refer to it as “a victory”), the BBC uncritically repeats the Jenin “massacre” Big Lie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/2373191.stm

[Yomar]

I agree it would have been more appropriate not to refer to the bomber as being among the victims but rather as among those killed, but this is not an eggregious error or even an incorrect use of the word.

[Yomar]

I don't know luckydevi, I don't think referring to Jenin as controversial means they are "uncritically repeating the Jenin 'massacre' Big Lie".

[Art]

Good faithful Yomar .

That's how bias works my friend. It needs people to defend it. It needs to be using words that, in fact, are not used correctly, and yet, find people willing to say it's appropriate. Without a tie in to the others who died, you're right, this would be a word appropriately used.

By using the plural, "victims", however, the word ceased being capable of fitting the murderer here because the same word can't mean two different things, and the defined meaning of "victim" here, as it was plural, was "One who is harmed or killed by another."

This does not fit the terrorist in this case. But, you will defend the use. You will go so far as to say that definition three or four fits the killer, while one fits the rest. And you'll never get to see the incredible poor taste and bias shown, because you won't allow yourself to.

[Yomar]

oh spare me... yeah because they said the bomber was among the victims instead of among the dead all of a sudden I am going to think the bombing was just. I said it before and I'll say it again it was not appropriate, but I don't find it egregious amd there is no reason for me to believe it was part of a greater conspiracy to ellicit sympathy for palestinians. The entire situation over there is tragic enough.

[Art]

Yomar,

You clearly don't follow the BBC coverage of the situation in Israel. They sympathize greatly with the terrorists. One of their cameramen was killed, according to their own report, from behind, likely from a Palestinian, and the whole article was about how horrible Israel was and how there needed to be an investigation into how it could possibly have happened.

The BBC has adopted the Palestinian cause. Much the same as CNN had for years. Ignoring Israeli victims. Calling the killers victims. This is all part of coloring the news. It's what bias is. It's certainly not unbiased or even a mistake. When Fox calls the terrorists murder bombers, it's not a mistake. It's bias as well. But, I don't pretend it's not. Only one of us seems to be in denial about the BBC. And it's not me .

[Yomar]

Art, I have followed their coverage, and I don't have a problem with it. I think you are paranoid and see bias everywhere, you think I am naive and fail to recognize it when it is evident. I have seen a number of articles posted now and only two have really made me question whether there actually was bias, this article and the article luckydevi posted about the Cardinal where the BBC admitted as much. They are note worthy, but not enough to make me believe the BBC is playing favorites. The fact that I found the majority of the complaints about the articles posted to be real reaches has had a much greater impact on me than this turn of a phrase.

[Art]

Yomar,

As I said, the BBC bias FOR the Palestinian cause is legend. It's got little to do with paranoia on my part. I know every news source is biased and I'm not paranoid about it. I recognize that people have points of view and they come out in news reports depending on the editorial slant of a particular organization. You, however, are in denial to think this isn't out there everywhere in the media.

You don't want to see the bias in their coverage on Israel, so you won't. You don't want to see the anti-American bias in the reporting on the Lynch story, so you won't, despite the outrageous stupidity of that report and how unchecked the information was. You don't want to see the bias that's displayed by blaming anyone but Saddam for the plight of the people of Iraq, so you won't. They aren't reaches. They are all examples of the BBC specificially taking a side in each report.

Unquestioned examples of the BBC picking a side to advocate in a straight news report. That's what bias is. You don't have to see it. But, that makes you blind. .

[Blade]

http://www.bbcwatch.com./current2.html

Mr. Asserson has compiled a second report, full of every source he used to assemble his analysis. Its a very looooong read, but it makes MANY points about the selectivity of facts reported by the BBC regarding Israel, Jews, and the Middle East conflict.

Yomar, I find it incredible that you can be so lucid on so many issues and, yet completely blind to the fact that EVERY news outlet has its own biases on how to spin the facts. Its an unfortunate fact of life... if you TRULY want something close to the facts, you must read multiple media sources on a story. Read the Jerusalem Post's version of a terrorist bombing, and then read the BBC's... you'll find a significantly different spin by each.

If you dont have the time or inclination to do so (which most of us dont), then at least acknowedge that the information you obtain from the various media (even those who claim to be 'unbiased') is ALWAYS biased, and see it for what it is.

[Glenn X]

Art & Blade,

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[JimboDaMan]

I'm not going to defend BBC, because 1) I don't follow them and 2) if they're biased then I don't wish to defend them.

The use of "victim" puts something of an unwarranted spin on the report, but part of the attack on Yomar is also unwarranted. I have no dictionary that defines "victim" as Art has done, there is no implication of a human agent in the word. Hence you have murder victims, but you also have victims of earthquakes, and cancer, and indeed explosions. So Yomar is right, the word is grammatically correct and not a logical impossibility. In fact, it is precisely this disassociation of the terrorist's death from his action to cause it that makes the usage distasteful.

