US main stream media is biased towards Israel. True or false? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Can you summarize?

And true. There is bias in US media.

They essentially talk about how their Jewish upbringing taught them that what's happening now is simply wrong. It is because of their Judaism roots and education that they cannot understand how it can be anything *but* wrong. Stewart calls Netanyahu the epitome of "antisemitic" and asks "what happens when David *becomes* Goliath?" What is the responsibility and obligation here as Jews.

And then they talk about American political complicity.

It really was a good discussion and I respect these two so much.

They also said that the same people speaking up on behalf of the Palestinian people would be the same people speaking up on behalf of their people in Germany’s 1936-45 Holocaust. Think about that. In reverse, they are saying that the people supporting Israel’s current genocide operation would have supported Germany circa 1940’s. Different faces, same agenda and outcome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mainstream media is so blatantly anti-Israel and pro-Trump it's sickening.

You mean, mainstream media is pro-Israel. CNN is only getting around to reporting the milder abuses of Israel because social media is taking the wheel and reporting the hard stuff. CNN and the likes can no carry Israel’s dirty water and hide the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mainstream media is so blatantly anti-Israel and pro-Trump it's sickening.

You mean, mainstream media is pro-Israel. CNN is only getting around to reporting the milder abuses of Israel because social media is taking the wheel and reporting the hard stuff. CNN and the likes can no carry Israel’s dirty water and hide the truth.

This is exactly how I feel. MSM is covering a little here and there now because it is so obvious, but even now it is milder than it could be, and with lots of sympathetic counterbalancing. Like that public radio piece with the sympathetic view on the Iraqi Jewish man that aired on Monday, as a few brutal images of the starvation were finally being published.

Can you imagine a news story on the day the camps were liberated about a sympathetic Nazi who was really a nice guy, talking about how he had even had a Jewish friend 40 years before?

How about personalized piece from the other side? About a kind Palestinian? Or about a Palestinian family who suffered during the Nakba and their memories? You almost never see those sorts of personal pieces in US MSM.

And the stories and photos that run tend to be highly personalized on one side, but white washed on the other. How many times has the image of the young, pretty Israeli girl limp in the back of the Hamas truck been shown? Over and over and over. It’s a startling and sickening image that solidifies the brutality of the day in everyone’s minds. Yet there really isn’t the same type of iconic (I know that sounds sick, but you know what I mean) imagery presented of the other side in MSM. Do we really think those images don’t exist? I opened up an article a weeks ago from a non MSM source in the days after Israel dropped a 500 pound bomb on a Gaza cafe that was frequented by journalists, aid workers and locals trying to access the internet. I was surprised to see a large close up image of a beautiful young woman covered in blood, walking away from the carnage. I guess I was surprised because I somehow believed that MSM would run imagery like that if they could, but somehow the images aren’t available. But that’s absurd. They are available. Israel also bombed a hospital and a school and a food distribution site and shot at aid workers that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True. And it’s sad and unfortunate. It also makes me wonder about the impact of AIPAC and the Jewish groups in involved in doxing the protesters (Canary Mission).

My father is Jewish and I am no antisemite so I feel bad saying it’s the $$$ because that plays into the Jewish troupes out there of the craft manipulative Jew BUT I also cannot understand what else it can be. My husband says it’s because Israel is our ally in the Mideast and crucial for defense/miliatrary i telligence, but Qatar and Saudi Arabia are all buddy buddy with Trump so I just don’t get the government and media’s blind allegiance to Israel. M

Ask your husband, exactly HOW is Netanyahu our ally?

News Flash:
NETANYAHU is America’s ENEMY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mainstream media is so blatantly anti-Israel and pro-Trump it's sickening.

You mean, mainstream media is pro-Israel. CNN is only getting around to reporting the milder abuses of Israel because social media is taking the wheel and reporting the hard stuff. CNN and the likes can no carry Israel’s dirty water and hide the truth.

This is exactly how I feel. MSM is covering a little here and there now because it is so obvious, but even now it is milder than it could be, and with lots of sympathetic counterbalancing. Like that public radio piece with the sympathetic view on the Iraqi Jewish man that aired on Monday, as a few brutal images of the starvation were finally being published.

Can you imagine a news story on the day the camps were liberated about a sympathetic Nazi who was really a nice guy, talking about how he had even had a Jewish friend 40 years before?

How about personalized piece from the other side? About a kind Palestinian? Or about a Palestinian family who suffered during the Nakba and their memories? You almost never see those sorts of personal pieces in US MSM.

