RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks?

RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:13:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver unlike most of the American media that appears to ignore Palastinian fatalities all together or puts them in a footnote. Ok, so now we're saying the US media doesn't report Palestinian casualties. Care to try and back that one up? I just searched Google news, and in about 15 seconds, I found 3 major US newspapers highlighting Palestinian casualties in their front-page headlines: Washington Post: 3 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Offensive Boston Globe: Raids kill 13 Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank Houston Chronicle: 14 Palestinians die in Israeli Gaza raids

darkinshadows -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:26:33 AM)
FFS Pollux I don't often get pissed off - but you have that honour. I have had the displeasure or reading your 'retaliation' posts and am very tired at your naivety. WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER HOW MANY DIED WHETHER THEY ARE JEW, MUSLIM OR CHRISTIAN. PEOPLE ARE FUCKING DYING. Please don't try and justify death through war just because your bloody 'president' (and our shitless PM) can't get their asses into gear and prefere to act like spoilt brats.

Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:28:13 AM)
I got twice as many results searching for "Israeli Casualties" as I did for "Palestinian Casualties". Considering the difference in casualty numbers, you'd have to agree something is awry.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:29:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver unlike most of the American media that appears to ignore Palastinian fatalities all together or puts them in a footnote. Ok, so now we're saying the US media doesn't report Palestinian casualties. Care to try and back that one up? I just searched Google news, and in about 15 seconds, I found 3 major US newspapers highlighting Palestinian casualties in their front-page headlines: Washington Post: 3 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Offensive Boston Globe: Raids kill 13 Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank Houston Chronicle: 14 Palestinians die in Israeli Gaza raids What is new? The US media is internationally reknowned for ignoring Arab deaths. I have provided links to media of at least four countries that all give a similar figure to what I have given. Perhaps its a conspiracy. You will notice how few deaths they report and the big difference between their figures and other international media. Not an accident I assume.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:38:06 AM)
The Australian. Hardly the bedrock of European anti-semitism, if that's what your problem is. OK The Australians body count is well ahead of those of American newspapers. 110 dead, about half militants. What are the other half, Martians? http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19855190-38201,00.html http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19849608-601,00.html

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 6:56:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy I got twice as many results searching for "Israeli Casualties" as I did for "Palestinian Casualties". Considering the difference in casualty numbers, you'd have to agree something is awry. A couple of points: 1. Google News aggregates news from all over the world, not just the US. It includes sites such as antiwar.com, as well as China News Daily and Al-Jazeera. 2. Israel is fighting a two-front war, so you have to include the Lebanese (Hezbollah) in addition to the Palestinians (Hamas). Still, the numbers are interesting, but I don't think they support your point very well. "Israeli casualties": 506 "Palestinian casualties": 320 "Lebanese casualties": 53 The ratio of occurences of the phrase referring to non-Israeli casualties vs. Israeli casualties is (320 + 53 = 373) : 506 = 0.73. Hm... That's closer to 75% than 50%. Kinda hard to make the case that there are twice as many occurrences of that phrase with those numbers. What happens if we look at the phrase "... civilians"? "Israeli civilians": 2200 "Palestinian civilians": 2800 "Lebanese civilians": 3030 Gee, that doesn't look very fair at all, does it? Israeli civilians are mentioned 2200 times. Non-Israeli civilians are mentioned 5830 times. 2200 : 5830 = 0.38. So non-Israeli civilians are mentioned 3 times as frequently as Israeli civilians. In any event, I'm not sure what point we're making here, since the argument is about US media "ignoring" non-Israeli casualties, and Google News looks at media from all over the world. In the first case, it looks like the world media may be biased in the way you suggest. In the second case it looks like the numbers don't support your argument, and in fact make exactly the opposite point. So, go figure. Just so we're clear: my issue is with meatcleaver, who claimed the US media ignores or footnotes Arab casualties. I gave three examples from first-tier US newspapers who each have Arab deaths featured in prominent headlines today, so I don't think he has a defensible point.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:04:23 AM)
I'm looking at your links and I find it bizarre you come up with those stats. How are you working them out? From when to when or is this just to show that the American media prominantly report Arab deaths? By the way. Israel started the two front war.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:04:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver What is new? The US media is internationally reknowned for ignoring Arab deaths. Well, I guess that settles it then. Kind of odd that the facts don't seem to support that "international reknown" all the well, isn't it? quote: I have provided links to media of at least four countries that all give a similar figure to what I have given. Perhaps its a conspiracy. You will notice how few deaths they report and the big difference between their figures and other international media. Not an accident I assume. You haven't bothered to analyze whether these stories are referring to the same incident, or whether they are reporting over the same time period, or what the sources are for those casualty figures. The IDF is going to report a different figure than the PA. Al Jazeera is going to have a different number than Haaretz. Who do you believe? Regardless, none of that is particularly relevant to what I'm taking issue with here: Your original claim was that the US media ignores or footnotes Arab deaths. I found 3 prominent headlines in 3 major US papers, all of which point out non-Israeli casualties. I didn't even have to look for them -- they popped up within the first 10 or so entries in Google News. So I really don't think your point stands up very well.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:06:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I'm looking at your links and I find it bizarre you come up with those stats. How are you working them out? I'm looking at the story totals in the upper right of the Google News page (where it reports the number of stories returned in response to the search phrase). Since story content is dynamic, the numbers are changing. The first one, for example ("Israeli casualties") is now 507, not 506. I'm just dividing one number by the other to determine the ratio of stories containing one phrase vs. stories containing the other phrase.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darkinshadows FFS Pollux I don't often get pissed off - but you have that honour. I have had the displeasure or reading your 'retaliation' posts and am very tired at your naivety. WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER HOW MANY DIED WHETHER THEY ARE JEW, MUSLIM OR CHRISTIAN. PEOPLE ARE FUCKING DYING. Please don't try and justify death through war just because your bloody 'president' (and our shitless PM) can't get their asses into gear and prefere to act like spoilt brats. I don't think you're following the argument very well.

shtrbg -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:10:47 AM)
is Paris Hilton throwing her political weight around again?

Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:11:17 AM)
It is a nice fantasy that the White House calls up the editors of the NY Times, and the rest of the media outlets in the USA, and tells them they could end up like Vince Foster unless they print exactly what they are told... But it is just a fantasy (much like the one about the Dixie Chicks' careers being ruined by a vengeful President.and his legions of loyal followers). In the real world, there is no monolithic 'American Media', acting in lockstep to keep people from knowing 'The Truth'. There are a handful of extremely greedy multi-national coporations who find it useful to create the notion of being on one side or the other (politically, socially, or nationally) to churn profits...and a whole lot of gullible fish who fall for the illusion. Bread and circuses.... works every time. Read Bagdikian.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:14:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux You haven't bothered to analyze whether these stories are referring to the same incident, or whether they are reporting over the same time period, or what the sources are for those casualty figures. The IDF is going to report a different figure than the PA. Al Jazeera is going to have a different number than Haaretz. Who do you believe? Regardless, none of that is particularly relevant to what I'm taking issue with here: Your original claim was that the US media ignores or footnotes Arab deaths. I found 3 prominent headlines in 3 major US papers, all of which point out non-Israeli casualties. I didn't even have to look for them -- they popped up within the first 10 or so entries in Google News. So I really don't think your point stands up very well. I purposely left Al Jazeera and Israeli media out of it because both will be accused of bias. You're becoming boring now with your petty points simply because you feel you have been slighted because you posted a repost before reading my latest posts this morning. Just compare all the media if you want and you will find less reports or less prominent reports in the American press than the press in other countries. You will find a bias towards Israel. It is not just me that gets that impression but many people around the world.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:15:50 AM)
Of course. So it's doubly irresponsible to claim that the "American Media" ignores Arab deaths. That's also a fantasy.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:22:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver By the way. Israel started the two front war. Right. Israel started the two front war by the highly provocative acts of withdrawing completely from S. Lebanon, and then by evacuating Gaza and demolishing all its settlements there. Boy, if those aren't warlike provocation, I don't know what is. Until Israel "started" this two front war, Hamas and Hezbollah were peacefully repairing potholes and flying kites.

meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:38:09 AM)
Israel turned Gaza into a prison camp. Israel refused to allow Gaza an open border with Egypt, it refused Palastinians freedom of airspace and freedom of its coastline. It has destroyed the Gaza infrastructure and refused to let the Palastinian police to import small arms so the police were effectively unable to police any militants. It then blamed the Palastinian authority for allowing terrorist activity when it had tied both arms of the Palastinian authority behind its back. Israel then carried on with extra-judicial executions which killed many more innocent civilians than it did militants. Is it any wonder the Palastinians voted in Hamas when a moderate government was ineffective in getting Iarael to stop the constant executions and harrassment?

CrappyDom -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:45:17 AM)
We have a press in America? When did that happen? I thought we only had the Daily Show and if we wanted real news we needed to read The Guardian. My eyes were really opened to how shitty America's news media was during the Falklands war. You could get more in depth and accurate news from the censored English press than you could get from American papers. Shocked the hell out of me as a kid. Things have only gotten worse...

irishbynature -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 7:54:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux Of course. So it's doubly irresponsible to claim that the "American Media" ignores Arab deaths. That's also a fantasy. The American media shelters us unto our own little island. Many other countries knew of the genocide in Africa (1994-etc)....but all we heard was about Bosnia.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:14:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Israel turned Gaza into a prison camp. Administered by Hamas, which promptly set about repairing the infrastructure and improving conditions there as soon as Israel withdrew. Right. quote: Israel refused to allow Gaza an open border with Egypt, Because Palestinians were using that border passage to smuggle in guns and rockets and bombs. quote: it refused Palastinians freedom of airspace and freedom of its coastline. Because as soon as any of those restrictions are lifted, the Palestinians carry out suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. quote: It has destroyed the Gaza infrastructure and refused to let the Palastinian police to import small arms so the police were effectively unable to police any militants. It then blamed the Palastinian authority for allowing terrorist activity when it had tied both arms of the Palastinian authority behind its back. Oh, that's rich. THAT is rich -- because if there's anything the Palestinians are lacking, it's small arms. I'm sure that if the PA had simply had more guns, things would've been MUCH better. quote: Israel then carried on with extra-judicial executions which killed many more innocent civilians than it did militants. Is it any wonder the Palastinians voted in Hamas when a moderate government was ineffective in getting Iarael to stop the constant executions and harrassment? No, it is absolutely no wonder at all that the Palestinians voted for Hamas. Absolutely, completely, and utterly unsurprising. But not for the reasons you claim.

pollux -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irishbynature quote: ORIGINAL: pollux Of course. So it's doubly irresponsible to claim that the "American Media" ignores Arab deaths. That's also a fantasy. The American media shelters us unto our own little island. Many other countries knew of the genocide in Africa (1994-etc)....but all we heard was about Bosnia. You know, this might've been true 10 or 20 years ago, but it's preposterous to claim it's true now. You can read newspapers from all over the world. You can read the actual text of the UN Security Council resolutions -- you don't have to rely on media reports to spin it for you. You can watch Al Jazeera over the Internet. C-SPAN carries Question Time. You can watch the archives of all the PBS "Frontline" documentaries ever aired. You can find Der Spiegel online and seek out English translations of its articles or have them partially translated by Babelfish or Google. If you feel like you're on media-sheltered island, you only have yourself to blame.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875