What is the difference between the words “terrorist” and “suicide bomber”?
The word “terrorist” is charged with very much negativity and is often used when correspondents have taken a side in a conflict. The word choice of “suicide bomber” only gives away that a person have blown himself or herself up with the goal to hurt other people. This term does not state that all suicide bombers are terrorists which is important to be clear about.
The word “terrorist” is charged with very much negativity and is often used when correspondents have taken a side in a conflict. The word choice of “suicide bomber” only gives away that a person have blown himself or herself up with the goal to hurt other people. This term does not state that all suicide bombers are terrorists which is important to be clear about.
Discuss the different facts revealed about the firing of rockets from Gaza.
What is shown about the “facts” here?
There are two very different stories told about these rockets. The Israelis state that the Palestinians and the Hamas have fired over 400 rockets during the last years, even during ceasefire. The Hamas have filled the rockets with chunks of rebar to make them even more deadly. The Israelis have now put up a blockade around Gaza to try to prevent being hit more times with the rockets.
According to a military leader of Hamas there has been no firing of rockets at all. He says that there is no point in firing them if they do not hit anybody or any buildings.
In this case the Hamas clearly is lying since there if proof of rockets being fired from them. However, there are probably so many more facts that you should consider before judging or choosing a side that are not stated in this video.
There are two very different stories told about these rockets. The Israelis state that the Palestinians and the Hamas have fired over 400 rockets during the last years, even during ceasefire. The Hamas have filled the rockets with chunks of rebar to make them even more deadly. The Israelis have now put up a blockade around Gaza to try to prevent being hit more times with the rockets.
According to a military leader of Hamas there has been no firing of rockets at all. He says that there is no point in firing them if they do not hit anybody or any buildings.
In this case the Hamas clearly is lying since there if proof of rockets being fired from them. However, there are probably so many more facts that you should consider before judging or choosing a side that are not stated in this video.
Different perspectives are presented about underground tunnels. What are
these? Is it possible to verify any of this information?
Once again there are two different sides to this story. The Israelis claims that the Palestinians use the tunnels to import iron, cement and rebar to make the rockets even more lethal than they already are. The Palestinians on the other hand says that they only use the tunnels to import food and items used for rebuilding houses and places that were destroyed during the war in 2009, and other necessaries that are crucial for the people´s survival.
There is some video footage of the tunnels but with only this information there is not anything verifying that the Palestinians only use them for the purposes they are talking about. There has to be more clear evidence of what actually is transported, imported and smuggled through the tunnels before any of this information can be verified.
Once again there are two different sides to this story. The Israelis claims that the Palestinians use the tunnels to import iron, cement and rebar to make the rockets even more lethal than they already are. The Palestinians on the other hand says that they only use the tunnels to import food and items used for rebuilding houses and places that were destroyed during the war in 2009, and other necessaries that are crucial for the people´s survival.
There is some video footage of the tunnels but with only this information there is not anything verifying that the Palestinians only use them for the purposes they are talking about. There has to be more clear evidence of what actually is transported, imported and smuggled through the tunnels before any of this information can be verified.
What are the problems with using words like occupation or settlements? What
do they mean in this context?
These two words are biased and when using them you “take a specific side” depending on how, when and about who you are referring to. Both of the words are strong and can be seen as negative words depending on the perspective. All journalists and correspondents have to be very careful when using either of these words.
These two words are biased and when using them you “take a specific side” depending on how, when and about who you are referring to. Both of the words are strong and can be seen as negative words depending on the perspective. All journalists and correspondents have to be very careful when using either of these words.
What advice is given to the average person who wants to understand the
Israel-Palestinian conflict?
An advice is to read books. Read books containing
information about not only the conflict, but about the history of the conflict
and the history of the people. Read the different views from both sides and
compare them, try to understand the differences. By doing this you can build
your own opinion of the conflict without all the bias from the different sides.
Reflection questions
Which of the two “stories” presented is most similar to what you have seen
reported in the Swedish media? Why is this, do you think?
