It is not a surprise that much of the reporting on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict borders on pro Israeli propaganda. The mainstream media seems reluctant to report anything negative about the role of Israel in the turmoil in the ME.

According to an interesting report on Free Speech TV this morning, watchdog groups monitor our media, and those journalist or media outlets who report anything negative about Israel are reprimanded and in some cases, a journalist may be fired.

One of the watchdog groups that keeps mainstream media on the "pro Israeli" side of reporting is CAMERA: http://www.camera.org/

I decided to take a look at the site after listening to the FSTV program. I found the site disturbing--there are articles attacking journalist for reporting what I would find a balanced report on Arafat.

I am beginning to understand why we are seeing limited reporting on what is really going on in Iraq and why we find our cable news channels ignoring stories that may be negative to issues that are supported by the WH.

It may be that we will all have to watch and contribute to programming like Free Speech TV and Democracy Now. Since they are not corporate backed and the govt cannot exert pressure on them in efforts to control their reporting--it may end up being our only source of real news.

I can not believe how any view point negative to Israel is attacked on this forum. Can't imagine how a reporter can do a fair and balanced report- you are so correct it is all pro-Israel propaganda.

Ex: Pro Israel reporting........................

then there is this......

source.......we report you decide.........

The most pro-Israel propaganda source in the world has to be the Rupert Murdoch media empire; Fox News, Sky News, The New York Post, The London Times, The Weekly Standard and others. I think Murdoch has essentially turned his entire media organization over to the Israelis to spread their disinformation and propaganda. At least that the way it looks to me.

I agree. The funny thing is that the Israeli press is more straightforward than the US press. Check out Haaretz, the Israeli daily. They criticize Sharon and the Likud party, for example, in a way that US media would never dare. They cast a jaundiced eye on his stated commitments to disengagement. They're not afraid to document Sharon's expansionism in the West Bank and its great threat to the peace process. Today's front page (12/21) carries a picture of a Gaza settlement leader who advocates non-compliance with disengagement. You don't see this in US press very often (i.e the strong resistance to the "land for peace" process on the part of some extremely belligerent settlers.)

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=...5&x_article=804
Interestingly, Camera (watchdog group-mentioned in first post on this topic), has the Harretz on its attack list. Your description of Harretz explains why Camera is so concerned about liberal Israeli media. Below is an article in the Camera dated Nov. 27:

November 27, 2004 by Tamar Sternthal

CAMERA Column: Fast and Loose with Facts at Ha'aretz



This column appeared in the Nov. 26, 2004 edition of the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

The Israeli daily Ha’aretz, a favorite of the intelligentsia in Israel and the West, and widely cited by the North American press, is frequently referred to as “Israel’s New York Times.” But a New York Times it is not.

Since the Jayson Blair scandal, the state-side Gray Lady has stepped-up its commitment to accountability, hiring public editor Daniel Okrent, who rigorously investigates complaints about the paper’s reports, dialogues with readers about their concerns and diligently ensures that the necessary corrections run.

Don’t expect comparable accountability at Ha’aretz, which describes itself as “an independent newspaper with a broadly liberal outlook,” but which allows its writers to espouse extremist views unfettered by the facts.

Why, exactly, should this Tel Aviv media outlet be of concern to Boston-based CAMERA, whose mission is to promote an accurate and balanced press in North America?

As Eric Weiner, former Jerusalem bureau chief for National Public Radio, once told a Palestinian media symposium, he began every working day by scanning local papers for stories. He leaned especially on what he termed the “very respectable newspaper” Ha’aretz. He is not alone. This September, Ha’aretz was cited by the Western press corps more than five dozen times.

And, for a close-to-home example as to why Ha’aretz’s prominence in Western media outlets is our problem, readers may recall the July 30 column in this newspaper by Ha’aretz writer Gideon Levy (“If the Situation Were Reversed”). The column, which originally appeared in the July 18 issue of Ha’aretz, was filled with factual errors, both substantive and incidental.

Levy claimed that Golda Meir “said that after what the Nazis did to us, we can do whatever we want.”

Challenged for a source for the virulent quote, Levy acknowledged in an Aug. 12 e-mail he had none.

“Therefore we dropped the quotation in the original version in Hebrew and by mistake it was printed in the English version,” he stated.

Neither CAMERA nor the editor of The Jewish Journal were able to obtain a correction from Levy or Ha’aretz.

