Quote:
Originally Posted by Language
It’s quite interesting how differing sides view the media and inherent media bias.
The BBC and New York Times were two of the worst offenders relating to the fake story of Israel bombing the hospital. There’s been many other cases where they have been proven to be either incorrect or have outright fabricated certain things (like the BBC example in the prior post).
Yet at the same time, during one of the recent Pro-Palestine rallies in New York that took a raucous turn, an angry mob was basically trying to break into the New York Times headquarters accusing them of being Pro-Israel, when many Israel supporters would say the exact opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Missed the sarcasm did you? Not surprised based on the topic.
Your comment, that's the real ironic part. BBC and NY Times have been learning very pro-Israel, just like all western media have, but they have had the audacity to question some of the information floated out there and do some actual analysis to counter propaganda. That has put them in the crosshairs of the pro-Israel set, because if you don't support them all the time you're an antisemite who is out to destroy Israel. Objectivity need not apply when you have "3,000 years of history" on your side. Amiright?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
There are still a few traditional media outlets that take a range of stances on contentious issues. This enrages people who are accustomed to tribal solidarity.
|
The least self-aware poster in CP history.