How much News do You Get?

[Rhys]

I've been told that, during the War, it was important to hear the early news, because anything later had been got at by the various Ministries and made much more cheerful: in other words, the censors got at it. Last night, unable to sleep with a ricked back, I listened to the BBC Overseas Service, and an important news item concerned a report from the Israeli Human Rights organization: apparently, anyone seriously sick in the great Gaza concentration camp can, because of the zionist embargo, get decent medical treatment only in 'Israel' itself. Apparently, however, those taking this route have to agree to spy for Shin Bet or be refused medical treatment. One such person, a patriot, is now almost totally blind as a result of refusing to collaborate.

It was interesting that, when the switchover came at 5.30, our local equivalent of AIPAC had already seen to it that no such 'antisemitic' truth was carried by BBC 4, and I had to search hard to find the story on page 14 of the Guardian. What is the position like in the 'States? Are you allowed to hear about facts like this? Reactions on here do suggest that you are allowed even less information than we are about the zionist treatment of the native people of the Colony: we tend to hear only when a British person is shot protecting Palestinian children from murder or the like. Obviously I have my own opinions about the zionist Occupation, but I'm more interested in the free flow of information here. Any detail gratefully received.

 

[Ravi]

I've been told that, during the War, it was important to hear the early news, because anything later had been got at by the various Ministries and made much more cheerful: in other words, the censors got at it. Last night, unable to sleep with a ricked back, I listened to the BBC Overseas Service, and an important news item concerned a report from the Israeli Human Rights organization: apparently, anyone seriously sick in the great Gaza concentration camp can, because of the zionist embargo, get decent medical treatment only in 'Israel' itself. Apparently, however, those taking this route have to agree to spy for Shin Bet or be refused medical treatment. One such person, a patriot, is now almost totally blind as a result of refusing to collaborate.

It was interesting that, when the switchover came at 5.30, our local equivalent of AIPAC had already seen to it that no such 'antisemitic' truth was carried by BBC 4, and I had to search hard to find the story on page 14 of the Guardian. What is the position like in the 'States? Are you allowed to hear about facts like this? Reactions on here do suggest that you are allowed even less information than we are about the zionist treatment of the native people of the Colony: we tend to hear only when a British person is shot protecting Palestinian children from murder or the like. Obviously I have my own opinions about the zionist Occupation, but I'm more interested in the free flow of information here. Any detail gratefully received.

We are "allowed" to get news from any source. For instance, by googling around, I found the story you are talking about and it turns out that the Israelis deny this is happening and that the only requirement to get treatment is to be sick. Apparently there must be some proof of an actual medical need as a means to stopping suicide bombers.

 

[dilloduck]

I've been told that, during the War, it was important to hear the early news, because anything later had been got at by the various Ministries and made much more cheerful: in other words, the censors got at it. Last night, unable to sleep with a ricked back, I listened to the BBC Overseas Service, and an important news item concerned a report from the Israeli Human Rights organization: apparently, anyone seriously sick in the great Gaza concentration camp can, because of the zionist embargo, get decent medical treatment only in 'Israel' itself. Apparently, however, those taking this route have to agree to spy for Shin Bet or be refused medical treatment. One such person, a patriot, is now almost totally blind as a result of refusing to collaborate.

It was interesting that, when the switchover came at 5.30, our local equivalent of AIPAC had already seen to it that no such 'antisemitic' truth was carried by BBC 4, and I had to search hard to find the story on page 14 of the Guardian. What is the position like in the 'States? Are you allowed to hear about facts like this? Reactions on here do suggest that you are allowed even less information than we are about the zionist treatment of the native people of the Colony: we tend to hear only when a British person is shot protecting Palestinian children from murder or the like. Obviously I have my own opinions about the zionist Occupation, but I'm more interested in the free flow of information here. Any detail gratefully received.

Are you asking if our news is censored but any particular group of people?

 

[Rhys]

We are "allowed" to get news from any source. For instance, by googling around, I found the story you are talking about and it turns out that the Israelis deny this is happening and that the only requirement to get treatment is to be sick. Apparently there must be some proof of an actual medical need as a means to stopping suicide bombers.

i.e. you get no news but are allowed to google - well done - almost as good as China, hey? And when you google you get a blanket Hitlerite denial with no evidence from the Occupation Authority? I do admire your freedom!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i.e. you get no news but are allowed to google - well done - almost as good as China, hey? And when you google you get a blanket Hitlerite denial with no evidence from the Occupation Authority? I do admire your freedom!

