University of California, LA: Study on media bias.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Quote:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

Their methods:

Quote:

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

[...]

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Quote:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

No surprises there, really, though it's nice to finally have proof.

Quote:

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Now... How long have I been saying basically the same thing?

They were careful to not be biased themselves:

Quote:

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

This is quite possibly the first real proof of media biases:

Quote:

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

It feels nice to be vindicated.

To summarize:
Most major media outlets lean to the left, with the notable exception of Fox.
Radio and public television is reversed, leaning to the right more often.

Just the same thing I've always been saying.

Now, will people please stop trying to tell me that Fox news is the only one that's biased?
(Yes, I know, it's hard to see the bias of something you agree with, but please, try.)

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

To summarize:
Most major media outlets lean to the left, with the notable exception of Fox.
Radio and public television is reversed, leaning to the right more often.

Just the same thing I've always been saying.

Now, will people please stop trying to tell me that Fox news is the only one that's biased?
(Yes, I know, it's hard to see the bias of something you agree with, but please, try.)

Most media seem to take a contra view in order to attract readers. That's the only way to grab people's attention. So I would imagine that they would either be more right or more left than the establishment, sort of from a logical point of view? Otherwise people would not pay attention to what they have to say?

I like your combination of news reports to listen to in order to get a good average, but how objective is it really? Since the media seems to be leaning left and right, rather than in the middle with objective news reporting, there is a big portion of news that is either missing (because it does not fall into left or right) or distorted to fall into left or right. So by combining the left and right will only distort it more?

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

I like your combination of news reports to listen to in order to get a good average, but how objective is it really? Since the media seems to be leaning left and right, rather than in the middle with objective news reporting, there is a big portion of news that is either missing (because it does not fall into left or right) or distorted to fall into left or right. So by combining the left and right will only distort it more?

That's where interpretation and intelligence comes into play.

In any case, having both sides of the story is better than having just one. If they contradict each other, you know one or both is wrong, but at least you know that, instead of just accepting the version of it you happened to hear, right or wrong.
It's better to say "I don't know, because I've got conflicting information," than to say "I know, because I only heard one side of the story."

liljp617

I didn't really think a formal study was needed to show this =/

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

It's better to say "I don't know, because I've got conflicting information," than to say "I know, because I only heard one side of the story."

I would be more inclined to say that I cannot know because I have not been fully informed and nothing in the news is really open and transparent either. Media reports are limited by being fed information from Government for example on a "need to know" as well as "brain washing" exercise that may also exclude information that could be pertinent. The news reports may also be limited as media by virtue of their politics and wanting to please the people they get news from, may only ask certain questions, and leave important ones out. I believe it is far better to pick one news station and accept that it could be a hit and miss affair. The more sources of news, the greater the confusion in information, we may even "think" that we are more intelligent and better read, and then become "under the illusion" that we know what is going on. In other words, the more sources of news, the greater the delusion.

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

the more sources of news, the greater the delusion.

Only if you accept everything as true.
Having multiple sources is a time-tested way to eliminate false information. (Used in a stunningly wide variety of fields.) With only one source of information, you can never know if you're being lied to.

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

deanhills wrote:

the more sources of news, the greater the delusion.

Only if you accept everything as true.
Having multiple sources is a time-tested way to eliminate false information. (Used in a stunningly wide variety of fields.) With only one source of information, you can never know if you're being lied to.

Not if I accept that I am being lied to anyway. There may be a "whiff" of truth, in that there is always smoke when there is fire. For example during Sept 11 the terrorist attacks were real, but the actual factual accounting of what had happened, especially when the news broke, was not accurate. So whether you listened to only one set "of the facts" or "all sets", you would just get more confused, not less confused.

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

deanhills wrote:

the more sources of news, the greater the delusion.

Only if you accept everything as true.
Having multiple sources is a time-tested way to eliminate false information. (Used in a stunningly wide variety of fields.) With only one source of information, you can never know if you're being lied to.

Not if I accept that I am being lied to anyway. There may be a "whiff" of truth, in that there is always smoke when there is fire.

Well, at least with multiple sources, you can usually bet that when they all agree on something, it's true, which reduces confusion compared to only knowing one story, which you can't trust as true or false.

