Willravel

Well that's kinda complicated. As you've said before it is incredibly difficult to test the authenticity of Palestinian or Lebanese sources, moreso than it would be to confirm information from the US, the UK, or Israel, for examples. The big question in my mind when I think about that is: why? Why is it that sources from Israel are trustworthy when it comes to news, but only grassroots or liberal media in the US or UK are willing to listen to intelligence from Palestinians?

That is when we come to the great divide between us: I think that the Western viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine conflict is warped because of favoritism or even possibly apologism towards Israel. That's not to say that Israel is always wrong and Palestine is always right, but there is a clear bias in my mind. Because that bias has existed for so long, and the Palestinian side of the story has gone unheard for so long, the media is now assuming that because no one reports the Palestinian side, it is untrustworthy. It's a rather odd and certianally unfair chain of events. Because the cries of Palestine go unheard by most mainstream media (Skynews, Fox News, MSNBC, and even CNN and the BBC), the slack is picked up by smaller, more liberal sources. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Democracy Now! talking about Palestine in the past few years. The problem is that Democracy Now! and such media outlets have a relatively small influence on public opinion. While the occasional story will leak through on CNN or BBC News, the vast majority of news stories about the Israel/Palestine conflict come out favoring Israel.

So, to finally address your question: it's overcompensation. Because no one seems to trust the Palestinians or the Hezsbollah at all, and because the political arena continues to become so polarized, liberal outlets are likely to belive liberal sources, just as conservative outlets clearly favor trusting conservative outlets.*

I cannot speak for you, so I have to ask: which Palestinains or Lebanese would you trust to supply their side of the story?


*expanding on this for a moment, I would find it reprehensible if I found out that liberal media outlets were stooping to the level of the O'Reily's of the world simply to try and match the exposure. Shouting loud gets the attention of dumb people, whereas making valid points gets the attention of intelligent people. Part of journalistic ethics is being able to tell a truthful story whether it's popular with the administration or not, or whether it's popuar at all or not. Real journalists, and more imporantly real media outlets, are able to get past the bullshit stories intended to bring in viewers or readers (i.re. "YOUR CEREAL MIGHT KILL YOU!!! More information at 11), and get to the real stories.