Mark,
I wish I could say this shocked me, but unfortunately, it's just what I expect from them.

Seems as if Reuters will continue it's campaign against Israel, no matter what the cost.

Blair must be facing much of the same difficulties with the media, as the BBC is reporting this garbage.

Personally, I'm still reeling from the continued,gruesome, reports on how that baby was treated. I'm referring to the one, that by most reports now, was DUG UP from it's grave, and paraded from one bomb site to another in a refridgerated truck!

In light of all I've viewed, I honest to God wish I could say I was shocked...but in reality I'm just more appalled and saddened.

I'm sure Mr. Shipley will have an explanation as to why we're wrong about media bias.

We're waiting, Mr. Shipley...

Well, keef, considering it looks like the BBC didn't place the kid next to the shell and reported that he was placed there reluctantly, I don't see why you and Mark are blaming them for this.

We don't know who placed the kid there. Seems to me it would have been a relative, probably angry at having to come home to an unexploded shell in their home and wanting the world to see what their family has to live with.

It's easy to sit here and be outraged that someone would do such a thing, but seems they have more experience around unexploded shells than you or I do, so I'll decline to get on my high-horse here.

I'd like a little more explanation as to how this is MSM bias?

keefer,
Well as expected, Shipley crawled from under his rock to respond. Shipley you have a gift for "spinning" and failing to address the real issue.
But, I expect nothing more than that from you.

With your ability to twist the facts and content, have you ever applied for a job at the DNC?

You would fit right in!!

And as an added benefit have less time to post your talking points here!

Mary, good morning to you too.

Exactly what facts am I twisting? Seems to me Mark is the one twisting by insinuating that it was the MSM who put this kid next to the bomb. It really doesn't seem like anyone with the BBC did this. They filmed it and reported that he was put there reluctantly, but they did not place him there.

And Mary, what is the real issue?

Mary, good morning to you too.

Exactly what facts am I twisting? Seems to me Mark is the one twisting by insinuating that it was the MSM who put this kid next to the bomb. It really doesn't seem like anyone with the BBC did this. They filmed it and reported that he was put there reluctantly, but they did not place him there.

And Mary, what is the real issue?

mary: how did Tom "twist the facts and content"? He stated the obvious.

Speaking of bias: can you back up your absurd story of that baby. Seems to me you are all too willingly to believe anything posted on sites like little green footballs.

Tom,
I did not get the impression that Mark was insinuating that MSM put the child there.

But I fail to see why it was nescessary, as you state, to place a child near a bomb to emphasize a point. The bomb is obviously in a house, unexploded.

That leads me to believe it may have been intentionally placed there, by whom....maybe the hezbos?

I will not say I know everything on bombs either, but I do have the morality and love my children enough to NEVER put them in harms way.

So to answer your question, the real issue that I have identified (and yes this is my opinion) is that there is a concerted effort to vilify the Israelis and proclaim the hezbos as justified in the media.

To what cause do they want to do this? Well I don't know...

But you, Mr. Shipley and your fellow poster Willem, seem to accept everything that the media puts forth as fact...without question.

But when referring to the many reports, including Reuters own admissions, they are reporting innaccuracies.

Willem, as for that little child, I have read many articles and updates including NRO, Drudge report, Wall Street journal...to name a few. As for Little Green Footballs....I don't consider them a news source, as a matter of fact I don't visit that sight often.

Willem, please do not assume that you know anything about me, or my ability to form my own thoughts. I take the time to read and question everything I observe from the media.When you do make those assumptions, you're no better than Jeremiah...who's assumptions of many are judgemental and fallacy at best.

Mary, I still don't see how this story is an example of MSM bias.

Should the BBC not report on what happened in southern Lebenon?

Should they not report on this woman and her son and her house? You yourself get the impression from this story that people are trying to villify Israel and boost support for hezbollah. And it does seem to be true from the story that hezbollah has a lot of support in southern lebanon.

Specific to this story, it seems that you are basing this opinion on fact they are putting children near bombs to be photographed. Now, how did you get that information? You got it from teh BBC.

The BBC reported that some southern lebanese are placing reluctant children near unexploded bombs to be photographed. That's what has everyone up in arms here.

You wouldn't be up in arms in the BBC didn't report it. You see what I'm getting at here? There's no media bias. They are reporting on the situation and you are reacting to it.

Again, you can be outraged at those who placed the kid in danger, but don't call it media bias.

For Mark to claim this is an act of the BBC risking the life of a child to further its anti-Israeli agenda is utterly rediculous.

Tom,
I do in fact recognize some of your points. With that said, I don't know who pushed that child near the bomb. I don't know how the bomb really got there. But I am outraged that the child was placed in danger.
What outrages me even more, is that these things wouldn't be occurring if it weren't for the press, standing by, foaming at the mouth to get the shot.

You aren't really suggesting that the child was pushed over by the bomb so the family could have a picture for their scrapbook? The simple fact is that it was done entirely for the media...hence media bias.

. . .

NRO, Drudge report, Wall Street journal

Then why am I unable to find any such story on these sites?