In your example, with multiple sources of information, you'd at least know that planes crashed into buildings... With only one untrustworthy source, you couldn't even be sure of that.

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

Well, at least with multiple sources, you can usually bet that when they all agree on something, it's true, which reduces confusion compared to only knowing one story, which you can't trust as true or false.

What I would be able to agree on is that they got their news from the same source, i.e. maybe a press briefing, but whether that press briefing content was true, would still be debatable for me. However, if someone had to go through quite a lot of pain to get information, such as the "Watergate Tapes", I may be more open to be convinced by those kind of reporters, although since there are so many people with a vested self-interest in getting people to believe what they say, I may still be very cynical.

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

What I would be able to agree on is that they got their news from the same source, i.e. maybe a press briefing, but whether that press briefing content was true, would still be debatable for me.

Of course.
In that example, they're really just reporting that the briefing happened, and telling you what was said. I wouldn't stake a news company's reputation on the truth of what was said there, since any lies wouldn't be coming form the news company, but would be coming from the briefer.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

It feels nice to be vindicated.

To summarize:
Most major media outlets lean to the left, with the notable exception of Fox.
Radio and public television is reversed, leaning to the right more often.

Just the same thing I've always been saying.

Now, will people please stop trying to tell me that Fox news is the only one that's biased?
(Yes, I know, it's hard to see the bias of something you agree with, but please, try.)

You mean, it feels nice to be duped when you want to be duped.

I don't have time to point out the obvious flaws in this silly thing, but in case you want something besides onanistic vindication, read

Quote:

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"
December 21, 2005 7:53 pm ET

SUMMARY: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

You mean, it feels nice to be duped when you want to be duped.

I don't have time to point out the obvious flaws in this silly thing, but in case you want something besides onanistic vindication, read

Quote:

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"
December 21, 2005 7:53 pm ET

SUMMARY: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003

The only substantial thing that article talks about is funding that the people in this study received for projects they were working on before the study ever started...
You'll need to do better than that.

bigt

ocalhoun wrote:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

It feels nice to be vindicated.

To summarize:
Most major media outlets lean to the left, with the notable exception of Fox.
Radio and public television is reversed, leaning to the right more often.

Just the same thing I've always been saying.

Now, will people please stop trying to tell me that Fox news is the only one that's biased?
(Yes, I know, it's hard to see the bias of something you agree with, but please, try.)

I agree, most of the major media is biased and I've been saying that and criticized for saying that for years. Thank you for linking to the article. Maybe more people will start to care more about real life instead of all of these reality shows. How about that recent poll of Americans that revealed 8% didn't acknowledge Hawaii as a state? Unplug from the TV watching more and get involved in the country!

deanhills

bigt wrote:

How about that recent poll of Americans that revealed 8% didn't acknowledge Hawaii as a state? Unplug from the TV watching more and get involved in the country!

Did they do one for Alaska too? Smile

ocalhoun

bigt wrote:

How about that recent poll of Americans that revealed 8% didn't acknowledge Hawaii as a state? Unplug from the TV watching more and get involved in the country!

The two scariest statistics I've seen:

40% of Americans believe that the president can legally suspend the constitution (along with their rights) in a time of emergency. (So if Obama addressed the country and said "In light of this new development, your right to free speech will be temporarily suspended" 40% of Americans wouldn't have any problem with it.)

60% of people in America believe that 'revolutionary speech' is a crime. (It isn't.)

How's that scary?
If the leader of the country decided he wanted to make it illegal to criticize the government, it wouldn't be difficult at all to convince a majority of Americans to go along with it without any kind of protest... not even disagreement.

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

bigt wrote:

How about that recent poll of Americans that revealed 8% didn't acknowledge Hawaii as a state? Unplug from the TV watching more and get involved in the country!

The two scariest statistics I've seen:

40% of Americans believe that the president can legally suspend the constitution (along with their rights) in a time of emergency. (So if Obama addressed the country and said "In light of this new development, your right to free speech will be temporarily suspended" 40% of Americans wouldn't have any problem with it.)

60% of people in America believe that 'revolutionary speech' is a crime. (It isn't.)