[Art]

Jimbo,

I assume you're joking when you say you don't have any dictionary that defines victim as "One who is harmed or killed by another." The American Heritage dictionary is not really obscure to you is it? I realize Webster's has a mildly different take where they use force agent, but, that doesn't mean it would have been all that difficult for you to track down the word's definition. There are other definitions below that primary as well. But, you can't pluralize the word, make it "victims" and then use two different definitions to define the word. In fact, it is incorrect to have phrased it the way the BBC did because the people who died as a result of the terrorist were victims who were harmed or killed by another. The terrorist herself was a victim in that definition four fits her, "A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking."

But, since the author used the plural, the same meaning must fit all of the people and you go in order of primary to lesser to define it when using the language. Electing to call the terrorist a victim, along with the people she killed, is precisely the sort of bias present in most of the BBC's reporting.

[JimboDaMan]

Art, you're a trip.

Like I said, I find the word usage distasteful by any of the listed definitions. It puts a deliberate spin on the situation that seems to remove responsibility for the sin.

But you feel required to show its not only inappropriate but wrong, and therefore Yomar is also wrong. You find a specific dictionary, and of the listed definitions you find one that can be used to make the statement incorrect. You can't argue there are no definitions that would allow this usage because in fact most will. But that tenth one would make it wrong, so you seize on that one and decide anyone using one of the other nine definitions must be joking. Or defending terrorists. Or liberal. Or something.

You, sir, are a trip.

[Blade]

Below is a commentary from the Jerusalem Post on media bias, and the 'truth' being reported. I found it a very interesting insight into the mind of many Israelis, and into the concept of bias in the media in general.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1052967590329

Column One: Just the facts, By Caroline B. Glick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May. 15, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have been in Israel for two years and have never spoken to someone with views like yours." So exclaimed a senior Western diplomat at the end of a pleasant lunch meeting with me on Wednesday afternoon.

Surprised, I responded, "That's strange. If the results of the last election and recent polling data are any indication of national sentiment, it would seem that many of my views are shared by the majority of Israelis."

Thinking about the conversation later in the day, it occurred to me that the diplomat's surprise upon hearing me explain my views about the road map, about Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), about the need to fight Palestinian terrorism, not reward it was indicative of a larger phenomenon.

Quite simply, it would appear that with respect to this region, there is an institutional unwillingness on the part of Western governments and international media organizations to process information that contradicts their ideological preferences. Because of this, missions have been compromised and bad policies have been adopted.

Let's take an example from afar. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons have disappeared. Also missing is Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

Here lies a troubling operational failure. It represents a significant threat to US national security and indeed to global security. Undoubtedly, the failure is due to the difficulty of obtaining good intelligence in a society as closed as Iraq was under Saddam.

Still, it has been reported that the US failed for years to accept vital intelligence reports from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), because CIA and State Department officials did not share the political aspirations of INC president Ahmed Chalabi.

For instance, the INC told the CIA in 1993 that a planned coup of Iraqi generals against Saddam Hussein had been exposed to the Iraqi leader. George Tenet, who was then the CIA's point man for the coup, rejected the information and even questioned Chalabi's intentions in reporting it.

When in fact the coup attempt was foiled, Iraqi intelligence officers jeered the CIA by announcing the coup's failure on a CIA radio held by one of the plotters.

There is no way of knowing whether the INC, if properly used by US intelligence gathering organizations, could have aided in preventing Saddam's escape and the disappearance of his WMD arsenal. What is clear is that it was a mistake for the US not to consider factual information simply because of political differences with its source particularly in light of the difficulty of operating in a closed society like Iraq.

In Israel, of course, it would seem that gathering information about what is going on is a simple task. Israelis can speak to anyone without fear. In fact, it would seem that the biggest problem for foreigners is not getting Israelis to speak to them, but getting Israelis to leave them alone.

The same is not true in the Palestinian Authority.

Over the years, credible Palestinian journalists have been arrested and held in jail for months for writing articles critical of the PA. Palestinian civilians suspected of maintaining ties with Israelis are murdered for collaborating.

In a disturbing op-ed in The New York Times last month, Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, described in vivid detail how for more than a decade CNN did not report the truth about Saddam Hussein's brutality, because the network feared that doing so would endanger the lives of CNN's Iraqi employees.

In Jordan's words, "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard awful things that could not be reported, because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff."

In the PA, there have been countless incidents of harassment of foreign reporters. In the summer of 2001, Newsweek's Joshua Hammer was abducted by Fatah gunmen in Rafah and only released after Newsweek agreed to report their statement.

