hehasfoundme asked: If you check out my site, all of my current posts on Israel are taken from Human Rights Watch, CNN, Haaretz daily newspaper, and yes some from Fox News. Yes, I did however site Fox news in the first post that I sent you, but then I believe I sent you another post with like 5 different links from the sites listed above. If you generally want to make this one sided & tell me that I'm wrong, just because I listed fox news as a source.. then I'd say you're pretty insecure about where you stand. I wasn't trying to give you a "history lesson" nor was I asking for one, I was simply giving you more sources pertaining to the recent conflict in Israel considering the one article that you posted which seems to be what you're basing your entire argument on is faulty & one-sided. Justt sayin'. & Yeah I'm a REPUBLICAN that watches FOX NEWS.. what of it?
You sent another post that had entirely different content in it than the first, and contained two articles.
I view Human Rights Watch and CNN as legitimite news sources, but I, and most academics, would not view Fox News as a legitimate news source. Their articles and programmes are often opinion pieces, and usually very poorly researched. Haaretz could be an interesting source, but it is important to note that it is based in Israel, which could cause certain biases, as well.
I also don’t believe that I ever said that you were wrong because you cited Fox News as a source. I gave you a differing opinion based off of other writings, which I then sourced. I have my own biases against Fox News for a variety of reasons; mostly because of their poor citations and embellishing of “facts” and figures. I really couldn’t care less what your political opinions are, nor what news channel you watch, but i do think it’s important that you understand that Fox is often slanted to the right.
Also, I’m interested to hear why you think the article I posted is “faulty and one-sided” when you aer having trouble not being one-sided yourself. I cited the United Nations and Amnesty International to back up my argument—do you believe that these, too, are slanted?
The article I posted as from The Guardian, which explicitly stated where they got their numbers. It states the official Israel statement that, “Israel accused the Syrian regime of orchestrating the violence – the second border clash in less than a month – to deflect attention from its bloody crackdown on the uprising against its president Bashar al-Assad,” as well as the Syrianstatement, ”Syrian television said the melee was spontaneous and reflected built-up anger among Palestinians.” It holds quotes from Netanyahu, cites Israel’s warnings to the protesters, and confirms the death toll via a doctor at Quneitra hospital. It holds quotes by protesters and cites a bit of historical background. I fail to see how this is slanted. I find it to be a well-researched and nuanced article that allows the reader to examine both sides of the incident. The reader can then decide for themself which side they find more believable.
I’ll also note that I posted the article, but did not add additional commentary at the time of posting. I put in snippets from the article, hoping that the article would be read fully by my readership and generate discussion. I strive to post articles from news sources that I believe are well-researched.