Willem,
I am unsure as to why you can't find them. I don't exactly know how to reference a particular article
on a blog.
I can however cut and paste a little:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html

"What outrages me even more, is that these things wouldn't be occurring if it weren't for the press, standing by, foaming at the mouth to get the shot."

This is where you lost me, Mary. Seems you're bringing your own anti-media bias to the table here. Who says they were foaming at the mouth to shoot this?

I will grant you that the media is not perfect, and sometimes the pursuit of a story can compromise certain ethical boundaries, but the fact that the BBC reported the child was forced to pose for the picture, to me, shows that this is far from the picture Mark is painting of an eager MSM putting kids in danger to attack Israel. To me it shows they had discomfort in filming this. They could have just run the picture without saying the boy was reluctant to stand next to the bomb. If they just wanted to paint Israel as the bad guy, they wouldn't have reported that the kid was forced to pose for the shot.

I don't know what else to say... Do you suggest they don't go to villages bombed in Southern Lebanon and report on the destruction there?

I still don't see the bias.

eureferendum?

You accept their ludicrous conspiracy-theories without questioning? Not even Drudge, not even NRO, not even WSJ believed them but you do?

Willem,
Search how you like, I won't defend or rationalize myself to you. One last cut and paste, but the thing is even if I jump through the hoops you want, you will still not enter into a civil debate...you will do the usual pee wee herman...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQ5NjUwODM5NTIxNzc2MjJjYjliNzM1MTY2YTI4ZWQ=

Tom,
One can't prove a negative, therefore, we'll continue to disagree. Which is fine, I don't think I indicated in anyway that I believe that the journalists should report ANYTHING one sided.
I would like to know your thoughts on why that child was pushed towards the bomb, if it wasn't for the media to photograph. I do understand that they acknowledged the circumstances surrounding the incident. But, as a hypothetical, wouldn't it have been human nature to decline the photo op and insist that child be removed from danger?

My point being is that if they-the hezbos-didn't get the media attention they desire, then these awful displays of recklessness would be less likely.

It might though, much like the camera man who has to film a baby animal be torn apart by a predator and be unable to intervene.

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to propose your ideas and opinion, and respect that I have mine too, right or wrong!

It is these types of debates that keep this blog entertaining....most of the time. LOL

Maybe we can agree that sometimes the posts can be infuriating and laughable?

Mary

Tom,
BTW, I am not trying to defend Mark. He is quite able with no assistance from me!
Sometimes I am referring to the cited article, and not necessarily Mark's interpretaion. In this case my thoughts were in regards to the article itself.
I do though recognize there is media bias, it just depends which side of the fence one is on...

Give me a break to all those who think this (too) was not staged by the media!!

They do it all the time, and FINALLY proof about it is coming out.

I seriously doubt that the media just happened to be there, just out of the blue, and happened to capture the family members pushing the boy over there near the bomb. They just happened to have perfect timing for all this.

NOT.

Mary, remember your original statement?

I'm still reeling from the continued,gruesome, reports on how that baby was treated. I'm referring to the one, that by most reports now, was DUG UP from it's grave, and paraded from one bomb site to another in a refridgerated truck!

I've asked you to show me these reports. You pointed me first to Drudge, NRO and WSJ but they don't have reports on babies being dug up from graves and paraded from one bomb site to another bomb site in a refridgerated truck.

Then you pointed me to eureferendum (although that doesn't have reports on babies being dug up from graves and paraded from one bomb site to another bomb site in a refridgerated trucks either).

Now your pointing to a commentary from Richard Lowry at NRO that doesn't even mention babies.

You've directed me to two articles that do not back up your claim and you have the gall to accuse me of not entering a civil debate?

"One can't prove a negative, therefore, we'll continue to disagree"

No, but in the absence of proof of bias, I'm saying there is none. It's only logical.

There is zero evidence of any sort of bias in this story.

And yes, i have enjoyed out conversation. Time to go crawl back under my rock.

I see, so theres nothing wrong at all with dropping the bomb on a womans house, which likely would have killed everyone inside had they been home, including the young boy...

but its horrendous that the news media would utilize the young child and endanger him for media capital.

Sounds to me like you bloodthisty "caompassionate conservatives" are upset that you missed the mark and didnt get to turn this family into red mist....

I did not get the impression that Mark was insinuating that MSM put the child there.

I wouldn't be so proud of my illiteracy if I were you.

Mark, you're a little late on this one. This outrageous story's been out and debunked for a while now. Littlegreenfootballs.com-which broke the doctored Reuters photograph by Adnan Hajj (see: Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?)-has an entire list of such media staged, media bias, media hoax stories as the boy with the bomb. The list is at the top of the LGF website: Fauxtography Scandal updates

Should the BBC not report on what happened in southern Lebenon?

Hey Shipley, where is "Lebenon?" Is it anywhere near "Lebanon?" Moron.

And why do you defend the media so much, Tommie? Are you an aspiring journalist? Or are you just another leftie, blinded by the hatred of reality? None of the Shipley's I know are moronic lefties, so I guess you don't live in central Maryland. Thank God.

The MSM is biased, Tom, plain and simple. If you can't see it, you're a moron--plain and simple...

