About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox's Your World asked: "Is the liberal media helping to fuel terror?"

August 17, 2006 7:21 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Neil Cavuto introduced a Your World segment discussing media coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict by stating, "[I]s the liberal media fueling terror?" Throughout the segment, onscreen text repeated Cavuto's question.

27 Comments

On the August 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, in a segment discussing media coverage of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, host Neil Cavuto introduced the segment by stating, "[I]s the liberal media fueling terror?" Throughout the segment, onscreen text read, "Is the liberal media helping to fuel terror?"

Cavuto's first guest, journalist Tom Gross, a former correspondent for the New York Daily News and the Sunday Telegraph of London, argued that television news shows offer a "slanted selection of images" that curry sympathy toward Lebanese casualties, as opposed to Israeli casualties, and that this purportedly skewed use of video erroneously "gave viewers the idea that this was entirely a one-sided conflict." Gross added that this "is mainly the fault of journalists" who are "deliberately choosing sides" in the conflict. He also argued that the CNN International news channel is "entirely slanted against Israel and also against the U.S." Cavuto then interviewed Link TV's Mosaic News producer Jamal Dajani "for the other side" of the story. In response to Cavuto's question, "The image is: 'Israel bad, Hezbollah good.' Is that a fair image, or is that the image you're getting?" Dajani explained that, on Middle Eastern broadcast networks, "when the war broke there were many critics of Hezbollah," but when Israeli retaliation intensified "the images there definitely show that Israel is bad and Hezbollah is the good party in this battle." Dajani later noted the Arab news network Al Jazeera "did a great job in bringing balance to both sides" and "you have more than 200 satellite TV networks there, so you cannot ... lump them all in one basket."

From the August 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: Meanwhile, is the liberal media fueling terror? My next guest says not just here, but newspapers and networks around the world are fanning the flames of terror by showing very graphic images of war in the Middle East. He is journalist Tom Gross. He is the former reporter for the London Sunday Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal. So, we're foisting improper images, or what would you say?

GROSS: Well, first of all, there's a very slanted selection of images. So, for example, in the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, networks like the BBC, which broadcasts not just in Britain but around the world, showed an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of images of damaged buildings and victims in Lebanon and all but ignored images in Israel. And this gave the viewers the idea that this was entirely a one-sided conflict, which it was not. And what --

CAVUTO: Whose fault was that?

GROSS: Well, it's the fault of many people, but it's mainly the fault of journalists themselves. They are deliberately choosing to take sides to show it's a black-and-white conflict when it's not.

CAVUTO: All right, when you say journalists, who?

GROSS: News editors, pictures editors --

CAVUTO: Worldwide?

GROSS: Worldwide, but particularly outside of the U.S. In America, for example, let's take your, your rival network CNN, the American version of CNN, the American edition of CNN is -- tries to show both sides of the story, at least recently. But the international version of CNN, which goes out across the globe, it's a very different picture. It's entirely slanted against Israel and also against the U.S.

CAVUTO: I've heard from Israel officials at the scene, Tom, that they do not allow videographers, photographers to take images of victims who have been blown up in a blast, so that material isn't there. And that maybe with the best of intentions -- they're being decent or trying to just not be brutal -- they're hurting themselves.

GROSS: Well, that could be, of course, they're more concerned with respecting the families of the victims of suicide bombs. They don't want to exploit those victims by parading them for the cameras, as Hezbollah do. But I think the problem goes way beyond actual victims. What we've seen recently, as exposed by a number of blogs, is that the major news agencies, Reuters, Associated Press, and also the French news agency Agence France-Presse, AFP, all of them have been using distorted images. Often unbeknownst to themselves --

CAVUTO: And still now?

GROSS: And still now. And these images have been repeated in The New York Times and other papers.

CAVUTO: All right, now for the other side. I want to thank you, Tom. My next guest produces world news coming from the Middle East. He shows these graphic images because he says they are not fact, but fiction. He is Jamal Dajani, he is the producer for Mosaic News at Link TV. He says they are fact, not fiction; I misstated that.

All right, Jamal, the image is "Israel bad, Hezbollah good." Is that a fair image, or is that the image you're getting?

DAJANI: Well, I mean the vast majority of the networks, of course, in the Middle East are showing the Lebanese side. They're focusing a lot on the civilian suffering there and initially, when the war broke, there were many critics of Hezbollah, but after the 50 bombs fell over Beirut and then that became 1,000 bombs, I would say all the media networks have been presenting that Hezbollah is fighting a battle for the survival of Lebanon. It's fighting to prevent an invading Israeli troop [sic] on its territory. So yes, the images there definitely show Israel is bad and Hezbollah is the good party in this battle.