And the stories and photos that run tend to be highly personalized on one side, but white washed on the other. How many times has the image of the young, pretty Israeli girl limp in the back of the Hamas truck been shown? Over and over and over. It’s a startling and sickening image that solidifies the brutality of the day in everyone’s minds. Yet there really isn’t the same type of iconic (I know that sounds sick, but you know what I mean) imagery presented of the other side in MSM. Do we really think those images don’t exist? I opened up an article a weeks ago from a non MSM source in the days after Israel dropped a 500 pound bomb on a Gaza cafe that was frequented by journalists, aid workers and locals trying to access the internet. I was surprised to see a large close up image of a beautiful young woman covered in blood, walking away from the carnage. I guess I was surprised because I somehow believed that MSM would run imagery like that if they could, but somehow the images aren’t available. But that’s absurd. They are available. Israel also bombed a hospital and a school and a food distribution site and shot at aid workers that day.

So a story about two Iraqi refugees is somehow pro-Israel because one is Jewish?

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a post on the NYT but what about other media in the US?

True.

I’m not talking about big statements in one direction, but more subtle coverage. This has impact, however.

Examples I’ve noticed.
Very limited photos of Israel’s atrocities.
Frequent personal stories and photos of Israeli and Jewish victims, with very limited ones about Palestinians
Use of passive voice when describing atrocities
Referral to the conflict as a ‘war’ (implies equality) ‘with Hamas’- as if Israel is fighting with Hamas, and not slaughtering innocents

I’ve been listening to public radio the last two days and even they do this -
1. A long personal piece yesterday on an iraqi Jew who was forced to leave Iraq in 1969.
2. Segment from someone arguing that Gaza is not a genocide, and that plenty of food has been delivered.
3. References to the ‘war against Hamas’
4. Passive voice ‘gazans are suffering hunger’. Not ‘Israel is starving Palestinians’

OP, I've also listened to public radio in the past 24 hours, so heard most of the pieces you're referencing.

To start, #1 was about an Iraqi Jew AND an Iraqi Muslim (father of the reporter who did the story), both of whom were forced to leave, but became lifelong friends.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/28/nx-s1-5472175/a-personal-tale-of-an-iraqi-friendship-that-has-defied-religion-and-conflict
And
The second person (a West Point researcher who admitted that his sources were Israeli, and faced pointed questions from the interviewer) was immediately preceded by an Israeli researcher who says it's genocide.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5478643/war-scholar-discusses-why-he-does-not-think-there-is-a-genocide-in-gaza
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482830/two-prominent-israeli-rights-groups-say-israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

All of which was preceded by a briefer piece that says there's not enough food: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5482873/food-that-israel-allows-into-gaza-only-a-fraction-of-whats-needed-aid-groups-say

And this: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5483520/gaza-famine-hunger

So, really? I have no dog in this fight, but find your characterization of those specific stories rather disingenuous.

Thanks for your feedback. You don’t seem to understand subtleties and overall context, however. I am not saying any one individual piece is wrong, but it’s the totality of the coverage that I take issue with.

I’ll note that my comments still stand.

The first piece was on a friendship of a Muslim and a Jewish man, but the focus of the interview was on the Jewish man and his experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that in isolation, but again, it’s the personalization of one sides experience far more than the other sides that strikes me. I see this again and again.

There was a rather extensive interview with the West Point guy defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and blaming the starvation on the UN even. Again, fine, but it greatly outweighed any discussion of the opposite view point.

Gaza was referred to repeatedly (nut just by the WP guy) as the ‘war in Gaza’ and the ‘war against Hamas’. That’s quite a mischaracterization, don’t you think? A war implies equality in fighting. Palestinians are being starved and slaughtered. Are the children fighting?

And again, the use of passive voice. ‘Gazans are experiencing hunger’ rather than ‘Israel is starving the population’

Lol, if you're concerned about subtleties, perhaps you'd consider that you felt the Iraqi Jew "was the focus" of the interview because the other subject of the story did not speak English. There were more direct quotes, and only background clips of the other man speaking Arabic.

And I'd note that the West Point interview apparently clocked in at 6 minutes according to the link, while the stories about genocide add up to more. Yet you see it as outweighing discussion?

Again, I have no side here, except the one against people not recognizing their own biases. Your points are only standing because you're saying they do.

I’d ask you to look at your biases. Are you a Zionist? Be honest.

Most NPR listeners don’t speak Arabic. You can argue and argue but you’re not answering my basic points. Things like the use of active voice and imagery for Hamas acts, the frequent use of passive voice for Israeli acts, etc. ‘Hamas’s atrocities’ versus ‘the starvation situation in Gaza’.

Why does MSM so rarely run personal pieces about the other side? The primary focus of that radio piece was about a Jewish man who was expelled from a Muslim country in 1970. Running on the same day that the entire world is seeing images of children purposely being starved in Gaza by Israelis? And a segment with a wackafoodle claim that the UN is actually responsible for starving the Palestinians? Interesting choices. I’ll leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mainstream media is so blatantly anti-Israel and pro-Trump it's sickening.

You mean, mainstream media is pro-Israel. CNN is only getting around to reporting the milder abuses of Israel because social media is taking the wheel and reporting the hard stuff. CNN and the likes can no carry Israel’s dirty water and hide the truth.

This is exactly how I feel. MSM is covering a little here and there now because it is so obvious, but even now it is milder than it could be, and with lots of sympathetic counterbalancing. Like that public radio piece with the sympathetic view on the Iraqi Jewish man that aired on Monday, as a few brutal images of the starvation were finally being published.

Can you imagine a news story on the day the camps were liberated about a sympathetic Nazi who was really a nice guy, talking about how he had even had a Jewish friend 40 years before?

How about personalized piece from the other side? About a kind Palestinian? Or about a Palestinian family who suffered during the Nakba and their memories? You almost never see those sorts of personal pieces in US MSM.

And the stories and photos that run tend to be highly personalized on one side, but white washed on the other. How many times has the image of the young, pretty Israeli girl limp in the back of the Hamas truck been shown? Over and over and over. It’s a startling and sickening image that solidifies the brutality of the day in everyone’s minds. Yet there really isn’t the same type of iconic (I know that sounds sick, but you know what I mean) imagery presented of the other side in MSM. Do we really think those images don’t exist? I opened up an article a weeks ago from a non MSM source in the days after Israel dropped a 500 pound bomb on a Gaza cafe that was frequented by journalists, aid workers and locals trying to access the internet. I was surprised to see a large close up image of a beautiful young woman covered in blood, walking away from the carnage. I guess I was surprised because I somehow believed that MSM would run imagery like that if they could, but somehow the images aren’t available. But that’s absurd. They are available. Israel also bombed a hospital and a school and a food distribution site and shot at aid workers that day.

So a story about two Iraqi refugees is somehow pro-Israel because one is Jewish?

Wow.

Sigh. You refuse to address overall context so let’s just move on.

[Anonymous]

https://theintercept.com/2025/07/17/i-said-good-morning-to-the-dead-inside-the-al-baqa-cafe-bombing/

I appreciated this humanizing piece in the NYT. the reader comments below are fairly disgusting. Or rather about 1/2 of them. Sad to see

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://theintercept.com/2025/07/17/i-said-good-morning-to-the-dead-inside-the-al-baqa-cafe-bombing/

I appreciated this humanizing piece in the NYT. the reader comments below are fairly disgusting. Or rather about 1/2 of them. Sad to see

Hasbara or Israeli propagandists are working overtime. Don't read the comments, and don't assume that they're representative of Americans.

In the spring, Pew polled that a slight majority of ALL Americans now have a negative opinion of Israel. That number has to have increased much more in the past 4 months.

[Anonymous]

Oops

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/world/middleeast/gaza-cafe-strike.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://theintercept.com/2025/07/17/i-said-good-morning-to-the-dead-inside-the-al-baqa-cafe-bombing/

I appreciated this humanizing piece in the NYT. the reader comments below are fairly disgusting. Or rather about 1/2 of them. Sad to see

Hasbara or Israeli propagandists are working overtime. Don't read the comments, and don't assume that they're representative of Americans.

In the spring, Pew polled that a slight majority of ALL Americans now have a negative opinion of Israel. That number has to have increased much more in the past 4 months.

Is that what those comments are? I’ll admit I want to think that, but I know people IRL who express opinions that aren’t that far off from those.

‘It’s sad, but….’:

‘The Gaza health ministry lies’
‘It’s unfortunate Hamas started all of this’
‘If they’d just release the hostages…’
‘I’m really worried DD will have to deal with anti semitism on college campuses, so that’s why we’re only having her apply to southern schools’

These are not MAGA people either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably because the Israelis usually avoid committing terror attacks against people who are not trying to kill them.

Unless they're trying to sink a US Navy ship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True

Agree true, but I genuinely do not understand why.

I know AIPAC and other Israel/zionist lobbies buy politicians, and so maybe it is all about money. And the contractors that profit after wars we get in for Israel. But I genuinely do not understand why. It boggles my mind why we do so much for Israel, when they cost us so much.

Look who owns MSM.

[Anonymous]

Israel gives free trips to a lot of the talking head media types. Basically any person with a show on cable TV news gets a free trip to Israel. There they are indoctrinated with the Israel is fighting the Muslim hordes.

[Anonymous]

Who exactly are the power elites at AIPAC orchestrating everything?