Funny how you have no proof of your statement but believe it anyway.

 

[Rhys]

Are you asking if our news is censored but any particular group of people?

No -there is evidently no official censorship: I'd guess that AIPAC frightens the media into self-censorship (which is always best because people always find it best to 'believe' what they aren't exactly forced to say). I'm asking if you are allowed real news out of occupied Palestine on the major news channels. The reaction of people on here suggests - to me anyway - that it is severely limited .

 

[Rhys]

Funny how you have no proof of your statement but believe it anyway.

Why exactly should decent Jews make up this story, Goering? And it is in conformity with every unbiased report out of Palestine I have ever heard, obviously. Shin Bet is simply a squalid remake of the Gestapo, and if you don't know that you must be working for them.

 

[sealybobo]

I've been told that, during the War, it was important to hear the early news, because anything later had been got at by the various Ministries and made much more cheerful: in other words, the censors got at it. Last night, unable to sleep with a ricked back, I listened to the BBC Overseas Service, and an important news item concerned a report from the Israeli Human Rights organization: apparently, anyone seriously sick in the great Gaza concentration camp can, because of the zionist embargo, get decent medical treatment only in 'Israel' itself. Apparently, however, those taking this route have to agree to spy for Shin Bet or be refused medical treatment. One such person, a patriot, is now almost totally blind as a result of refusing to collaborate.

It was interesting that, when the switchover came at 5.30, our local equivalent of AIPAC had already seen to it that no such 'antisemitic' truth was carried by BBC 4, and I had to search hard to find the story on page 14 of the Guardian. What is the position like in the 'States? Are you allowed to hear about facts like this? Reactions on here do suggest that you are allowed even less information than we are about the zionist treatment of the native people of the Colony: we tend to hear only when a British person is shot protecting Palestinian children from murder or the like. Obviously I have my own opinions about the zionist Occupation, but I'm more interested in the free flow of information here. Any detail gratefully received.

No you are not allowed to hear news like this. And the Conservative party keeps suggesting that the media is liberal, all the while they are buying up every media outlet and controlling what news gets out.

But every once in awhile they'll let a liberal message get out so they don't seem too obvious.

I try to explain that it isn't always the story being told. Sometimes it is what they aren't telling us that makes the media bias.

The other day Congress ruled that the Justice Department was guilty of being politicized.

CNN reported that congress suggested that the justice department may have been politicized.


See the difference?

 

[Ravi]

i.e. you get no news but are allowed to google - well done - almost as good as China, hey? And when you google you get a blanket Hitlerite denial with no evidence from the Occupation Authority? I do admire your freedom!

Not what I said, but why bother explaining. You'll believe what you want to believe.

btw, are the Palestinians not allowed to travel to other countries but Israel? I did not know that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why exactly should decent Jews make up this story, Goering? And it is in conformity with every unbiased report out of Palestine I have ever heard, obviously. Shin Bet is simply a squalid remake of the Gestapo, and if you don't know that you must be working for them.

Unbiased my ass. BBC is so biased it has been attacked more than once about it.

Remind me about that "unbiased" news from the Lebanon invasion when " Green hat" guy was all over Lebanon, dead or alive depending on the shot, in the same ambulance in different cities. claiming a rust hole on top of the ambulance was a missile strike. Or when News organizations were caught doctoring photos to seem worse then they were, or they were caught filming selectively and were caught red handed doing it.

That YOU chose to believe them is hilarious, but do us the favor of not claiming they are "unbiased"

 

[dilloduck]

No you are not allowed to hear news like this. And the Conservative party keeps suggesting that the media is liberal, all the while they are buying up every media outlet and controlling what news gets out.

But every once in awhile they'll let a liberal message get out so they don't seem too obvious.

I try to explain that it isn't always the story being told. Sometimes it is what they aren't telling us that makes the media bias.

The other day Congress ruled that the Justice Department was guilty of being politicized.

CNN reported that congress suggested that the justice department may have been politicized.


See the difference?

