What's interesting in this report is that, with all its painstaking efforts to be balanced, it has a bias so deep that it's practically undetectable. But it's there.
Nowhere in the report was it suggested that "Israel's actions" may not deserve condemnation. Criticism, of course, but not necessarily condemnation. Also, no mention is made of the role of Hamas.
I raised an eyebrow when the reporter gently suggested to the Jewish spokesmen that critics have said that the Jewish community has not condemned Israel's actions strongly enough, and that this has had "an effect on the culture." The spokesman gave a milque-toast answer about how there should be dialogue instead of violence. He merely glanced at the real issue, however, which is: Why should the Jews of Britain condemn actions by Israel (which may not deserve it) as a price for their safety in Britain?
The reporter used the word "anti-Semitic" instead of "anti-Zionist," but she constantly hammered away at the theme that the attacks were due to Israel's actions.
She provided some compelling evidence, but it might have been worth noting that attacks have continued in between events like the Intifada and the 2006 war. They may have spiked at those times, but it's worth asking what the levels of attacks have normally been, and whether it's only Israel's actions that are causing them. And the reporter might have noted that Jews in Britain have suffered more attacks than Muslims.
The bias was not on the surface. Instead, it was deep down, on some subliminal level. And that can be the most insidious kind of bias.
1 comment:
What's interesting in this report is that, with all its painstaking efforts to be balanced, it has a bias so deep that it's practically undetectable. But it's there.
Nowhere in the report was it suggested that "Israel's actions" may not deserve condemnation. Criticism, of course, but not necessarily condemnation. Also, no mention is made of the role of Hamas.
I raised an eyebrow when the reporter gently suggested to the Jewish spokesmen that critics have said that the Jewish community has not condemned Israel's actions strongly enough, and that this has had "an effect on the culture." The spokesman gave a milque-toast answer about how there should be dialogue instead of violence. He merely glanced at the real issue, however, which is: Why should the Jews of Britain condemn actions by Israel (which may not deserve it) as a price for their safety in Britain?
The reporter used the word "anti-Semitic" instead of "anti-Zionist," but she constantly hammered away at the theme that the attacks were due to Israel's actions.
She provided some compelling evidence, but it might have been worth noting that attacks have continued in between events like the Intifada and the 2006 war. They may have spiked at those times, but it's worth asking what the levels of attacks have normally been, and whether it's only Israel's actions that are causing them. And the reporter might have noted that Jews in Britain have suffered more attacks than Muslims.
The bias was not on the surface. Instead, it was deep down, on some subliminal level. And that can be the most insidious kind of bias.
Post a Comment