The Media does it again! 56 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

I remember when Arafat of the Palestinians died, probably killed by his loving heirs, the Media and the Academia went crazy. He was praised as a "wise" ruler who wanted "peace" (Well yes, if all of the Jews are killed, the suicide bombings will end:rolleyes: ), and was given long, lavishing bios and praises on the front page of the American newspapers (Though I'm sure there were exceptions). Now Sharon is sick, and may die soon. yet the media has hardly paid attention to him at all, and the academia remains strangely silent. So apparently the far left loves the terrorist-supporting dictator more than the democratically elected leader who actually did try to achieve peace. True, he did make mistakes and do bad things, like all human leaders. But at least he made a good attempt at achieving peace with the Palestinians - which is more than I can say for Arafat. Your thoughts, anyone?




Dragokatzov

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

24th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,363 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

i believe Arafat was poisened by the americans. i really do. they did not know what was wrong with him, and him being murdered by his heirs does not make a lot of sence, if it was not for him, would we know what palistine was?

as for sharon, he seems to be dieing of more natural cause, not being murdered. so, as a resuilt, he is not getting the same media coverage as Arafat did. this is just my opinion




Mast3rofPuppets VIP Member

08'aIgnorance is not an excuse

50 XP

28th November 2003

0 Uploads

8,198 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

I've read pretty much about it, but keep in mind that he isn't dead yet. I can't remember reading anything about that Arafat was sick...

I can promise you that if Sharon dies the media will write shitloads about it. I think you're looking for bias in the media wich isn't there.




Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

As far as I know, Sharon has only been the Prime Minister for 4 years now, but served high in the Israeli political structure since the early 90's. Before that he was the famous war hero from the Six Day War, and the Yum Kippur War.

Arafat were the leader of the PLO since 1969, meaning about 20 years more political experience than Sharon.

That may have something to do with the media focusing more on Arafat. He's been on the top down there almost since the "beginning", while Sharon werent a part of the political authorities until recently.

He was praised as a "wise" ruler who wanted "peace" (Well yes, if all of the Jews are killed, the suicide bombings will end:rolleyes: )

You have to see it from both sides.

Imagine: Spain is an evil empire. They systematicly eradicates and kills the ethnic/religon group of "Hivatofo", which lives all over the world, with a large amount of Hivatofos living in Portugal. Unfortunatly, after Spain had invaded Portugal, they rounded all this Hivatofos up and kills them. Around 6 million to be precise.

Now, after an large alliance between lots of nations spread all around Europe, Spain was forced to surrender. After their surrender, the Alliance dicovered horrible death camps were the Hivatofos had slaved and then been killed.

The world feels sorry for the Hivatofos, and decides to give them the territory they long have ment belonged to them: The Eastern coast of the United States.

The United States is a pretty weak nation, so they can't realy stand up against the Alliance, and after a large amount of pressure, the Americans has to leave the Eastern Coast, and give them to the Hivatofos.

Now, some years later, the whole area starts to stir up again. American extremists starts attacking the Hivatofo nation. They want their territorries back.

But now, the Hivatofos have made a huge and powerfull ally: The Soviet Union. The Soviet Union provides state of the art weapons to the Hivatofos, so its realy an uneven match. Poorly armed guerilla from America against heavy tanks of the Hivatofos...the Americans starts with desperate tactics: blowing civilians up in the air...

What other can they do? If you lived on the US Eastern Coast, what would you do?

To sum it all up: Acording to Israel their territory down there belongs to them given by God. Acording to Palenstine, Israel only took their country with a huge amount of political pressure by the most powerful nations after WW2.

-------------------------------------

Forgive me if this sounds silly, I just tried to paint another picture using the same colors...




Force Recon

Semper fidelis

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,637 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

Gauntlet explained it beautifully.

Sharon was reponsible however indirectly for the massacre of the Palestinians in the 1980s.Sabra and Shatila.

Wiki says something about it here.Despite this most poeple wanted to cooperate with him for the peace process and forget his acts.




silian

40 years of the Ford Escort!

50 XP

10th October 2004

0 Uploads

1,678 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeI remember when Arafat of the Palestinians died, probably killed by his loving heirs, the Media and the Academia went crazy.... ....Now Sharon is sick, and may die soon. yet the media has hardly paid attention to him at all, and the academia remains strangely silent.

What planet are you on? AFAIK the media is covering Sharon's condition as much as Arafats death.




EON_MagicMan

Lumpy

50 XP

27th September 2005

0 Uploads

1,042 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Yeah I'm not so sure what you're talking about either, because from what I remember when he died, I saw articles talking about a chance for something to change and a chance for piece. "Wise" ruler who wanted "piece"? Are you sure you weren't watching someone's opinion on the news?




Nederbörd

Has mutated into a Lurker

50 XP

13th March 2005

0 Uploads

1,848 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

Machiavelli, which country are you from? Up here all the newspapers, TV and radio channels talk about Sharon's status as much as they did about Arafat's death. In my eyes though, no side is any better than the other.




GreatGrizzly

Fear the Bear

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

Machiavelli thinks all the media is one big "left-wing conspiracy" :rolleyes:

I just opened up the Los angeles times and on the front page of the world section it talks about the guys condition




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
Emir Al-AzizGauntlet explained it beautifully. Sharon was reponsible however indirectly for the massacre of the Palestinians in the 1980s.Sabra and Shatila. Wiki says something about it here.Despite this most poeple wanted to cooperate with him for the peace process and forget his acts.

So why should Arafat be treated any differently? He was directly responsible for massacres done by Hamas and other terrorist groups, as he deliberately funded and encouraged such actions.

What planet are you on? AFAIK the media is covering Sharon's condition as much as Arafats death.

Like I said, there may be exceptions to this. All I know is that the California media hasn't praised Sharon at all, while they made Arafat look like a Saint. A little two faced, isn't it?

Machiavelli thinks all the media is one big "left-wing conspiracy"

Why do I feel you pulled that out of thin air? But I can't fault your active imagination.

I just opened up the Los angeles times and on the front page of the world section it talks about the guys condition

Did it discuss his "glorious achievements" and what a "wonderful person" he was? I think not!

Now I'm not saying he deserved it - but if they gave his enemy so much attention, they should at least have the even-handedness to portray him good as well.