Jump to content

Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

MIT study finds large evidence of pro-Israel bias in the NYT

http://web.mit.edu/hjackson/www/The_NYT_Distorts_the_Palestinian_Struggle.pdf -- Peleio Aquiles (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for delay -- it took me a while to download the file, and it wasn't compatible with the first PDF reader I tried. I don't really find the paper to be too impressive. In the very first sentence of the abstract, the phrase "bias against Palestine" has little meaning in the context in which it is used. And the overall basic approach is rather simplistic: 1) More Arabs died than Israelis died, so the Israelis are necessarily worse. 2) Therefore if the Israelis do not come out worse in the automated rhetorical tone analysis, then the source text being analyzed is ipso facto automatically biased. There are several possible logical gaps in this method of argumentation. I don't think we should use this paper to add a statement to any Wikipedia article saying "The New York Times is a biased newspaper" or similar. AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you read the report deeply. The authors conduct different types of analysis. One is to look at the use of use of biased words – specifically words denoting violence committed – and to measure how the NYT and other media used it in respect to the different sides.

The other half was to look at the linguistic constructs, specifically the use of the passive voice. Palestinians were referred to with the passive voice twice as often as were Israelis. The report then uses specific examples to show how the reporting is biased. Mcdruid (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The only valid objection to its use is that this is a preprint. Once it is accepted by the Journal of Palestine Studies, and details of the forthcoming issue where it will appear become available, then it will certainly be concluded. Studies going back to the late 1990s have invariably concluded that the NYTs is markedly biased on this topic, so the conclusion itself is not new. But the sheer scope of her analysis in covering language use in over 33.000 articles marks a qualitative leap.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Holly M. Jackson, 'The New York Times distorts the Palestinian Struggle: A Case Study of Anti-Palestinian Bias in American News Coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas,' Journal of Palestine Studies 2021/2022? (issue? volume? pages ?Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Now in this publication outlet: Holly M Jackson, [DOI: 10.1177/17506352231178148 The New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in US news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas] Media, War & Conflict 6 June 2023 Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

CAMERA EDUCATION INSTITUTE

While CAMERA states that its aim is: "Fighting Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias in Education", there is a danger that its' output could be considered as Pro-Israel Bias. Given this, might not CAMERA be highlighted as a one-sided lobby group? (Updated) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.136 (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a media organization, and its employees are not journalists. It's a watchdog and advocacy group, which is a rather different thing. AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestreporting

This article has 17 citations to Honestreporting, which is ridiculous overciting of a highly partisan activist organization. Zerotalk 03:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

working on it, same for CAMERA. nableezy - 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

garbage sources

I cleared out some of the unreliable sources that have bloated this article, more work needed. nableezy - 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, the Weekly Standard is reliable but despite the claims by Alaexis that was a commentary piece by Ariel Cohen of The Heritage Foundation, who was Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Not any expertise in the Arab-Israeli conflict or Jenin or media. So it was not a reliable source. Alaexis, why did you return CAMERA and Honest Reporting as well? nableezy - 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is CAMERA an unreliable source? They are biased for sure but it doesn't make them unreliable. Alaexis¿question? 08:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Because they have a documented history of underhanded and dishonest reporting and tactics? Why is it a reliable source? Since you have failed to answer any of my questions, and instead chose to turn the burden of demonstrating reliability to me to demonstrate unreliability I am going to again remove these garbage sources. nableezy - 21:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually, somebody already did. Ill continue looking to improve this article through removing the crap that it is filled with. nableezy - 21:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
So is it your personal opinion that "they have a documented history of underhanded and dishonest reporting and tactics"? Also, I don't see who did "it." Alaexis¿question? 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Zero0000 reverted your blanket revert. I’m not going to keep playing this game with you where you bring some garbage website with no qualifications and then say oh why’s it not a reliable source. What in WP:RS does CAMERA or Honest Repoeting qualify for? They aren’t a news organization, they aren’t scholarship, they aren’t a news aggregator. What about them qualifies as a reliable source. I don’t plan to play along with this game anymore though, sorry. Not every bullshit organization with a .com or .org is a reliable source. nableezy - 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
CAMERA and Honest Reporting are not reliable sources that just happen to be biased. They are organisations that exist solely for the purpose of pro-Israel propaganda. Their claims might in some cases be citable with attribution when they themselves are involved in a controversy, but as sources of fact or expert opinion they are well below the bar. Zerotalk 02:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I only see your personal opinions here and IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removing content.
WP:RS does not contain an exhaustive list of all possible types of allowed sources (the section is called Some types of sources). If these sources are so bad then you should have no difficulties finding confirmations. Alaexis¿question? 09:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but exclusion of material on the basis of the source being unreliable is entirely different from excluding it on the basis of not liking it. As for opinions, why is your opinion that they are reliable superior to my opinion that they are not reliable? There is no principle of reliable-until-proven-otherwise. There is a principle of ONUS, though, giving you the obligation to obtain consensus for this disputed material. Zerotalk 09:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
And I only see your personal opinion that whatever website you can find on google is a reliable source. These arent, and you are free to ask RSN for their opinion if you like. nableezy - 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested edit(s)

The word desemanticization should link to Wiktionary, and not to Wikipedia's "Semantics" (which does not include the word). desemanticization IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Cannot agree more. Though it's already done at the moment. Colaheed777 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