Italy's state television network RAI had to recall its correspondent Riccardo Cristiano after he apologized to the PA for his competitor's photographing of the lynching of two IDF reservists in Ramallah on October 13, 2000. Several photographers were beaten that day by Palestinians for filming the scene and their cameras and films were destroyed.

In 1998, Yasser Arafat's adviser, Bassam Abu Sharif, told CBS news that the PA would no longer allow it unimpeded access to PA officials and territory, because 60 Minutes had run a segment exposing rampant PA corruption and human rights abuses.

As we have seen from whitewashed reports of PA involvement in terrorist attacks against Israel in the foreign press, these intimidation tactics have been largely successful.

But it is not of course simply a matter of intimidation. Reporting on the brutality of the PA or Saddam's Iraq for that matter is inconvenient for news organizations as well as for diplomats that want the PA to succeed or, until recently, wanted to avert the violent overthrow of Saddam's regime. Simply stated, why would a reporter whose news organization effectively colludes with the PLO wish to report the PA's brutality and involvement in terrorism?

Why would a diplomat, whose government refuses to acknowledge that Israel is being victimized by a PA-backed terrorist war against its civilians, wish to speak to anyone who demands that this reality be acknowledged and policies updated to reflect this state of affairs?

As David Shipler wrote earlier this month in The New York Times, "An illuminating fact about the Middle East was confirmed last week: It's easy to think up a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Israelis or Palestinians around to write the text."

The truth that Shipler points to in this article is precisely the point that came to my mind after speaking with the senior Western diplomat. He told me during the meal that his colleagues had applauded his "bravery" in requesting a meeting with me. I spoke only for myself when I met with him and yet, if he has never heard another Israeli who said things like what I told him, not a bit of which struck me as particularly novel, it means that his government, like the members of the Quartet, believes it is possible to force policies on the Israeli government without bearing in mind the concerns of Israeli citizens.

Proponents of the INC argue that if the US had embraced the organization rather than castigating it, INC forces could have destroyed Saddam's regime without the US Army having to fire a shot. Even if this is not true, there is no doubt that better use of the INC in the period leading up to the US-led invasion could have provided the US with a better intelligence picture than it had when its forces were irrevocably committed to battle.

If CNN and other news organizations had not been willing to trade the truth for access to Iraqi officials, perhaps many of those who rallied outside the White House in opposition to the war would have been outside the White House protesting that the US government was standing by as Saddam tortured his own people.

Then, too, if the foreign diplomatic corps and the international media were willing to trade their access to the PA for accurate reporting on the PA's rampant corruption, human-rights abuses, and institutionalized incitement to murder Jews, the Quartet might never have put together a diplomatic plan that has no chance of success.

The diplomat I met with on Wednesday is an excellent agent of his government. Not only did he seek out an outspoken critic of Oslo like myself, he confided in me that he had even met with Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria. "Even though I disagreed with everything they said, I didn't think that they were bad people," he told me. "I even reported back home that they were not demons."

And a good thing he told them that. Otherwise, perhaps Israel would now face a demand to not only cease building in towns in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. We might also have to contend with a demand to hire an exorcist. Reality trickles slowly into Middle East policies. But one thing is certain. It never goes away just because it is ignored.

[Art]

Jimbo,

That the use of the word is wrong because the killer and the killer's victims can't all be lumped together as "victims" of the same action. But, where Yomar is incorrect is in now recognizing the obvious bias the word selection demonstrates. You recognize it, so, I'm not worried about your ability to discern.

But, in fact, I can argue that there are no definitions of "victim" that would allow the murderer and the murderers prey to be lumped together. Had the BBC made singular the statement, such as, "The bomber was a victim of the bomb," then the statement would be correctly used. But by making it plural, the same definition must apply to all of those impacted and that's where the use of the word falls flat. You can't apply two meanings to the same word. Only one works.

In language, when defining word use, you simply scroll down the list of what a word means until the first definition applies adequately to the usage. In this case, the first definition applies to the people the terrorist killed. Therefore all "victims" must fit the same defined usage. You can't have definition one and defintion four apply to the same word in the same sentence so you can manipulate it to fit two different "victims".

But, that shouldn't be an English lesson you find necessary .

[Yomar]

I agree that one should read multiple takes on the news, I know that pure objectivity is an unrealistic expectation of any reporting where even the structure of how the news is presented could be a reflection of an editor's personal bias or whatever. But I do read the news and in my opinion, based on my experience, the BBC does make a serious attempt to be as dispassionate and factual as any major outlet I've seen. Maybe I'm nuts, who knows.

Art, of course I don't actually think you are paranoid, truth be told I think you are trying to amuse yourself and little more, still just in the other thread you said you never watched PBS yet proceeded to say that yes you believe their news program is biased based on certain presuppostitions you have about PBS. I highly recommend the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, but if you don't even approach this sort of thing with an open mind then why bother?