How's that scary?
If the leader of the country decided he wanted to make it illegal to criticize the government, it wouldn't be difficult at all to convince a majority of Americans to go along with it without any kind of protest... not even disagreement.

Whether it is a rule or not, maybe 60% of Americans would accept it anyway. The American people seem to be completely happy with being unhappy about what goes on politically. If Bush could have stayed around as long as he did, when people were clearly unhappy with what he was doing, then obviously if someone else should "sell" the above, they would accept it equally stoically. They would probably allow the rightists to complain about it, and perhaps a few of the liberals may write about it in editorials and blogs? Shocked

Stubru Freak

You could reverse the conclusion: On average, Americans tend to vote right-wing. The media just have an internationally balanced point of view.

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

You could reverse the conclusion: On average, Americans tend to vote right-wing. The media just have an internationally balanced point of view.

I like the first part of your point of view, although one could say with the last election it was either anti-Bush, or pro-left. With the second part about the media having an internationally balanced point of view, I cannot agree. It is probably more like an internationally newsworthy point of view, than a balanced point of view. Smile

For example, the American people are not interested in news of all parts of the world, and coverage internationally is relevant to what they are perceived to be interested in by the media.

ocalhoun

Stubru Freak wrote:

You could reverse the conclusion: On average, Americans tend to vote right-wing.

How would you explain the presence of a Democrat president and a Democrat majority congress, then?

Stubru Freak

ocalhoun wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

You could reverse the conclusion: On average, Americans tend to vote right-wing.

How would you explain the presence of a Democrat president and a Democrat majority congress, then?

That the Democrats are right-wing on an international scale. And I can imagine that journalists know a lot more about international politics than average Americans. So maybe they are just trying not to have a bias towards any side, which, in America, would seem like a bias to the left.
For example, Israel. The leftist point of view is that the Israeli are "the bad guys", the rightist point of view is that Hamas are the bad guys. So when a newspaper is mild on Hamas, but still condemns them, they might seem left-wing to Americans, but actually they aren't. They're just trying to tell the international version of the facts.

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

So when a newspaper is mild on Hamas, but still condemns them, they might seem left-wing to Americans, but actually they aren't. They're just trying to tell the international version of the facts.

Maybe your point of view is a little oversimplistic, as there are a number of newspapers with various points of view. In the last war between Israel and Hamas, the newspapers were not allowed to enter the war zone, yet Hamas of course had tons of graphic materials of the extreme variety ready for distribution to the press. I don't see it as internationally knowledgeable or "enlightened" of the press to have published the photos. It was as simple as the photos being available. Possibly one can say the newspapers making use of only one-sided literature, when none to the contrary point of view had been available, were in actual fact presenting a one-sided point of view, certainly not one of balance.

Stubru Freak

deanhills wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

So when a newspaper is mild on Hamas, but still condemns them, they might seem left-wing to Americans, but actually they aren't. They're just trying to tell the international version of the facts.

Maybe your point of view is a little oversimplistic, as there are a number of newspapers with various points of view. In the last war between Israel and Hamas, the newspapers were not allowed to enter the war zone, yet Hamas of course had tons of graphic materials of the extreme variety ready for distribution to the press. I don't see it as internationally knowledgeable or "enlightened" of the press to have published the photos. It was as simple as the photos being available. Possibly one can say the newspapers making use of only one-sided literature, when none to the contrary point of view had been available, were in actual fact presenting a one-sided point of view, certainly not one of balance.

Well you say the newspaper's point of view is leftist because they're condemning the practices of Israel during the Gaza war. But actually, that's a little bit to the right of the centre. Leftist newspapers condemn not only the practices during the war, but the war itself. Israel and Hamas had a peace treaty, which Israel refused to obey to. When Hamas, after giving Israel almost a year, decides it's enough and responds with rocket attacks, Israel started a very brutal, almost medieval war against the people of Gaza. That's a leftist point of view, and I don't think you can find it in any American newspaper.

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

Well you say the newspaper's point of view is leftist because they're condemning the practices of Israel during the Gaza war.

