...Consider, for example, the January 28 article, "Israel Vows Not to Block Supplies to Gaza." By presenting this decision as a negative rather than a positive (Israel will let supplies flow; Israel wants to avoid any humanitarian crisis in Gaza, etc) it seems as if the newspaper is grudgingly admitting that Israel is doing something good but trying to minimize it. Then comes a spin slanted against Israel:
"Israel would no longer disrupt the supply of food, medicine and necessary energy into the Gaza Strip and intended to prevent a 'humanitarian disaster' there."The obvious and intended implication here is that Israel has been blocking three things, thus threatening to unleash a humanitarian disaster. In fact, Israel has never blocked food and medicine, and while it has reduced energy supplies slightly--to a level reducing the Gaza electricity by no more than 20 percent--it has not blocked "necessary" energy but only made a marginal reduction.
Thus, in a masterfully crafted but factually inaccurate sentence, both newspapers accuse Israel of something it has never done and imply that it has committed inhuman crimes. (Or to put it another way, Congratulations, you have stopped beating your wife.)
Oh, we're just getting started as Mr. Erlanger is a master of bias. Dig this sentence...
[and on and on... some paper of 'record']
READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment