In an era of misinformation and media bias, news from media sources about the war in the Middle East needs to be carefully scrutinised. Rosemary Sorensen reports.
Murdoch owns the WSJ and The Lobby and is a heavy influence MSM. Are Shock Jocks stealing their audience?
The nation’s leading newspapers were under fire this weekend after publishing opinion pieces seen as “Bigoted,” “Islamophobic,” “Racist,” and “Reckless.”
But the media treated the speech as if it were just another in an endless series of partisan vollies instead of what it was – a declaration by the president of the United States that America must choose between democracy and authoritarianism.
The major networks didn’t broadcast the speech.
Why must we wait until some of America’s ablest journalists are sacked before they are willing and able to tell America the truth?
It is not “partisan” to explain what Trump and his anti-democracy movement are seeking.
It is not “taking sides” to point out that the Trump Republicans are trying to establish an authoritarian government in America.
It is not “violating journalistic standards” to tell the unvarnished truth about what America is facing today.
In fact, a failure to call out the Trump Republicans for what they are – liars, enablers, and accessories to crimes against the constitution – itself violates the most basic canons of journalistic ethics.
“Balanced journalism” does not exist halfway between facts and lies.
The lack of interest in the death of a former African leader wasn’t just business as usual in the story of a continent, but a reflection on what we find important in our media diet, writes Mark Sawyer.
It’s been quite a few days. The former leader of the world’s third biggest democracy was gunned down. Much-loved actors James Caan and Tony Sirico, who embodied gangsterdom in The Godfather and The Sopranos, were whacked for real, so to speak (I mean no disrespect!). Boris Johnson both quit and hung on for dear life as prime minister of the UK.
The Australian media every now and then does some hand-wringing about its whiteness. ‘’We’re going to devote more attention to the wider world, not just London and Washington,’’ is the pledge.
Well, Sri Lanka teeters on the verge of collapse, having run out of oil and money. The Marcos family is back running the Philippines, but the novelty seems to have already worn off. There’s an election in Papua New Guinea. That will draw a little attention, and then we’ll put that fragile democracy on the backburner.
Australians talk about our future in this part of the world but a story about Boris, or say Meghan and Harry, will smoke the latest doings in countries with 90% of the world’s population.
Change of wording applied here to the wording of Morrison’s associated media, who reported Rachelle Miller as giving the Government “permission” rather than “challenging the government to release the full and truthful account of her case by dropping the NDA which Morrison was hiding behind. Will Morrison now oblige us and have the truth and information released or will he keep it unavailable?
Lawyers for Miller say the former Coalition staffer wishes to remove ‘any impediment’ preventing the PM giving a ‘full and truthful account’ of her case
While Israel launched strikes against Gaza last week after Palestinians protested planned evictions in Jerusalem, a group chat of journalists in Canada was lighting up with notifications. They were frustrated with Canadian media coverage that painted the strikes without context and with a glaring absence of Palestinian voices. Some in the group, which included several Muslim journalists, shared frustrating experiences of advocating for nuanced coverage of international issues in their newsrooms. Some asked for advice on how to approach their editors about concerns with coverage, or lack thereof, of what was really going on in the region. So they drafted an open letter. “‘The Middle East is complicated. We need to hear both sides. Everyone has a lot of emotions about this.’ [sic] These are just some of the excuses news editors have provided to Canadian journalists trying to cover the escalating violence against Palestinians,” the letter read. “The lack of nuanced Canadian media coverage of forced expulsions and indiscriminate airstrikes over the last three days, which have so far killed at least 137 Palestinians, including 36 children, has been disappointing.” At the time of publ
For the journalists who report this violence on our behalf, there is nowhere to hide. There is no neutral, objective mode. Your choice is to stand so far back from the “conflict” that you obscure its brutal irrationality and, in so doing, unwittingly or otherwise, put your support behind the most powerful belligerents. Or you can come in close and show mutilated and traumatised children, and suffer the journalistic ignominy of “biased” reporting.
Rather, it is because for the first time in Australian history, the Canberra press gallery is dominated by talented, hard-nosed and courageous women journalists, and this alters the understanding of why these allegations matter, and how they should be treated. As well, there is a generation of male reporters who, in at least some cases, “get it”. The result is a new field in the ongoing journalistic job of interrogating power.
When the Israeli media talks about the latest ‘wave of violence,’ it leaves out the five unarmed Palestinians who were shot to death by soldiers and police officers in the past few months. The newspaper headlines over the past few days leave no room for doubt regarding what has been happening here lately. “Terror returns,” read Yedioth Ahronoth’s headline on Sunday, while Haaretz and Ma’ariv ran similar headlines on Tuesday morning. [tmwinpost] Indeed the last few days have been full of stabbing and vehicle-ramming attacks by Palestinians in Jerusalem and Hebron, the vast majority of them directed at soldiers and…
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.