No, I'm not saying that. As some of the newspapers were at least cautious enough to mention that they could not enter the war zone, and could not verify the photos. I'm saying that the newspapers just took what they could get, and as a consequence it really looked very bad, in the favour of the Palestinians. Bad being, yes, it was awful, but at the same time, if newspapers could have entered the war zone, they may have had better access to first-hand information, such as Hamas using the Palestinians as a human shield. Some of that was mentioned, but obviously they did not have photos to back it up, as of course Hamas only presented photos that were in Hamas' best political interests.

Stubru Freak wrote:

Israel and Hamas had a peace treaty, which Israel refused to obey to.

I thought it was the other way round. Hamas was shooting rockets at targets in Israel. Hamas was also arming itself via Egypt. Those were very specific factual information. Israel and the United States warned Hamas to stop breaking the Peace Treaty. Israel then decided enough was enough as it did not like Hamas using its citizens as target practice. This is my own view, but I am almost certain that Hamas knew exactly what it was doing, was provoking Israel. Hence why the US took a very neutral position in their conflict. Hamas to break the terms of the peace treaty agreement. However, of course, the war that followed may go down badly against Israel, as it was extreme. And possibly could not be anything but extreme, given that Hamas was very purposefully using Palestinian citizens as a human shield during their war with Israel. For example, if they were as sincere in their concern about the Palestinians who got hurt, they would have immediately removed them from the main conflict areas. There should be charges brought to both Israel and Hamas for the destruction and people who were killed and maimed by the war.

Stubru Freak

deanhills wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

Well you say the newspaper's point of view is leftist because they're condemning the practices of Israel during the Gaza war.

No, I'm not saying that. As some of the newspapers were at least cautious enough to mention that they could not enter the war zone, and could not verify the photos. I'm saying that the newspapers just took what they could get, and as a consequence it really looked very bad, in the favour of the Palestinians. Bad being, yes, it was awful, but at the same time, if newspapers could have entered the war zone, they may have had better access to first-hand information, such as Hamas using the Palestinians as a human shield. Some of that was mentioned, but obviously they did not have photos to back it up, as of course Hamas only presented photos that were in Hamas' best political interests.

Stubru Freak wrote:

Israel and Hamas had a peace treaty, which Israel refused to obey to.

I thought it was the other way round. Hamas was shooting rockets at targets in Israel. Hamas was also arming itself via Egypt. Those were very specific factual information. Israel and the United States warned Hamas to stop breaking the Peace Treaty. Israel then decided enough was enough as it did not like Hamas using its citizens as target practice. This is my own view, but I am almost certain that Hamas knew exactly what it was doing, was provoking Israel. Hence why the US took a very neutral position in their conflict. Hamas to break the terms of the peace treaty agreement. However, of course, the war that followed may go down badly against Israel, as it was extreme. And possibly could not be anything but extreme, given that Hamas was very purposefully using Palestinian citizens as a human shield during their war with Israel. For example, if they were as sincere in their concern about the Palestinians who got hurt, they would have immediately removed them from the main conflict areas. There should be charges brought to both Israel and Hamas for the destruction and people who were killed and maimed by the war.

The problem is that information from Hamas is immediately considered propaganda, and information from Israel is considered to be the truth. But my mother has been to Palestine and she says the situation is really different from what most people think in the West.
People from Gaza aren't allowed to travel anywhere, and import and export is restricted by Israel and its ally Egypt, even for things that have nothing to do with weapons. Part of the peace treaty was that Israel would lift those restrictions. After Israel refused to do that for almost a year, Hamas started the rocket attacks. So it wasn't Hamas who disobeyed the peace treaty, it was Israel who had never obeyed it in the first place.
The fact that American newspapers never mention this fact make them clearly pro-Israel, and as such rightist.

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

The problem is that information from Hamas is immediately considered propaganda, and information from Israel is considered to be the truth.

Again as before, the information I get from the media is just the opposite. We rarely get any information from Israel. The media also does not portray the information from Hamas as propaganda.