I see freedom and keefer don't address the topic of this post or what I have said... come on guys, let's have at it...

Keef, name calling is not thought of as a good debate tactic outside of the third grade, just so you know...

Oh yeah, and I had a typo... YOU GOT ME GOOD!

Everyone here has it all wrong.

There is no biased it the media. Atleast not towards certain politcal parties...

What is shown on the news and in the MSM, as you all like to put it, has little to do with some political agenda you associate with it, and more to do with shock value.

Even if the photographer "forced" the child into the photo (I don't believe he did, but thats beside the point) it wouldn't be because he wants to show Israel in a bad light, but rather beucase he knows its more emotional and it will sell.

Can't you guys see through the (expletive deleted) and realize everyone is in it for the same thing. It rarely has anything to do with political ideology, rather, its all about the greenbacks

And in reality, if there is a media biased its to the right. I mean, most of the News Broadcasting Corps. are owned by conservatives. Lets get real here...

Oh wait, I'm on Blogsforbush.com.

Tommie, you've denied media bias forever--all cases, blatant and subtle. Maybe freedom and I are tired of your bullspit, boy.

Now, are you a journalist, or not? Answer that one, smart guy...

No, Keefer, I am not a journalist. Not an idiot either. That's why I feel compelled to point out all the BS Noonan spouts with these Media Bias threads.

If you look at this case rationally -- as Mary S began to -- and leave behind your preconceived notions of media bias, you'll see that Mark's claim of bias here is bogus, as are most of his other ones.

I think I've probably debunked 90% of all of Mark's media bias claims. It's telling that you have to resort to name calling. I can see how could be tiring and frustrating to have your false beliefs rationally dissected.

By the way,

Here's the BBC's bias reporting against Hezbollah... reporting on how they killed Israelis civilians, leaving "pools of blood" in the streets of Haifa. Obviously it's part of their continued effort to demonize the organization:

Pools of blood

Correspondents say the large death-count in a strike on Israel's third-largest city has rattled the whole country.

It is the second time Haifa has been hit by Hezbollah rockets in recent days.

In a first salvo on Saturday at least 13 rockets were reported to have landed in the city.

The eight people who died were part of a train repair crew working at a railway depot.

The BBC's Wyre Davies at the depot says that the rocket, believed to be a Katyusha rocket, crashed through the roof.

About 50 people were also injured.

Our correspondent says that the devastation is still apparent, with pools of blood everywhere.

The attack on Haifa raised Israel's civilian death toll from the fighting to 12.

Tom,

Beg pardon? You've never de-bunked even one of my "What Media Bias?" threads...oh, you think you have, but that is because, like all lefties, you are incapable of admitting either failure or mistakes.

Now, as for this thread - the media bias is that the picture was taken and published. If they didn't hate Israel, then they wouldn't have either taken the picture, or published it. You know - a real news organization wouldn't participate in the creation of fake news...certainly not at the risk of a child's life.

Mark,

I beg to differ, I have on more than one occassion admitted I was wrong on this blog... the whole Rove leak thing being one of them. You, on the other hand, i can't recall admitted being wrong.

You had a perfect opportunity in the Bush press conference thread, and I'll again give you that chance: Do you now admit that WMDs were the main reason for the Iraq invasion?

Mark, how is that bias? The bomb was in the kids home... it's not misrepresenting anything. It's not showing in anyway a anti-israeli bias. It's just a new photograher getting a compelling image.

What false impression does that picture convey? why does taking this picture and publishing it show an anti-israeli bias?

Mark once again shows his talent for blatant hypocrisy.

CBS is airing a television program that blames Clinton for 9/11. It is saying that Clinton had a chance to capture Osama and took a pass.
The fact that CBS will broadcast a lie on national television to help Republicans shows the real bias.

According to the official findings of the 911 Commission, the Clinton Administration was looking for ways to capture Osama Bin Ladin as early as 1996, when he was still thought to be a mere financier of terrorist organizations and not the criminal mastermind that we know him to be today.

In 1997 the Clinton Administration considered a plan to ambush Bin Ladin when he traveled between Kandahar and Tarnak Farms, a location intelligence assets suggested was Bin Ladin's primary residence. However, when the Administration received reports that Afghan rebels attempted this ambush and failed, they refocused their energies on a plan involving a night-time raid on Tarnak Farms itself.

The Commander of Delta Force was uncomfortable with the new plan as drawn up. And the Commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lt. General Michael Canavan felt that the plan was too complicated for the CIA to carry out. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger began to doubt that the intelligence we were receiving from Afghan tribals was reliable.

Counterterrorist Center officers briefed Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, telling them that the operation to raid Tarnak Farms had about a 30 percent chance of success. Richard Clarke thought the mission as planned, which relied heavily upon local Afghan tribals, was "half-assed."

CIA Director George Tenet scheduled a meeting with the principals to get the go-ahead on the mission (including cabinet members and the President). But this meeting never happened.

After a dress-rehearsal of the operation, George Tenet himself shut down the mission, and says he made the decision alone. The plan was never even submitted to the White House for approval.