[Blade]

Originally posted by Yomar

...based on my experience, the BBC does make a serious attempt to be as dispassionate and factual as any major outlet I've seen. Maybe I'm nuts, who knows.

Yomar,

I dont think you're nuts... but regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it IS NUTS to state that the BBC is anything other than pro-Palestinian in its coverage. I know the article from bbcwatch.com is rather long, but it cites alot of reasons to make such a statement.

[Art]

Yomar,

I do have an open mind. I know there will be bias on any news program I watch. From the stories they cover to the words they decide to use. It would be close minded for me to try watching PBS thinking it would be anything different than anything else humans are involved in. If I were to be surprised to find I was wrong, that would be great. But, the impossibility of finding people who are actually not agenda-mongering in the news is something I can't suspend because they may TRY not to be obviously biased. Sometimes trying not to be biased IS the bias. Like the BBC which can't quite figure out if the $1 billion taken by Saddam and his boys before the war is stolen money or simply personal assets of the Hussein's.

I happen to like Fox because it's AMUSING to me to watch it present stories you simply won't see on other channels. Or, the take they have on similar stories. CNN ran a story on some self-styled border guards in Texas. The slant was that they were bigots and racists who didn't want foreigners in the country. Fox ran a feature on the same group. The slant was that the U.S. wasn't doing enough to patrol the borders. Both were biased coverage. You only see the Fox bias though in one place. The other bias is everywhere else.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

Jimbo,

I assume you're joking when you say you don't have any dictionary that defines victim as "One who is harmed or killed by another." The American Heritage dictionary is not really obscure to you is it?

Art, with all due respect, you're undertaking linguistic analysis equipped with the equivalent of a plastic microscope from Toys R Us.

That's what the American Heritage Dictionary is. Webster's is better, but if you're serious about this dispute, you'd:

• Use the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
  
• Realize you were wrong
  

Now, I understand that you come by your layman's sense of "victim" honestly, in that you are right that the word "victim" is normally applied today, especially in America, to those killed by other people/agents. However, this modern sense (especially when applied to random causes, such as cancer) is straying far from the original and very powerful definition of victim.

The BBC, not surprisingly, is using "victim" in its pure and original definition. From the OED, that's "A living creature killed and offered as a sacrifice to some deity or supernatural power."

Lest you attempt to exclude self-sacrifice from this definition, understand that the second OED definition derives from the early practice of using "victim" for self-sacrifice: "Applied to Christ as an offering for mankind."

It's best for Americans not to argue with the British over use of the English language. It's just, well ... ignorant.

[Art]

ASF,

While I'm always fascinated to hear from you, two questions pop to mind.

First, when Jimbo questioned what dictionary provided the definition I provided, should I not have provided that dictionary?

Second, since the BBC is using "victim" in the purest sense, can you tell me to what diety or supernatural power the bomber and the innocent people the bomber killed were offered to? In fact, the BBC wasn't using that meaning at all. But, you're right, it is one of the possibilities.

I would recommend in the future when you decide to offer what definition a person may have been using, you at least find one that actually fits the word's usage first. But, take that for what it's worth .

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Art

First, when Jimbo questioned what dictionary provided the definition I provided, should I not have provided that dictionary?

Fair enough.

Second, since the BBC is using "victim" in the purest sense, can you tell me to what diety or supernatural power the bomber and the innocent people the bomber killed were offered to?

In no way do I condone the bomber's actions. However, it seems clear that Islamic suicide bombers view their actions as holy missions of self-sacrifice in the name of Allah. Many Muslims, of course, believe this is a misreading of the Koran -- the mainstream Muslim position is that such bombings are extremist interpretations of their own religion.

[Burgold]

The bomber - a 19-year-old female student from the West Bank - was among the victims.

When I first read the line my action was very similar to Art's. It hasn't shifted too much, but there is a division between the bomber and the victims. It doesn't unify them really. On the other hand, it's a strange sentence in that it really doesn't need to be included. If she's a homocide bomber than of course her remains will be mixed with those she victimized. I guess it's useful information that she died also, but when you name them suicide (I prefer homocide) bombers then that information is already understood. The question in my mind is... is this a case of bias or a case of poor English. I think it hedges towards a bit of both, but I am not sure if it's simply not a case of the writer felt they had to describe who the bomber was and then simply added a bit then intentional bias.

[Burgold]

In no way do I condone the bomber's actions. However, it seems clear that Islamic suicide bombers view their actions as holy missions of self-sacrifice in the name of Allah. Many Muslims, of course, believe this is a misreading of the Koran -- the mainstream Muslim position is that such bombings are extremist interpretations of their own religion.

ASF,

How can you say in no way do you condone and then precede to defend it? If you can defend it aren't you condoning it?