Bad News from Israel

This is one of my favourite books, not only because it helped my through under- and post-graduate academia, but also because of its rarity value as an academic book that is eminently readable and accessible.

This book exposes the moral and informational bankruptcy of modern news values. This is no scattergun attack on corporate media a-la Michael Moore. This is a reasoned empirical study of how modern news values distort what view verifiable facts there are in an ongoing conflict.

Far from there being an anti-Israeli bias at the BBC, a charge regularly levelled at 'Auntie', editorial judgements at this notionally public service institution, amongst many others, consistently portrayed the Israelis as perpetual victims and the Palestinians as perpetual perpetrators during the period of study, leading to erroneous public understanding of events in the conflict.

I hope there will be a follow up to see whether these biases, unwitting or otherwise, still exist.

If you read the Economist, then read something else - this. (13/15 people found this helpful)

I am a social scientist used to reading studies which use many of the methods applied here to study the impact of BBC news stories on the understandings and perceptions of the public to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I can't comment on how balanced the history of the conflict is, as it is laid out in the first part of the book. However it is clear to me as a left-oriented scientist, that they went very far including perspectives from both sides to fill out the more recent contested versions of history. Ultra-right wing Netanyahu is given air as are pro-palestinian accounts. It is hard to feel that the Palestinians (who on the BBC rarely get a fair picture presented) are over-supported here, though pro-Israeli's may feel so since they are part of a dominant cultural camp in that respect.

The title here is in response to the Economists review of this book which slated it using 'quotes' from the book which do not exist. I suggest that you read this book rather than the economist, which I have never rated as a serious intellectual journal anyway.
Thanks

The best eye-opener since Michael Moore (13/15 people found this helpful)

Anyone denouncing this book simply has not read it.
This gives a clear, truthful and shocking view of a world we honestly and regretfully know nothing about- read it. Then do something about it.

Bad News from Israel (23/26 people found this helpful)

It is disturbing to discover that the British nation (and undoubtedly others too) has been continuously and consistently deceived by our respected media in its reporting from Israel and Palestine.
Greg Philo's well-researched and eloquent study reveals that for decades we have been denied the truth and that a deeply flawed perspective on the conflict has been provided.
The justice of the Palestinian cause has been denied a proper explanation; the war-crimes of the Israeli occupiers have been concealed and the sufferings of the poor and the oppressed have not been reported accurately, if at all.
I urge all those interested in learning the truth about Palestine and in confronting the bias of the media to read this book.

A guide to misunderstanding Israel-Palestine (40/42 people found this helpful)

Greg Philo, Professor of Communications at Glasgow University, carried out a three year study into the relationship between television and the construction of public knowledge - how we understand foreign events etc. What he found was that 80% rely mainly on TV news, and that people (esp. young people) were very confused about events.

Philo DOESN'T claim that reporters and news organisations are deliberately biased, but that a lack of historical perspective causes confusion. A huge majority of the British public thought that the 'settlers' were Palestinian, and that the 'occupied territories' were Israeli land being occupied by Palestinians. They thought that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was just another border conflict - they didn't realise that a people had been dispossessed.

This loss of the origins of the conflict has interesting consequences. Palestinians were always seen as initiating violence, and Israelis as responding. Palestinian action was never understood as a 'response' to occupation and repression and loss of land. People assume suicide bombs are the result of 'mad-men', rather than emerging from a particular set of social conditions.

Reporters' subconscious use of words like 'hit-back', 'retaliate', 'pay-back time' were only used in terms of the Israeli action; while 'atrocity', 'murder' and 'cold-blood' were only used to refer to Palestinian action. This use of words tacitly endorses Israeli action while condemning Palestinian action. Can you imagine a suicide bomb being described in a news report as 'Palestinians hit back for 35 years of occupation? Or an Israeli raid into a refugee camp being described as 'cold-blooded killing'?

This different semantic treatment for the Palestinians and Israelis produced some odd results. A group of people were asked to write a script for a set of pictures used in a news report a few years ago. The pictures were of Mohammed Al-Dura, the 12 year old boy, who's father claims was shot by Israeli snipers, but who Israelis claim was caught in the crossfire. The group said that 'this boy was caught in the crossfire' and worryingly, they went on to say 'in retaliation for a Palestinian suicide bomb'. But Mohammed Al-Dura was shot at the start of the current intifada, before the first suicide bomb!

Philo is NOT a pro-Palestinian campaigner, he makes it clear at the outset that he is not endorsing any killing - Israeli or Palestinian. He is interested in how people misunderstand events, and what the cause of that knowledge was. Despite this, he has been the target of letter-writing campaigns, and malicious reviews in international publications which have clearly not read his work.

An eye-opening insight into how the public misunderstands Palestine, and how reporters are subconsciously responsible.

Greg Philo, Mike Berry

Reader Reviews:

Brilliant study... (1/1 people found this helpful)

If you read the Economist, then read something else - this. (13/15 people found this helpful)

The best eye-opener since Michael Moore (13/15 people found this helpful)

Bad News from Israel (23/26 people found this helpful)

A guide to misunderstanding Israel-Palestine (40/42 people found this helpful)

Similar Products

Categories