The following study, by Media Lens, quotes Arab Media Watch adviser Guy Gabriel.

3 November 2008

The article below, by Greg Philo of the Glasgow University Media Group, was originally sent to the Guardian for its comments page.

"It shows how public debate on political issues is narrowed on the most influential media because of the absence of critical voices - whether the issue is the financial crisis or world conflicts such as in Israel/Palestine," he wrote. "New polling evidence from YouGov and the GUMG suggests that this is not at all what the public wants. The article was rejected by the Guardian on the grounds that 'it would be read as a piece of old lefty whingeing about bias'."

By Robert Jensen, journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

30 September 2008

When the bottom line is threatened, corporations typically show little concern for holding the line on political principles such as freedom of expression. In capitalism, freedom is too often just another word for maximizing profits.

But even when we have no illusions about the predatory nature of modern corporate capitalism, there's something particularly disheartening when a media corporation abandons free-speech principles. Journalists are supposed to be the good guys on freedom of expression, right? If for no other reason than self-interest, shouldn't media managers support these principles?

Yes, but apparently not when ideology gets in the way, as seems to be the case at Canada's largest media corporation.

CanWest - owner of newspaper, television, and online properties, including one of the country's national dailies and a TV network - is trying to use trade-mark law to punish political activists' free speech in a classic SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation).

This case is relatively simple: CanWest's founder, Izzy Asper, was a vocal supporter of Israel - he's been quoted as telling The Jerusalem Post, "In all our newspapers, including the National Post, we have a very pro-Israel position ... we are the strongest supporter of Israel in Canada." ("Mogul with a message," National Post, 15 August 2003) - and CanWest papers have maintained that ideological commitment since Asper's death in 2003.

By Ira Glunts
18 August 2008
Electronic Intifada

As Philip Giraldi points out in his 12 August article "America's Israeli-Occupied Media" published on antiwar.com, the Israeli government is continuing its campaign to get the US military to attack Iran or at least give a "green light" for a massive Israeli bombing strike. In pursuit of this reckless and ill-conceived plan Tel Aviv has a willing co-conspirator in the mainstream American media, who will present the Israeli world-view without criticism or qualification.

CBS recently re-aired a 60 Minutes segment entitled "The Israeli Air Force" that provides a rather startling example of how the American news media will permit the Israelis to present their point of view to the exclusion of any competing narrative.

Arab Media Watch monitored and analysed commentary on Libya from the British national daily press (apart from the Financial Times) for almost two years: June 2006 - May 2008 (excluding weekends and bank holidays).  

Most commentators agree that Libya was once a pariah, often regarded as a sponsor of terrorism. Now things have changed, and many have detected in the last few years a shift in the country's status.

However, analysis of the press Libya receives in Britain reveals that overall, the past is not forgotten and suspicions persist - along with a great deal of scepticism about the shift in international politics that allowed the country an attempt at shedding its old image.

Over a three-month period, Arab Media Watch taped, transcribed and analysed the ITV news at 6.30pm, which is its news broadcast with the highest viewing figures, according to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board.

Arab Media Watch expresses concern and surprise at the British press's almost total silence over the release on 1 May 2008 of Al Jazeera cameraman Sami Al-Haj from Guantanamo Bay, where he had been imprisoned without charge or trial for almost six years - the only journalist known to be held there.

26 February 2008

Arab Media Watch expresses concern at some of the recent British press commentary regarding Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed. While it is perfectly acceptable to express negative views about him, there have been derogatory mentions of the fact that he is Egyptian, which AMW feels crosses the line of acceptability.

By Brenda Abou Khalil, a member of Arab Media Watch and director of Friends of Lebanon.

4 February 2008

If you've ever wondered whether your take on world events is manipulated by the media, try this one on for size. Two news stories breaking on Monday, 4 February 2008. 

One: In the border town of Ghajar there was an incident in which Israeli forces fired into Lebanon, wounding one man and killing another. Israeli forces claim to have been returning gunfire. No Israelis were hit. The incident was not politically motivated, but was linked to illicit drug trafficking. One has to wonder why the Israelis chose to start shooting across the border - surely not an action to be taken lightly - rather than seeking shelter and calling for immediate assistance from UNIFIL. Bottom line: one Lebanese dead.

Two: In Dimona, Israel (nowhere near a border with either Lebanese or Palestinian territory; its only significance is its being the site of Israel's top secret nuclear reactor), a Palestinian detonated a bomb, killing himself and an Israeli woman. Eleven people were wounded. Israeli police shot dead another Palestinian at the scene. Although acknowledging that there had been no such attacks in over a year, the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman quickly stated that they "will continue to fight terrorism by all necessary means." Leaving the self-inflicted death aside, bottom line: one Israeli dead, one Palestinian dead (could he not have been arrested?).

Now here's the interesting part.