I realise this is not a huge claim, but I've noticed over recent months that Sky seems to give a more accurate picture of the Israel-Gaza situation than the BBC. The BBC bends over backwards to make the destruction and genocide of the Palestinians an "even-handed" conflict in which both sides are suffering and the horrendous Gazan fatality figures are always reported in the passive tense as if they happened by accident or by some unseen hand. Sky it seems are more up-front and in your face, showing graphic images of destroyed buildings and saying straight out that it was caused by an Israeli missile or bomb.
Obviously a small sample size. I don't watch any of them "live" but only as replayed in clips, usually in some form of critique or condemnation so by definition it will be biased.
I think SKY may be showing more of the unfiltered images but I think this is more to do with a cynical, "If it bleeds, it leads" approach rather than an even-handed sympathy for Palestinians.
I think at least on attribution of attacks to Israel they may be less cowed than the utterly craven BBC, but in general the same filters are operating, as the above clips show.
Something to look out for though; I'd be interested in hearing what others find and I'll bear it mind whenver I see a SKY clip on the topic....no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
The Owen Jones piece to camera blows apart any claim that Sky is "more accurate" etc. I agree with you that showing more explicit footage is more to do with a grisly appeal to feed a mass audience than any responsible policy of providing a fair and balanced reportage of facts on the ground.
Thanks for necessary corrective. And hats off to Own Jones. He has grown in my estimation. How long will he continue to write for the Guardian, I wonder. Either he will quit or they will get rid, using some mealy-mouthed excuse.
I have to say I agree with you on Jones; this has brought out the journalist in him and he's doing his best to burn his bridges. Whatever the reason, it's a welcome voice.
I wasn't trying to blow your argument apart and I don't really have enough content to judge, as I mentioned (I avoid the BBC like the plague to be honest). That segment of Jones' is pretty devastating though. However, nobody is as bad the BiBiC. Ever.
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
"And hats off to Owen Jones. He has grown in my estimation."
I always thought that Jones was a chump on most things but was always fairly good on the Palestinian issue itself: it was the sidetrack into the fake anti-Semitism witch hunt that made me doubt his honesty even on this issue.
Its a pattern very similar to that of Kenneth Roth of HRW who was always fairly good on the Palestinian issue too but basically backed the estalishment line on near everything else.
I reckon it was an acceptable moral quirk to back a cause like a Palestinian State that, as time went on, had less and less chance of going anywhere: just as long as you were more or less on their side over all the other issues.
The recent rightwise shifts in the Overton window have left them both somewhat outside the frame.
It was a necessary corrective, Rask, which is what I asked for. Thanks
on October 14, 2024, 10:33 pm