That’s not all. Arguing that Israelis are utterly indifferent to Palestinian suffering, Levy cited the killing of Ibrahim Halfalla, an elderly Palestinian in Gaza, and claimed that Yediot Achronot “didn’t bother to run the story at all.” In fact, Yediot deplored the killing in a hard-hitting editorial July 14. Again no correction.

Levy also misinforms when he alleged “our Education Ministry announces that it will not permit Arabs to attend Jewish schools in Haifa....” However, the decision regarding where particular students attend particular schools is the responsibility of the Municipality, not the Education Ministry. Last academic year, parents of students at the Arabic public schools had lobbied the Municipality for improvements. After negotiations, the improvements were agreed to. At no point did the Ministry or Municipality prohibit Arab attendance in Haifa’s Jewish schools.

Levy’s journalism is likewise substandard when he stated as fact: “Last week settlers poisoned a well at Atawana, in the southern Mount Hebron region, and the police are investigating.”

Indeed, the police were investigating the poisoning of a well with dead chickens but they had not determined that settlers were the culprit. Palestinians accused settlers, and the police suspected settlers, but it was not a foregone conclusion as Levy asserted.

For instance, The Jerusalem Post quoted a police officer: “We are also investigating the possibility that the chickens were thrown inside the well as part of an inner Palestinian dispute.”

Unfortunately, nobody at Ha’aretz is investigating how Levy’s numerous errors, many of them egregious, made it into print, despite the fact that CAMERA and The Journal both provided editors with the substantive counterpoint.

The newspaper’s silence regarding Levy’s defamatory distortions is no surprise in light of the observation of Nahum Barnea of Yediot Achronot, who wrote about Israeli reporters who flunk the “lynching test.”

These are writers who refused to criticize Palestinians even when two Israeli reservists were brutally lynched in Ramallah by a Palestinian crowd. They are: Amira Hass, Akiva Eldar and Levy, all from Ha’aretz.

In November 2000, Barnea wrote: “And then the lynching test came, and before it the test of the shooting and fire bombs of the Tanzim fighters, and before it the test of the violations of the Oslo agreement by Arafat, and it turns out that the support of some of the prominent reporters [for Palestinian positions] is absolute. ... They have a mission.”

We at CAMERA also have a mission. And as long as Ha’aretz continues to shape — and distort — Western news reports, that Israeli media outlet is fair game for this American outfit.

Not only do I disagree with you, but the website you cite proves you wrong as well.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=...1&x_article=823

"ABC News has once again issued a one-sided report on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, highlighting and sympathetically portraying Palestinian losses due to Israeli military actions, while downplaying the initial Palestinian attacks, and their impact on Israelis, that prompted the Israeli action."

ABC News is mainstream news and they aired what CAMERA views as a pro-Palestinian story. CAMERA also has no "pull". They appear to just write complaints to different news organizations.

The news stories I've seen in the media can't be so clearly defined as merely "pro-Isreal" or "anti-Israel". The stories I've seen show the good and the bad of Israel. This is what the media is supposed to do and lately it has been failing at that task while covering policies here in America.

What I would really love to see is a "pro-Palestinian" story that doesn't involve Jihad, revenge, death and dismemberment or victimization. That is the kind of story that doesn't make it to ABC News even though it should.

I disagree. I think the article you cited (above) is typical of Camera's reports. Camera is criticizing ABC News for airing a pro Palestinian point of view.

Correct. And you started this thread saying how the Mainstream Media does nothing but support Israel and here is an example where they clearly didn't do that.

We could go around in circles with this I guess. But which is more important and/or respected, ABC News or CAMERA? Most people haven't even heard of CAMERA so I don't think your argument stands up.

However, watchdog groups do serve a vital purpose for when reporters get lazy and use language that slants the story one way or the other. I have no problem with CAMERA or MEMRI although you do have to keep in mind that these organizations are most likely slanted to a pro-Israeli mindset as well. When you read Al Jazeera articles you have to do the same thing, except be mindful of pro-Arab slants.

With this ME conflict every story must be looked at in the most objective way possible, no matter the source. Also, if ever "pro-Israel" article can be considered "propaganda" than every "anti-Israel" story that runs must be considered Hamas/PLO/PA/etc propoganda by you and Nes Tonas' definition, right?