The public can see for themselves the ‘neutral’ media language used to describe Israeli actions: ‘incursion’, ‘retaliation’, ‘military operations’. By contrast, Israel endures ‘terrorist attacks’, ‘slaughter’, ‘a bloodbath’. Careful analysis by Greg Philo and Mike Berry, of the Glasgow University Media Group, found a persistent, ugly pattern:
“In our samples of news content, words such as ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold-blooded killing’ and ‘lynching’ were used by journalists to describe Israeli deaths but not those of Palestinians/Arabs. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians, but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’.” (Philo and Berry, ‘Bad News From Israel’, Pluto Press, London, 2004, p. 259)
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080311_israeli_deaths_matter.php
If you think that’s bad you want to have a look a the palestinian news broadcasts.
Every story relating to the conflicts refer to, for example.
“three israelis died and four palestinians were martyred today…”
It’s almost comical….
Steve, I can begin to understand such propaganda from a Palestinian point of view. But from a UK media organisation? One that prides itself on impartiality? This is much more subtle and much more of a concern.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/
What I find comical is how when this behaviour is highlighted to the media they just ignore it or criticise. Try find a review of the Media Lens book in the mainstream media.