Tuesday, September 1, 2009


A fond fantasy of many Europeans is that unlike those depraved and stoooopid Americans, they get unbiased news from truthful sources. Americans, as is well known, are all addicted to Fox, and cannot think. But in Europe, they have the BBC, Agence France Presse, Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, and all those excellent newspapers in France, Germany, and Scandinavia. They read real news, and form their thoughts after getting all the facts, using phenomenal brains that Americans just don't have.

Except that that idea is a load of codswallop.

The BBC has been proven to have a simplistic Britain-centric and markedly ultra-left point of view, AFP is sodden with failed intellectuals and 1968 radicals, the Dutch ANP has rightfully been characterized as Pravda-West, and most of those newspapers in France, Germany, and Scandinavia are pisspoor hack-rags that specialize in sex, beheadings, blood orgies, and bashing the Yanks.
That's where the money is, you see - not in sifting facts and informing balanced opinions. The European press is pretty much on the same low level as the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Thank heavens there's still REUTERS.

Except...... they aren't any better.

Reuters seems to cater primarily to Europeans - remember, Americans are addicted to FOX - which may explain their sloppiness and at times unsubtle biases. Plus a remarkably cavalier attitude.

"Reuters expressly disclaims responsibility for the content of partner material appearing on the AlertNet website but it is notable that these articles are not simply linked; they are fully integrated into the site. Reuters is clearly exercising editorial control by both embracing these organizations as contributing members and accepting their pieces for publication."
[The incestuous relationship between Reuters and anti-Israel NGOs]

"Advocating for the evicted family, Reuters runs a human interest story replete with classic propaganda tactics, errors of commission and errors of omission that have become a Reuters' hallmark in their Middle East reporting."
[Reuters continues to advocate for evicted Palestinian squatters]

"In reality of course, Netanyahu has repeatedly offered unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians (as well as making substantial concessions) while PA President Mahmoud Abbas has steadfastly refused any talks until all of his conditions are met first."
[Reuters blames Israel for talks impasse]


Fortunately someone has decided to shine a light on Reuters shady editorial slant (oh my, how's THAT for scrambled metaphorics?).
A new blog, that has not been around for very long.

Reuters Middle East Watch (R-MEW)*
Exposing errors, bias, and propaganda in Reuters Middle East reporting

As they describe themselves:
"Ok, we admit it: we’re academics. We have doctorates in journalism and management. We have papers published in peer-reviewed journals. But most importantly, we have a dislike for writers and editors who abuse their position and power and public trust when they publish material which is putatively factual and unbiased but which in reality is biased, loaded with errors, and unashamedly employs crude propaganda in an attempt to manipulate public opinion. Although it’s sometimes referred to as "advocacy journalism", when it’s counterfactual and disguised as news it’s simply bad journalism. "Bad" as in unprofessional; "bad" as in unethical. Bad journalism is rampant today in reporting on the Middle East conflict and especially so at Reuters. We’re here to monitor and expose it."

This is very promising. I look forward to seeing more of their work. Much more.


* Neither this particular post, nor Reuters Middle East Watch, are in any way affiliated with Thomson Reuters. Boruch Hashem.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

is this the same foxnews which refers to the 'illegal settlements' as 'disputed territories'. the european media is more accurate than the bias media if america.