New related page

---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Then I suggest moving the whole Wikipedia section there. Opinions? Colaheed777 (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Tuvia Grossman

Some people think that media eagerness to believe the worst of Israel and Israelis on flimsy evidence with little fact-checking is itself a sign of media bias. As someone said on Twitter the other day, it took the New York Times 5 minutes to blame Israel for bombing the al-Ahli hospital, but 82 days to conclude that Israeli women had been raped on October 7th... AnonMoos (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be removed; the argument that it had nothing to do with media bias is not relevant because reliable sources associated it with media bias; whether that association was correct, false, or even eventually disproven, it is WP:DUE to be covered here.
I would note that it has been argued that it does have something to do with media bias; for example, Florian Markl in "Comprehending Antisemitism through the Ages" argued that incidents like these are not simple mistakes, but systematic, with the evidence being that such mistakes are disproportionately against Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You would think that with thousands of violent incidents over multiple decades, many involving death of innocents, some American who got minor injuries might sit a little down the importance list. Readers are going to think that the evidence for anti-Israel bias must be pretty weak if evidence-free trivial examples are the best on offer. Zerotalk 08:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is? Our personal opinion of an incident doesn't determine whether it is appropriate for inclusion; coverage in reliable sources does. BilledMammal (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
And this has trivial coverage that is all of the "me too" variety except for false claims such as that the NYT was forced to issue a correction after a public outcry (as if "the public" would know who the guy in the photo was). Zerotalk 10:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
First, I don’t see the relevance of #MeToo, and I don’t think it is appropriate to trivialise it.
Second, the NYT did issue not just one but two corrections. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Not really. The second correction only mentions the same errors noted in the first correction. The purpose of the second correction was to refer to an article on the incident published on the same day. That article includes the fact that the original Israeli photographer also misidentified Grossman (as an ambulance worker). Finally, don't you know that "me too" had a meaning before #MeToo? The fact is that this whole story is very short and all anyone can do with it is repeat the same story with the same commentary. Zerotalk 11:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The only meaning that made sense to me in this context was #MeToo. Are you saying you meant something different?
To return to the main point: we don’t decide if something is relevant, our sources do. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
"Me too" means "I'm going to say the same thing as everyone else because I don't know any more about it". Also, you are wrong per WP:VNOT. Zerotalk 00:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that verifiability alone was sufficient criteria for inclusion? This is an incident that has been widely covered; it warrants inclusion per WP:NPOV, not per WP:V. BilledMammal (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
We go by what reliable sources say, not the opinion of editors. The Grossman incident received robust national and international coverage as an example of media bias, whether it was intentional or not, and is still cited decades later in both press and academic literature as an perceived egregious example of media bias that led to the creation of outfits designed to combat perceived media bias (opinions about these organizations aside). There are a lot of accusations of media bias in this article and in the media discourse today, both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, without the "slightest evidence was ever produced that this was more than an innocent mistake". There's sufficient grounds to add international news organizations jumping to blame Israel for the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion based on nothing more than Hamas propaganda, which led to violence and synagogue burnings across much of the region, as an especially egregious case of media bias, even though it could be argued that news organizations being lazy is more to blame. Longhornsg (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
In Google Scholar there are only 23 citations altogether and only 4 in the past 4 years. news.google.com has only 4 citations in total, 2 of them in highly unreliable sources. That's called negligible continuing coverage. Zerotalk 12:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This is moving the goalposts. The event happened in 2000. There was international coverage of the incident, including in the context of media bias, for many months. That's enduring and continuing coverage and more than enough for notability. That there's still coverage of it in academic books more than 20 years later [1] demonstrates how deep and lasting the impact of the event was. What's ironic is the Grossman incident has received the most coverage of any event in this article that actually relates to media bias, the supposed subject of this article.
By contrast, the 2006 Gaza beach blast is a clear example of an event that doesn't belong in this article. First, there's nothing that indicates it's related in any way to media bias. Pure SYNTH. Second, how many citations are there in newsorgs/academic sources for years after, much less in the last 4 years? How about the 2001 and 2002 studies by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting? (And FAIR is a biased activist organization that is a "pure propaganda" like CAMERA, so it really isn't an RS for notability anyway). You said it best above: "There is a huge academic literature on media coverage of the middle-east. How about we seek it out and cite it instead of arguing about political advocacy organizations?" Agree wholeheartedly. Longhornsg (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
To add, the Tuvia Grossman incident is one of the defining events in the conversation of media bias in the Arab-Israeli conflict, giving birth to the cottage industry of campaigns and organizations to combat perceived media bias. That there wasn't massive amounts of SIGCOV and enduring coverage -- not from CAMERA or the like -- is simply wrong. Longhornsg (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't help laughing when I read "So what if it was a mistake?" in the latest edit summary. I actually agree about the "defining event" characterisation. I was paying attention to the noise at the time. What you should do is find a good source that explains how it was a defining event and use that as the opening. Zerotalk 05:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, it's embarrassing that the "appears frequently in Israeli criticisms of the media" sentence has only two junk organizations (HonestReporting and Aish.com) and two dead links. If it's covered as widely as you claim, you should be able to do better than that. Zerotalk 10:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Never said the current state sourcing for that section is good (much of the article is in an awful state, in prose, sourcing, and content). Longhornsg (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict/Archive_6&oldid=1263758448"