Stubru Freak wrote:

But my mother has been to Palestine and she says the situation is really different from what most people think in the West.
People from Gaza aren't allowed to travel anywhere, and import and export is restricted by Israel and its ally Egypt, even for things that have nothing to do with weapons. Part of the peace treaty was that Israel would lift those restrictions. After Israel refused to do that for almost a year, Hamas started the rocket attacks. So it wasn't Hamas who disobeyed the peace treaty, it was Israel who had never obeyed it in the first place.
The fact that American newspapers never mention this fact make them clearly pro-Israel, and as such rightist.

I have to differ again. Just as I did about the awful casualties among the Palestinian people. Both Israel and Hamas are guilty. Both need to be investigated. Also, don't forget, Hamas was shooting at targets in Israel, breaking the peace treaty over and over again.

Stubru Freak

deanhills wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

The problem is that information from Hamas is immediately considered propaganda, and information from Israel is considered to be the truth.

Again as before, the information I get from the media is just the opposite. We rarely get any information from Israel. The media also does not portray the information from Hamas as propaganda.

Stubru Freak wrote:

But my mother has been to Palestine and she says the situation is really different from what most people think in the West.
People from Gaza aren't allowed to travel anywhere, and import and export is restricted by Israel and its ally Egypt, even for things that have nothing to do with weapons. Part of the peace treaty was that Israel would lift those restrictions. After Israel refused to do that for almost a year, Hamas started the rocket attacks. So it wasn't Hamas who disobeyed the peace treaty, it was Israel who had never obeyed it in the first place.
The fact that American newspapers never mention this fact make them clearly pro-Israel, and as such rightist.

I have to differ again. Just as I did about the awful casualties among the Palestinian people. Both Israel and Hamas are guilty. Both need to be investigated. Also, don't forget, Hamas was shooting at targets in Israel, breaking the peace treaty over and over again.

Israel failed to implement the peace treaty. Hamas gave them a year to do so, but they refused. If Hamas then decides to start shooting again, they're not breaking the peace treaty.
The best example that the media is pro-Israel is that Hamas is still called a terrorist group, while actually they are the elected leaders of the people in Gaza.

Bannik

ocalhoun wrote:

Now, will people please stop trying to tell me that Fox news is the only one that's biased?
(Yes, I know, it's hard to see the bias of something you agree with, but please, try.)

I will try my best

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

Israel failed to implement the peace treaty. Hamas gave them a year to do so, but they refused. If Hamas then decides to start shooting again, they're not breaking the peace treaty.
The best example that the media is pro-Israel is that Hamas is still called a terrorist group, while actually they are the elected leaders of the people in Gaza.

I don't understand this statement, where does it come from? It sounds so simple, i.e. there is only one wrong party and the agreement is very easy to follow. If you read the background in Wikipedia it is much more complicated than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict Also, if your argument is that Hamas is not breaking the peace treaty when they are shooting, then neither is Israel. Both are equally innocent and guilty at the same time.

Last edited by deanhills on Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:30 pm; edited 2 times in total

Stubru Freak

deanhills wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

deanhills wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

The problem is that information from Hamas is immediately considered propaganda, and information from Israel is considered to be the truth.

Again as before, the information I get from the media is just the opposite. We rarely get any information from Israel. The media also does not portray the information from Hamas as propaganda.

Stubru Freak wrote:

But my mother has been to Palestine and she says the situation is really different from what most people think in the West.
People from Gaza aren't allowed to travel anywhere, and import and export is restricted by Israel and its ally Egypt, even for things that have nothing to do with weapons. Part of the peace treaty was that Israel would lift those restrictions. After Israel refused to do that for almost a year, Hamas started the rocket attacks. So it wasn't Hamas who disobeyed the peace treaty, it was Israel who had never obeyed it in the first place.
The fact that American newspapers never mention this fact make them clearly pro-Israel, and as such rightist.

I have to differ again. Just as I did about the awful casualties among the Palestinian people. Both Israel and Hamas are guilty. Both need to be investigated. Also, don't forget, Hamas was shooting at targets in Israel, breaking the peace treaty over and over again.

Israel failed to implement the peace treaty. Hamas gave them a year to do so, but they refused. If Hamas then decides to start shooting again, they're not breaking the peace treaty.
The best example that the media is pro-Israel is that Hamas is still called a terrorist group, while actually they are the elected leaders of the people in Gaza.

