NPR's, totally unsurprisingly, is rather biased in both its headline and reporting of the end of the ceasefire to make it look like Israel is the party violating the ceaefire. It takes reading to the 7th paragraph to find that the ceasefire ended due to Hamas firing rockets at Israel.
NPR: Israel hits targets in Gaza as its cease-fire with Hamas collapses
Nice suggestive headline.
NPR and most other media also seems to be ignoring the shooting attack by Hamas in Jerusalem on November 30, that killed three when they get around to describing the ceasefire violation by Hamas:
Reuters: Two Hamas gunmen open fire at Jerusalem bus stop, killing three
One would think either shooting rockets or a shooting attack the killed three people would suffice to have the headline read "Hamas breaks the ceasefire with renewed attacks", but no.
The Detroit News similarly ran a similar rather biased suggestive headline: Warplanes hit targets in Gaza as Israel resumes its offensive and warns of attacks to come in south
In that article it takes 13 paragraphs just to get to a statement that it is claimed that Hamas violated the truce, and again the article fails to mention the shooting in Jerusalem claimed by Hamas and doesn't even bother to mention that it began with Hamas shooting rockets at Israel.
The Detroit Free Press went for a both sides are bad headline: Airstrikes bombard Gaza Strip; Israel, Hamas trade blame on truce's end: Live Updates
Again no mention of the Hamas November 30 attack, but at least it only takes getting to the second paragraph to have Israel claiming Hamas "violated" the ceasefire. Yes, they used quotes for it.
The bias is both telling and sadly expected. Too bad they can't do better and report the facts.
3 comments:
The Hamas thugs that killed the folks at the bus stop were common thugs. Nothing newsworthy there.
What makes a "punchier" headline, "Israeli bombs HIT Gaza targets" or "Ineptly launched rockets kill rocks in Israel"?
While this whole thing angers me, what really makes me the angriest is the fact that we are paying money to help NPR spread their liberal BS. The Republicans had enough opportunity to defund public radio and television, and didn't think it was worth it.
It is sort of like giving money to the criminals who keep breaking into your storage unit. You know you are being violated but it is easier to just keep on paying.
I used to think there was some difference between the two major parties. Now it seems that the only difference is that the Democrats are willing to play the long game.
No surprise here, and yes, why are we STILL funding NPR?
Post a Comment