The congress "ruled"---? You mean CNN doesn't think Congree "ruled" anything?

 

[Rhys]

Unbiased my ass. BBC is so biased it has been attacked more than once about it.

Remind me about that "unbiased" news from the Lebanon invasion when " Green hat" guy was all over Lebanon, dead or alive depending on the shot, in the same ambulance in different cities. claiming a rust hole on top of the ambulance was a missile strike. Or when News organizations were caught doctoring photos to seem worse then they were, or they were caught filming selectively and were caught red handed doing it.

That YOU chose to believe them is hilarious, but do us the favor of not claiming they are "unbiased"

What ARE you talking about, man? No, the BBC is not unbiased, obviously. Are you - possibly? - incredibly? - trying to argue that the Occupation Authority in Palestine and its US supporters ARE? Since you appear to believe that might is right, I can't for the life of me see why you bother to argue with us untermenschen. Go breed the Master race somewhere, do!

 

[AllieBaba]

Unbiased my ass. BBC is so biased it has been attacked more than once about it.

Remind me about that "unbiased" news from the Lebanon invasion when " Green hat" guy was all over Lebanon, dead or alive depending on the shot, in the same ambulance in different cities. claiming a rust hole on top of the ambulance was a missile strike. Or when News organizations were caught doctoring photos to seem worse then they were, or they were caught filming selectively and were caught red handed doing it.

That YOU chose to believe them is hilarious, but do us the favor of not claiming they are "unbiased"

BBC has admitted, in court, that they are biased.

 

[Ravi]

Can someone tell me if Palestinians are only allowed to travel to Israel and no where else?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What ARE you talking about, man? No, the BBC is not unbiased, obviously. Are you - possibly? - incredibly? - trying to argue that the Occupation Authority in Palestine and its US supporters ARE? Since you appear to believe that might is right, I can't for the life of me see why you bother to argue with us untermenschen. Go breed the Master race somewhere, do!

Ohh so you think cause some rabid BIASED Jew or Arab says something it is true? There are NO unbiased sources in your neck of the woods. NONE. And your article proves it, Ravi already pointed out that rather then hide the news it was reported with the Israeli Government denying the charges and pointing out that before someone can come into Israel they have to provide proof of a medical condition that requires them to be there. I would be a tad hesitant to just allow any Arab into your country since they like to blow up women and children. Think of the coup if they could blow up a Hospital?

 

[AllieBaba]

I get so tired of the watering down of the truth with the cry, "but they aren't the only ones!"

I don't believe the Occupation Authority and US supporters of such present themselves to the world as an "objective" source for news. If they did, then they would be guilty of "media bias". Since they don't pretend to be the media, it's asinine to compare their bias with the bias of the BBC.

 

[Reality]

Can someone tell me if Palestinians are only allowed to travel to Israel and no where else?

They can enter Israel on a visa, but they are hardly issued. If you leave the territories you will not be given "legal" permission to reenter.

 

[Rhys]

Ohh so you think cause some rabid BIASED Jew or Arab says something it is true? There are NO unbiased sources in your neck of the woods. NONE. And your article proves it, Ravi already pointed out that rather then hide the news it was reported with the Israeli Government denying the charges and pointing out that before someone can come into Israel they have to provide proof of a medical condition that requires them to be there. I would be a tad hesitant to just allow any Arab into your country since they like to blow up women and children. Think of the coup if they could blow up a Hospital?

The BBC, by the way, is at least meant to aim at balance, which makes them vulnerable to truth-tellers. Is that the case with the US media?

Don't rant. Israel Human rights is a serious body, not some 'rabid Jew or Arab' like yourself.

The vast concentration camp established in Gaza is intended to kill the native people slowly (other than the children, who are shot down at once) as a punishment for voting for parties other than those chosen by the Master Race, as you know. Where exactly has anyone shown that those being denied medical treatment unless they become spies are intending to be other than cured, and how exactly would they carry explosives through the Shin Bet torturers? It is my considered opinion that your racism has driven you entirely mad. Why not blow yourself up? It might perhaps prove something - to you anyway - though God knows what.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think that qualifies as "rabid", myself.

 

[Rhys]

I think that qualifies as "rabid", myself.

Think ew. To the degree that you can, of course.