Al-Reuters borrows a line from al-Jazeera
What's the difference between al-Reuters and al-Jazeera? One is an anti-Semitic news media outlet and the other is an Arab television network that is anti-Semitic (Hat Tip: Backspin). The global news agency Reuters has denied it used terminology associated with anti-Israel activists after it referred to the Israeli army as “the Israeli occupation forces” in a report on Saturday.If what they really wanted is just to explain to readers the political status of the territory, they would call it "administered" or "disputed." But of course, al-Reuters has a political message to send, and it's a biased one.
Reporting on the terrorist attack in Itamar on Friday night, in which a couple and their three children were killed by a lone terrorist, Reuters stated: “Troops from the Israeli occupation forces set up roadblocks and were searching the area around the settlement of Itamar, near the Palestinian city of Nablus, for the suspect.”
The phrase was subsequently taken out of later editions of the story.
“Israel Occupation Forces” or the acronym “IOF” are often used by vehemently anti-Israel activists as part of the demonization campaign against Israel.
The editor of the story was Alastair Macdonald, specialist desk editor on the world desk at Reuters in London and former bureau chief of Reuters in Jerusalem. He edited it from reports from Gaza, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Damascus and Washington.
He told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that he did not use the phrase capitalized or the acronym.
Macdonald said the phrase is one Reuters tries to avoid, “particularly when capitalized or used with the acronym ‘IOF,’ [which has] become a term associated with the language used by those on one side of this conflict.”
“We do, of course, routinely refer to the ‘Israeli occupation’ of the West Bank, ‘Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank’ and many other permutations of those terms in order to explain to readers the political status of the territory and the mission of the Israeli forces there,” he said.
Labels: al-Reuters, anti-Israel media bias
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:56 AM
2 Comments:
As Barry Rubin has noted, the problem of media bias feeds mistaken and harmful policies by Western governments. On the one hand bolstering the power of Islamists and on the other hand, weakening the only democratic state in the Middle East, Israel.
The tragic irony is the West could be doing a lot to weaken the enemies of freedom and peace and give a chance to democratic elements that want to change their societies but they aren't doing it. And by distancing itself from Israel, it is sending the message that extremism and radicalism in the Middle East pays dividends.
What could go wrong indeed
I live in the Los Angeles area. I saw the Itamar story on Fox News Glenn Beck program. Unspeakable evil, but what REALLY got me was the passing out of the candy. This is hard to wrap my mind around.
THANK YOU for pointing out what I have been trying to point out to many people. Mains Stream Media outlets like Reuters and the Associated Press are disgustingly anti-Israel, hence the American people are not informed. If they were then there would be more of a ground swell of support for Israel in America.
Post a Comment
<< Home