Originally posted by Nilsen
The story you are linking to is from a jewish site. Is that supposed to prove anything? Not saying the site is not reliable because I know nothing about it but still.. you know what i mean.
Of course I do, and your point is valid. But consider please that it takes one bias to be willing and/or able to illustrate another. We expect media sources that claim to be unbiased to be...UNBIASED. Whatever became of the investigative reporter who only sought to report truth? I know bias occurs in both directions, it just irks me when it comes from those who claim no bias, a claim which I did not see on the jewish website.
Originally posted by Nilsen
My point is... how do you translate an edited picture taken by a freelace photojournalist into an "agenda" by Reuters?
When you use freelacers there is a sertain risk, so i would say that this is a hint that maybe the desk at Reuters have missed that it was edited and are guilty of not double checking photos.
If I saw the same thing being done towards or from both sides (by Reuters/AP/etc.) I'd agree, so far I'm only seeing the bias toward one side of this conflict. I'm keeping my mind open to the possibility that it is happening both ways, but so far nobody has shown me such, hence I say they are biased in favor of Hezbollah.
I use the term bias in place of the one I truly beleive to be the case, willing mouthpeices of the Hezbollah/AlQaeda/Hamas/PLO propoganda machines. But my beleifs are simply my own bias, which is okay since I make no claims to be unbiased. This whole mess has come down to an us-against-them to me.
