Media Lies: Believe it or Not - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Abood
#1235599
Robert Fisk: Lies and outrages... would you believe it?

It was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran


Published: 09 June 2007

When I was a schoolboy, I loved a column which regularly appeared in British papers called "Ripley's Believe It or Not!". In a single rectangular box filled with naively drawn illustrations, Ripley - Bob Ripley - would try to astonish his readers with amazing facts:

"Believe It or Not, in California, an entire museum is dedicated to candy dispensers ... Believe It or Not, a County Kerry man possesses an orange that is 25 years old ... Believe It or Not, a weather researcher had his ashes scattered on the eve of Hurricane Danielle 400 miles off the coast of Miama, Florida." Etc, etc, etc.

Incredibly, Ripley's column lives on, and there is even a collection of "Ripley Believe It or Not" museums in the United States.

The problem, of course, is that these are all extraordinary facts which will not offend anyone. There are no suicide bombers in Ripley, no Israeli air strikes ("Believe It or Not, 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, most of them civilians, were killed in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon"), no major casualty tolls ("Believe It or Not, up to 650,000 Iraqis died in the four years following the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq"). See what I mean? Just a bit too close to the bone (or bones).

But I was reminded of dear old Ripley when I was prowling through the articles marking the anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Memoirs there have been aplenty, but I think only the French press - in the shape of Le Monde Diplomatique - was prepared to confront a bit of "Believe It or Not".

It recalled vividly - and shamefully - how the world's newspapers covered the story of Egypt's "aggression" against Israel. In reality - Believe It or Not - it was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and ordered UN troops out of Sinai and Gaza following his vituperative threats to destroy Israel. "The Egyptians attack Israel," France-Soir told its readers on 5 June 1967, a whopper so big that it later amended its headline to "It's Middle East War!".

Quite so. Next day, the socialist Le Populaire headlined its story "Attacked on all sides, Israel resists victoriously". On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time". Believe It or Not, the Second World War - which might be counted one of the greatest of all time, had ended only 22 years earlier.

Johnny Hallyday, France's undie-able pop star, sang for 50,000 French supporters of Israel - for whom solidarity was expressed in the French press by Serge Gainsbourg, Juliette Gréco, Yves Montand, Simone Signoret, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and François Mitterand. Believe It or Not - and you can believe it - Mitterand once received the coveted Francisque medal from Pétain's Vichy collaborationists.

Only the president of France, General de Gaulle, moved into political isolation by telling a press conference several months later that Israel "is organising, on the territories which it has taken, an occupation which cannot work without oppression, repression and expulsions - and if there appears resistance to this, it will in turn be called 'terrorism'". This accurate prophecy earned reproof from the Nouvel Observateur - to the effect that "Gaullist France has no friends; it has only interests". And Believe It or Not, with the exception of one small Christian paper, there was in the entire French press one missing word: Palestinians.

I owe it to the academic Anicet Mobé Fansiama to remind me this week that - Believe It or Not - Congolese troops from Belgium's immensely wealthy African colony scored enormous victories over Italian troops in Africa during the Second World War, capturing 15,000 prisoners, including nine generals. Called "the Public Force" - a name which happily excluded the fact that these heroes were black Congolese - the army mobilised 13,000 soldiers and civilians to fight Vichy French colonies in Africa and deployed in the Middle East - where they were positioned to defend Palestine - as well as in Somalia, Madagascar, India and Burma.

Vast numbers of British and American troops passed through the Congo as its wealth was transferred to the war chests of the United States and Britain.

A US base was built at Kinshasa to move oil to Allied troops fighting in the Middle East.

But - Believe It or Not - when Congolese trade unions, whose members were requisitioned to perform hard labour inside Belgium's colony by carrying agricultural and industrial goods and military equipment, often on their backs, demanded higher salaries, the Belgian authorities confronted their demonstrations with rifle fire, shooting down 50 of their men.

At least 3,000 political prisoners were deported for hard labour to a remote district of Congo. Thus were those who gave their blood for Allied victory repaid. Or rather not repaid. The four billion Belgian francs which was owed back to the Congo - about £500m in today's money - was never handed over. Believe It or Not.

So let's relax and return to Ripley reality. "Believe It or Not, Russell Parsons of Hurricane, West Virginia, has his funeral and cremation instructions tattooed on his arm! ... Believe It or Not, in April 2007 (yes, these are new Ripleys) a group of animal lovers paid nearly $3,400 to buy 300 lobsters from a Maine fish market - then set them free back into the ocean! ... Believe It or Not, in a hospital waiting room, 70 per cent of people suffer from broken bones, 75 per cent are fatigued, 80 per cent have fevers. What percentage of people must have all four ailments?" Believe It or Not, I don't know. And oh yes, "Geta, Emperor of Rome AD189-212, insisted upon alternative meals. A typical menu: partridge (perdix), peacock (pavo), leek (porrum), beans (phaseoli), peach (persica), plum (pruna) and melon (pepone)."

I guess after that, you just have to throw up.