I don't understand this statement, where does it come from? It sounds so simple, i.e. there is only one wrong party and the agreement is very easy to follow. If you read the background in Wikipedia it is much more complicated than that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Specifically about the ceasefire in Gaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Hamas_ceasefire
Israel suffered very few rocket attacks during this period. Those few attacks can't be proven to be done by Hamas, they could've been done by independent groups.
But Israel refused to open the borders, like they promised in the truce, and even attacked a target in Gaza.

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Specifically about the ceasefire in Gaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Hamas_ceasefire
Israel suffered very few rocket attacks during this period. Those few attacks can't be proven to be done by Hamas, they could've been done by independent groups.
But Israel refused to open the borders, like they promised in the truce, and even attacked a target in Gaza.

Since you have more first-hand information than I have through your mom, this is a question that has been bothering me very much, and maybe you can explain it to me. The moment when Israel started to send missiles, and people got hurt, I would have expected that Hamas would have arranged a mass evacuation of the civilians, so that they would be out of the way of the missiles. Why did Hamas not do that? If they were really sincere that they are so concerned about the lives of the civilians and Israel has warned them that missiles will be used, why did they not remove the civilians from the war zone?

Bikerman

That is a bogus question for several reasons. The most important would be:
a) Evacuation to where exactly?
b) The 'theatre of operation' is defined by the power with air superiority. In this case Israel.
c) Look to Israel to see if your terms of reference apply. There are various areas of the current state of Israel that are disputed and under attack. Should not the Israeli government, using your logic, evacuate those areas? What do we actually see? A proposed increase in settlements in disputed areas.

deanhills

Bikerman wrote:

That is a bogus question for several reasons. The most important would be:
a) Evacuation to where exactly?
b) The 'theatre of operation' is defined by the power with air superiority. In this case Israel.
c) Look to Israel to see if your terms of reference apply. There are various areas of the current state of Israel that are disputed and under attack. Should not the Israeli government, using your logic, evacuate those areas? What do we actually see? A proposed increase in settlements in disputed areas.

Chris, I don't understand your attack of my question at all. Perhaps you should allow Stubru Freak to answer it? I asked someone who has family who originated from this area and obviously insight, to answer the question, so hopefully if my question was not a good one Stubru Freak can enlighten or query me on it?

Stubru Freak

deanhills wrote:

Stubru Freak wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

Specifically about the ceasefire in Gaza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel-Hamas_ceasefire
Israel suffered very few rocket attacks during this period. Those few attacks can't be proven to be done by Hamas, they could've been done by independent groups.
But Israel refused to open the borders, like they promised in the truce, and even attacked a target in Gaza.

Since you have more first-hand information than I have through your mom, this is a question that has been bothering me very much, and maybe you can explain it to me. The moment when Israel started to send missiles, and people got hurt, I would have expected that Hamas would have arranged a mass evacuation of the civilians, so that they would be out of the way of the missiles. Why did Hamas not do that? If they were really sincere that they are so concerned about the lives of the civilians and Israel has warned them that missiles will be used, why did they not remove the civilians from the war zone?

They're probably not that concerned about civilians, you're right about that. Evacuating civilians would make Israel look better, as there would be less civilian victims. I'm not saying Hamas isn't wrong, it's just that Hamas has been elected by the people of Gaza and Israel hasn't. So Israel should start negotiating instead of constantly attacking Hamas.

deanhills

Stubru Freak wrote:

They're probably not that concerned about civilians, you're right about that. Evacuating civilians would make Israel look better, as there would be less civilian victims. I'm not saying Hamas isn't wrong, it's just that Hamas has been elected by the people of Gaza and Israel hasn't. So Israel should start negotiating instead of constantly attacking Hamas.

Thanks for all the insights Stubru. I also don't say Hamas is wrong, there was just this one thing that completely boggled my mind, in the same way that Hitler's invasion of Poland did while the West was simply looking on. I just could not believe that the World could just sit out there while the people in Palestine were being killed day after day. Both Israel and Hamas were wrong with regard to this killing. But where was the rest of the world while this was going on all the time?

ocalhoun

deanhills wrote:

But where was the rest of the world while this was going on all the time?

Minding their own business, lest they be accused of being a police state.