According to me and what I have seen at home on the news, the pro-Palestinian story is the most alike to my view of the conflict. However, I do not have feel that Sweden has chosen a clear side at all. For me, it feels more like Sweden and the news displayed here are more concerned with showing the unfairness and often the weaker side rather than on specific side of the conflict in question. Sweden has through time kept a quite neutral position and opinion about conflicts around the world, this including the one concerning the Gaza strip as well.
According to me and what I have seen at home on the news, the pro-Palestinian story is the most alike to my view of the conflict. However, I do not have feel that Sweden has chosen a clear side at all. For me, it feels more like Sweden and the news displayed here are more concerned with showing the unfairness and often the weaker side rather than on specific side of the conflict in question. Sweden has through time kept a quite neutral position and opinion about conflicts around the world, this including the one concerning the Gaza strip as well.
Which of these stories is more likely to be presented in countries like,
for example, the USA, Germany or Jordan? Why?
In all of these three countries (USA, Germany and Jordan), the pro-Israeli video is most likely to be presented. The USA have a lot of Jews, especially since many emigrated there from Germany after the Holocaust. Israel and the United States have a close relationship and therefor it is clear that they would show the pro-Israeli video. Jordan is in good terms with USA and their king looks up to the States. Jordan often “follows” what the super power acts on and where they stand in these conflicts and rarely take the other side. Germany has a long history concerning Jews and Israel and therefor I think the pro-Israeli version is the one displayed in Germany. With the history of the Holocaust and all concerning that period of time, Germany has a hard time showing anything other than pro-Israeli versions. Of course, Germany also has a large Jew population in the country and that does not make it more complex to understand why they would show the pro-Israeli one.
In all of these three countries (USA, Germany and Jordan), the pro-Israeli video is most likely to be presented. The USA have a lot of Jews, especially since many emigrated there from Germany after the Holocaust. Israel and the United States have a close relationship and therefor it is clear that they would show the pro-Israeli video. Jordan is in good terms with USA and their king looks up to the States. Jordan often “follows” what the super power acts on and where they stand in these conflicts and rarely take the other side. Germany has a long history concerning Jews and Israel and therefor I think the pro-Israeli version is the one displayed in Germany. With the history of the Holocaust and all concerning that period of time, Germany has a hard time showing anything other than pro-Israeli versions. Of course, Germany also has a large Jew population in the country and that does not make it more complex to understand why they would show the pro-Israeli one.
If the reality of the Gaza Strip should be presented in a news story, what
elements should be included? Why?
The most important part is to be presented with the story from both sides. There has to be multiple people’s stories and facts that together make up the larger picture, since it is vital for a true understanding of the conflict. If not, the story would probably be bias towards a specific side and that is not the reality. It is also important to present the history of the conflict as well as the history of the people involved. Both positive and negative happenings/outcomes/effects should also be reported about from both sides. Otherwise the reporting would be bias, which once again does not display the truth and reality.
The most important part is to be presented with the story from both sides. There has to be multiple people’s stories and facts that together make up the larger picture, since it is vital for a true understanding of the conflict. If not, the story would probably be bias towards a specific side and that is not the reality. It is also important to present the history of the conflict as well as the history of the people involved. Both positive and negative happenings/outcomes/effects should also be reported about from both sides. Otherwise the reporting would be bias, which once again does not display the truth and reality.
How can you know if a news report is biased or not?
There are a couple of points you can check when trying to find out if a news report is bias or not. First of all you can check the main source of the article. Has that source any history of being bias or preferring one special side? Does the journalist or author have any specific political position or other interests? If so, you can almost draw the conclusion that the report is biased. When you read the report and see that there are more positives than negatives you can also oftentimes draw the same conclusion since the whole story probably not is displayed. The wording in the report can also reveal if the content is biased or not, e.g. with the words “terrorist” and “suicide bomber”.
There are a couple of points you can check when trying to find out if a news report is bias or not. First of all you can check the main source of the article. Has that source any history of being bias or preferring one special side? Does the journalist or author have any specific political position or other interests? If so, you can almost draw the conclusion that the report is biased. When you read the report and see that there are more positives than negatives you can also oftentimes draw the same conclusion since the whole story probably not is displayed. The wording in the report can also reveal if the content is biased or not, e.g. with the words “terrorist” and “suicide bomber”.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar