Another interesting point is Gawenda’s observation about growing anti-Jewish sentiment in the media. To bring up another journalistic adage, I wonder if the media is reflecting wider society’s opinion on this, or if they’re actually setting the anti-Jewish agenda?

I think its more of the latter, due to the fact that those of a left wing persuasion, who are more likely to be critical of Israel and religion etc, are over-represented in the media. At least I hope so.

That does not mean that this should not be a journalist’s aim – it just may not be possible. Clearly – some pieces of journalism are better then other, because they actually represent what is going on in reality. This postmodernist nonsense that says that there is nothing objective out there really does not impress me.

I mentioned in a comment to another post that I find Paul Kelly to be the most balanced journalist in the country. He analyses the political situation in this country without ever revealing which side he is on, dishing out credit and criticism to all sides when they are due. He is the last bastion of reasonable objectivity in journalism today.

It is possible to report the news objectively, presenting only the facts. For example, one could write regarding the recent tsunami in Samoa:
“A tsunami hit Samoa. N number of people died and X were injured. An investigation is underway”.

One could report on the same event subjectively, thus:
“A tsunami hit Samoa. N number of people died and X were injured. Climate change has been blamed for the increased frequency of tsunamis in the region.”

The latter example tells us that the writer wants us to think he/she has a PhD in meterology and geology. More likely, however, is that they blame government inaction on climate change (which may or may not be caused primarily by humans and not just natural cycles) and is trying to make a political point.

You raise a great question. I guess it comes down a little to semantics.

On one hand, everyone brings some degree of baggage, and there is no totally objective viewpoint. So yes, everyone is biased to a degree. But the keyword is “degree”. There are degrees of bias.

Thus when people use the term “biased” or “unbiased”, they are often not using them in absolute terms, but rather in a relative sense.

If a mainstream western newspaper appointed a Kahanist or (slightly more likely) a member of the “International Solidarity Movement” (ok, ISM members typically only report for organisations such as Indymedia) as their Mid-East correspondent, then many people would rightfully complain of the reporter being biased.

From what I understand, many reporters assigned to report on Israel (or many other subjects for that matter) arrive with some strongly pre-conceived ideas. This would be ok, except that they then operate under a confirmatory bias, where they (perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not) seek out stories to fit with their preconceived ideas.

As far as I understand, objectivity is premised on the assumption that there is an actual & discernible reality out there. That there are things that can be proven and disproven.

Following on from that, bias is when a person wilfully or unconsciously shuts his or her mind to possibilities other than his or her opinion, despite what ‘the facts’ suggest. In this sense, bias only works if you accept that there is an objective reality.

If there is no objective reality, then your individual and subjective view of the world is as good as any other view, none of which is incorrect. And there’s no obligation (in a subjective world) to consider the viewpoints of others or consider contradictory ‘facts’ (because of course facts don’t really work if everything is subjective).

So I ask again: is it meaningful to say someone is ‘biased’ if there is no such thing as ‘objective reporting’?

1)Ed O’Loughlin, who now resides in Ireland (thanks Google!), is sitting there at home and doing his thrice a day Google search of his own name.

2)His Google search delivers for him an interview with Gawenda of which a small portion is critical of him.

3)He creates a pseudonym (or perhaps uses an existing one) and begins to attack Gawenda in the comments section.

4)Ed, the only person in the world who remembers that he too (all the way back in 2003!) wrote an article on hummus, pastes us some of his copy.

If one is going to launch a public attack against a semi-public individual, they should really disclose their own identity and/or personal connection to the case.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Just warm & fuzzies? Of course not. Equally, not every story about the ME is obliged to discuss the conflict. You see responses to, say, a story about some medical breakthrough in Israel that read: “ah, but what about the Palestinians?” Why? Can’t the story just be about that? (and yes, it goes both ways)

Not at all … we’re turning into a debate on “exactly how biased is Ed O’Loughlin”?

It certainly beats picking on two words in the original article and turning them into a blow-up about nothing! Ed could never resist the opportunity to throw in a gratuitous reference to the conflict in any warm & fuzzy story on the middle east, and in this he differs starkly from Jason K. Are you now going to hunt through every one of Jason’s & Ed’s ME puff pieces to prove me wrong?