 |
|
|
Monday, November 1 2010Vote For This Year's Dishonest Reporter
Please choose one of the five nominees below, along with a brief explanation why he/she/it deserves to receive our ignoble award. (You may also nominate someone else not on the list). Then send your submission to action@honestreporting.com The Nominees (in no particular order)
We’ll announce the results at the end of year. Due to the volume of mail, we can't acknowledge nominations. See last year's "winners" -- and don’t forget to vote!
TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vote For This Year's Dishonest Reporter: CommentsThe most dishonest was the Catholic Synod saying Israel had no right to the Holy Land for Jesus abbrogated that right. Anyway the Catholics hijacked true Christianity starting with Old Constantine. They now practice White Magic. Harriet Sherwood of the Guardian. For consistently reporting positively about Palestinian issues and negatively about Israeli ones with deeply suspicious truthfullness REUTERS because doctoring a photo and being embedded in Hezbollah means deliberate spinning and not just misguided ignorance. New York Times should be added for blaming Israel for preventing peace. It ignores the facts & is VERY influential. I used to watch the BBC all the time, but now I see their news features are biased, un-researched and the reporters are totally unprepared and ignorant of facts. Quite laughable, actually. So I dont watch any more.
vote for BBC for denying Jewish Jerusalem. The lie is the biggest and therefore the easiest to foist on the public and therefore the most important to counter Panorama was the most biased that I watched/read however the others were not far behind. The BBC's overall biase against Israel is endemic and ongoing, and Bowen is one of the worst Israel "bashers", somehow dispationate reporting seams to go by the board where Israel is concerned I'm voting for "Reuters photo desk" and their shameful photos of IDF's commandos action which resulted with boat "Mavi Marnara"s interception. These photos were used by the enemies of Israel for undeserved and unjustified accusations against IDF, and state of Israel. Regretably, those who blamed Israel for that action ignored reports that "peace activist" on "Mavi Marnara" were armed and attacked IDF's soldiers!? I pick number one. I could pick all of the above,but since I can only pick one Ipick the BBC because they have always been anti Israel going back to the days of theBritish occupation. Where were they when Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan for 18 years. They never called Jeruasalem ande he west bank occupied territory. The Plistinians and most of the world including the United states never refered to Jordn as occupiers. However the BBc is theworst of the five because they never miss an opportunity to denigrate Israel. Could it be anti semitism? I want to nominate Leslie Stahl of60 minute for dishonest reporter about the Jerusalem segment on the City of David. I would have hope you would have included Peter Oborn for Channel 4 Dispatches where there were numerous inaccuracies about Israel and the UK Jewish community When it comes to dishonesty,The Lancet gets my vote. Time, Reuters and BBC are only doing what is expected from them. Octavia Nasr - an irrelevancy It is a close thing but TIME wins! They have a long-standing anti-Zionist (and anti-Semitic) view which is probably derived from financial aid to them or affiliates. The BBC. This organization always claims, since WW2 and the battle of Britain, that it only broadcasts TRUTHFUL news. This is not so. In fact it is not much better than Goebel's propaganda department. Jeremy Bowen's reports confirm that he still possesses his anti Israel prejudice. When the BBC does apologise the apology is no small that most people don't see or hear it. Maybe they just reflect the views and opinions of the Foreign Office. Joe Briscoe, Dublin, Ireland. My vote goes for the Lancet, because although the others are just as unethical in their presentation of news, they are in the news business, so readers and viewers are more likely to suspect a bias in their work. The Lancet is a medical journal, which enjoys a certain degree of "immunity" against readers' mistrust. They failed that trust. Let them get blackballed in the political arena, if that is where they want to be seen.
Next
»
|
