March 06, 2005

Bias Against Israel in WaPo?

From Bernstein at VC, EyeonthePost brings out the mistakes and biases of the Washington Post. Having read it as my local paper for a few years, I knew it was biased, but it's nice to have outside confirmation.

The examples here are comparable: while Israel is deemed an 'occupier' of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there is said to be a 'continued Syrian presence' in Lebanon. While a single example doesn't show consistent bias, it is interesting that one would go to the trouble to construct a grammatically strange 'continued presence' line when 'occupier' is so much simpler and more common to our speech. It's especially funny, since Israel is a democracy that has been in negotiations for years about giving up the WB and GS, while Syria is a one-party dictatorship that only in the last couple weeks has had more than token or local pressure to withdraw - let alone willingness to negotiate the issue.

Anyway, it's not conclusive because it's only one situation, but certainly this one comparison seems to suggest political bias against Israel (OR: for Syria; OR: for Bush's opponents).

Of course, reading the remainder of EyeonthePost makes it seem a lot less accidental - even part of a subtle but persistent anti-Israel bias.


Post a Comment

<< Home