United Press International on julkaissut kolmiosaisen artikkelin analyysin lähinnä eurooppalaisten tiedotusvälinenden propagoimasta ja sittemmin huuhaaksi osoittautuneesta Jeninin myytistä 'Analysis: Why Europeans bought Jenin myth'. http://www.upi.com/results.cfm?
Erityisesti brittien kunnioitetuimmat uutisvälineet osoittautuivat pahimmiksi 'villien ja tarkistamattomien' raporttien välittäjiksi:
lainaus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, even allowing for these factors, the Western media coverage of Jenin, espically in the Western European press and broadcast media, largely proved to be factually wildly inaccurate in the light of what later emerged. And there was also a hysterical tone to many of them.
What made these unreliable and misleading reports all the more remarkable was that many of the worst of them emerged in the most respected and influential organizations in the British media. The British Broadcasting Corporation and three of the four so-called "quality" daily newspapers -- The Times, The Independent and The Guardian -- fell for the "Massacre Myth" hook, line and sinker. Even the more cautious and -- as it proved -- reliable "Daily Telegraph" was not entirely immune either.
http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20052002-032952-3644r
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toinen osa artikkelia tutkii sitä, miksi nimenomaan eurooppalaiset (toisin kuin amerikkalaiset) uutistalot olivat niin hanakoita uskomaan ja ostamaan tarkistamattomat ja todistamattomat sadut:
lainaus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reaction of the Western European media differed profoundly in its nature from that of U.S. newspapers and broadcasting news outlets. The allegations were equally widely reported in the United States. However, the U.S. broadcast media proved far more resistant to anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitic hysteria than that in Western European. This appears to have been the case precisely because no single state-funded or state-approved corporation dominated broadcast news in the United States, as is the case in Britain and France.
In those and other smaller countries, a well-entrenched left-wing media elite has been hostile to Israel and its policies for decades. And they have long enjoyed a cozy, unchallenged bureaucratic dominance in the state broadcasting news organizations that to a large degree set the braking news and analysis for the entire print press.
Therefore, entire echelons of editors and executives in these organizations were willing to accept uncritically the fierce unsubstantiated and hysterical reports coming out of their correspondents in Jenin. And even when individual newspapers like Le Monde in Paris or Il Foglio in Rome expressed caution or skepticism about the initial massacre claims, their warnings were drowned out in the broadcast media din. In the United States, by contrast, there is no single state-owned or subsidized national broadcasting service to set the tone.
There are four main national television networks, each one corporately or privately owned and three of them also run quasi-independent cable news networks. And there is also CNN. The cable Fox News Channel in particular seeks to position itself as relatively conservative in tone and counter-channel to the other, more liberal, "establishment" ones. With this diversity of broadcast voices, it is therefore not possible for a single network to dominate the coverage. Coverage perceived as being slavishly biased in favor of -- or against -- either Israel or the Palestinians tends to provoke strong outcries from public pressure groups and on other parts of the media.
In addition to all this, the raw material being reported from the field tended to be far more partisan and sympathetic to the Palestinian initial claims of massacre in Western Europe than in the United States. For the tradition of the practice of journalism in Europe remains far more partisan and unashamedly subjective than in the United States. The reasons for the European media's "rush to judgment" over Jenin were many, but one conclusion was inescapable: The "rush to judgment" was an "hour of shame." http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=21052002-123835-3473r
Erityisesti brittien kunnioitetuimmat uutisvälineet osoittautuivat pahimmiksi 'villien ja tarkistamattomien' raporttien välittäjiksi:
lainaus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, even allowing for these factors, the Western media coverage of Jenin, espically in the Western European press and broadcast media, largely proved to be factually wildly inaccurate in the light of what later emerged. And there was also a hysterical tone to many of them.
What made these unreliable and misleading reports all the more remarkable was that many of the worst of them emerged in the most respected and influential organizations in the British media. The British Broadcasting Corporation and three of the four so-called "quality" daily newspapers -- The Times, The Independent and The Guardian -- fell for the "Massacre Myth" hook, line and sinker. Even the more cautious and -- as it proved -- reliable "Daily Telegraph" was not entirely immune either.
http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20052002-032952-3644r
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toinen osa artikkelia tutkii sitä, miksi nimenomaan eurooppalaiset (toisin kuin amerikkalaiset) uutistalot olivat niin hanakoita uskomaan ja ostamaan tarkistamattomat ja todistamattomat sadut:
lainaus:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reaction of the Western European media differed profoundly in its nature from that of U.S. newspapers and broadcasting news outlets. The allegations were equally widely reported in the United States. However, the U.S. broadcast media proved far more resistant to anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitic hysteria than that in Western European. This appears to have been the case precisely because no single state-funded or state-approved corporation dominated broadcast news in the United States, as is the case in Britain and France.
In those and other smaller countries, a well-entrenched left-wing media elite has been hostile to Israel and its policies for decades. And they have long enjoyed a cozy, unchallenged bureaucratic dominance in the state broadcasting news organizations that to a large degree set the braking news and analysis for the entire print press.
Therefore, entire echelons of editors and executives in these organizations were willing to accept uncritically the fierce unsubstantiated and hysterical reports coming out of their correspondents in Jenin. And even when individual newspapers like Le Monde in Paris or Il Foglio in Rome expressed caution or skepticism about the initial massacre claims, their warnings were drowned out in the broadcast media din. In the United States, by contrast, there is no single state-owned or subsidized national broadcasting service to set the tone.
There are four main national television networks, each one corporately or privately owned and three of them also run quasi-independent cable news networks. And there is also CNN. The cable Fox News Channel in particular seeks to position itself as relatively conservative in tone and counter-channel to the other, more liberal, "establishment" ones. With this diversity of broadcast voices, it is therefore not possible for a single network to dominate the coverage. Coverage perceived as being slavishly biased in favor of -- or against -- either Israel or the Palestinians tends to provoke strong outcries from public pressure groups and on other parts of the media.
In addition to all this, the raw material being reported from the field tended to be far more partisan and sympathetic to the Palestinian initial claims of massacre in Western Europe than in the United States. For the tradition of the practice of journalism in Europe remains far more partisan and unashamedly subjective than in the United States. The reasons for the European media's "rush to judgment" over Jenin were many, but one conclusion was inescapable: The "rush to judgment" was an "hour of shame." http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=21052002-123835-3473r
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.