The Independent
User avatar
By Dan
#1235779
it was Israel which attacked Egypt after Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and ordered UN troops out of Sinai and Gaza following his vituperative threats to destroy Israel.

I wonder why?

Hmmm... When a number of larger nations threaten to destroy you and commit hostile actions (BTW, blockades can be considered acts of war) against you, you should wait for them to attack you?
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1235785
When a number of larger nations threaten to destroy you and commit hostile actions


You are talking about Iran - right?
User avatar
By Dan
#1235788
You are talking about Iran - right?

No. While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be a blowhard, if you look on a map, Iran has no way to attack Israel, so they are not a real threat, unless they get nukes.
User avatar
By Arcadian
#1235890
Iran has no way to attack Israel, so they are not a real threat, unless they get nukes.


Or use proxies.
User avatar
By Abood
#1236468
May I remind everyone that this thread is in the Media sub-forum. It's not for discussing the issues the articles talks about as examples, but rather for discussing media coverage of those issues.

So why did I post this article? Well, concerning the example Dan quoted, it's obvious that the media was not only biased with the issue, but actually lied. Egypt in no way "attacked" Israel. And what's amazing is that I actually believed Egypt attacked Israel, and I know many Egyptians who actually believe that: They believe that Egypt invaded Israel, and then Israel attacked Egypt. Of course, that's not true. The media, essentially, re-wrote history.
User avatar
By NYYS
#1236557
May I remind everyone that this thread is in the Media sub-forum. It's not for discussing the issues the articles talks about as examples, but rather for discussing media coverage of those issues.

Yeah, this forum is for serious pointing out of Jews in the media only. None of your pesky "debating" and "not accusing people of being brainwashed."
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1236606
Yeah, this forum is for serious pointing out of Jews in the media only. None of your pesky "debating" and "not accusing people of being brainwashed."


Educate yourself on argumentum ad hominem.
User avatar
By Dan
#1236926
Ummm. Abood he posts 2 papers which said Israel was attacked,, one of which he said retracted the headline and the second of which was accurate. And the Israeli victory was one of the greatest in a long time.

This fails completely to prove his point in any way. So the article is still fail.
User avatar
By Abood
#1236947
Who posted two articles? What are you talking about?

And I don't see how this has anything to do with Israeli victory. It's about portraying Egypt as the "attacker" when it didn't even attack Israel.
User avatar
By Dan
#1236971
Who posted two articles? What are you talking about?

The Article wrote:"The Egyptians attack Israel," France-Soir told its readers on 5 June 1967, a whopper so big that it later amended its headline to "It's Middle East War!".

Quite so. Next day, the socialist Le Populaire headlined its story "Attacked on all sides, Israel resists victoriously". On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time".

2 Headlines including a retraction do not a case make.

And I don't see how this has anything to do with Israeli victory. It's about portraying Egypt as the "attacker" when it didn't even attack Israel.

The Article wrote:On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time".

The headline was true.
User avatar
By Abood
#1236980
2 Headlines including a retraction do not a case make.
He can't talk about every single article, can he?

By the way, he mentioned three articles:

"The Egyptians attack Israel," France-Soir told its readers on 5 June 1967, a whopper so big that it later amended its headline to "It's Middle East War!".

Quite so. Next day, the socialist Le Populaire headlined its story "Attacked on all sides, Israel resists victoriously". On the same day, Le Figaro carried an article announcing that "the victory of the army of David is one of the greatest of all time".


The headline was true.
A great victory implies that Israel is the "angel" defeating its attackers.
User avatar
By Dan
#1237049
He can't talk about every single article, can he?

He should be able to talk about more than one retracted headline and one headline that is accurate to prove media bias in Israel's favour by declaring Egypt the attacker.

By the way, he mentioned three articles:

But the third did not mention that Egypt was teh attacekr in any way.

A great victory implies that Israel is the "angel" defeating its attackers.

No, it doesn't. It implies that Israel had a great victory, which from a strategic standpoint is quite true.
User avatar
By War Angel
#1237197
Robert Fisk, LOL. What a monument for journalistic integrity he is. :lol:

Next up is Adolph Hitler, in his lecture about accpeting other people and being at peace with the world, followed by Ghandi, who will lecture us about armed resistance and how violence can help us solve our problems.

Stay tuned!
By jeff silverleaf
#1237514
I don't know if the meadia lies, but it is slanted. I always thought is funny that people like to say that the media is to "liberal". Seeing how that the media is mostly owned by the right-wing supporters.
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1238245
Abood wrote:The media, essentially, re-wrote history.


This is a very important point. Newspapers are probably one of the most relied upon sources when it comes to writing histories. I think if anyone cares to look at any books on modern history and politics, a great deal of the primary sources are newspaper articles - often major newspaper like New York Times and Washington Post etc.. So we are likely to run into a serious problem if the newspapers do not correctly report the events.

The prosecutor will need to explain why is it that[…]

If your argument centers around not believing in […]

https://i.ibb.co/Bs37t8b/canvas-moral[…]

I was being sarcastic, @FiveofSwords . Hitler wa[…]