CAVUTO: So let me understand. Is there any sense of fairness of balance within -- let's say just collectively, the Arab media -- about the Israeli citizens who have lost their lives, the Israeli settlers who have been blown to bits, the effect of rockets that landed and done untold damage in Israel. Is there any coverage of that?

DAJANI: Well, I think -- take, for example, Al Jazeera, and I think Al Jazeera did a great job in bringing balance to both sides of the equation. Al Jazeera devoted a lot of time, not only covering the battles in the south of Lebanon and in Beirut but also in the north of Israel. And many reports, they have actually just as many reporters in the north of Israel, in Haifa, in Karyat Shimona and so forth, showing you on a daily basis the aftermath of the Hezbollah barrages and rockets and the damage caused to the civilians and the death and the destruction from that side too. So, you know, you have more than 200 satellite TV networks there, so you cannot put them all, lump them all in one basket.

CAVUTO: All right, Jamal. Thank you very much.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by marco21 (August 17, 2006 7:28 pm ET)
         

      Well, at least Fox isn't try to hide their official White House kneepads anymore.

      There's a fifty waiting for you on the Lincoln bedroom's dresser, Neil.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bravenewworld (August 17, 2006 7:30 pm ET)
         

      Hm, all I saw were pictures of dead people and destroyed houses. Couldn't realy tell if they were Israeli or Lebanese with all the dust and blood on them.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by holly (August 17, 2006 7:42 pm ET)
         

      have you no shame? Have you no shame at all, sir?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Isthisagreatcountryorwhat (August 18, 2006 12:13 pm ET)
           

        Cavuto wouldn't even know who said that or in what context either. This "liberal media" stuff is laughable.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (August 17, 2006 7:44 pm ET)
         

      That's funny, I've never heard the saudi "royal" family (the president's "good friends" and business partners) referred to as the "liberal media" before.

      Never. It sounds funny.

      Aren't they (the president's "good friends" and business partners, the saudi "royals") the one's who attacked the U.S. on 9-11?

      Aren't they the one's "fueling terror" worldwide, as "Defenders of the Faith"?

      They are you know.

      The president's "good friends" and business partners, the saudi "royals", are the worldwide sponsors (the "fuel") of the terror threat today.

      They bombed the U.S. on 9-11.

      But I've never heard them referred to as the "liberal media" before.

      It sounds funny.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by west1 (August 17, 2006 8:20 pm ET)
         

      Perhaps, an effective step people would be to start asking cable companies to drop Fox from their subscriptions and put on the BBC. If the cable companies won't do it, get rid of cable. Doing this in an organized manner would be even more effective. I don't have cable TV because of all the garbage (Fox, CNN...) on it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by parcival (August 18, 2006 10:53 am ET)
           

        Because of the sacred "ratings" I'm losing faith in such boycotts. But something MUST be done to restore some value to the media.

        Right now the US media have as much credibility worldwide as Bush. And that ain't much.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by earnest bledsoe (August 17, 2006 9:03 pm ET)
         

      Another great example of Fox letting the viewer decide.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tabkhan (August 17, 2006 9:04 pm ET)
         

      Trained sseals, that 's what these fools are.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 17, 2006 9:21 pm ET)
         

      on one of the righty radio shows (I think it was Hannity, I can't tell anymore) who asked the following question;

      "Do you think we can still win the war on terror, what with the liberal media and all"

      There are actual American humans, probably voters, out there who are slowly and maybe subconsciously realizing what a ridiculous concept a war on terror is, but who are so zombied out they'll ask a GOP radio station if they can start blaming reporters for losing it.

      That's a good doggy.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by TomJoad (August 17, 2006 9:55 pm ET)
         

      Having your cake and eating it too

      Report Abuse
    • Author by blue gal (August 17, 2006 10:38 pm ET)
         

      ...from saying what I want to say about this here.

      So I say it here.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (August 18, 2006 12:29 am ET)
         

      Is FOX News a corporately controlled, faschist-leaning propaganda outlet for the radical GOP?

      See, its alright . . . I used a question mark at the end!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (August 18, 2006 2:33 am ET)
         

      Unlike MMFA, who documents every statement they make with text and/or video... of course these guys didn't give a single example (apart from those photoshopped images that were news last week - not that I know how they are considered anti-Israeli though, they just seemed badly done to me). It's just apparently that any reporting of non-Israeli casualties is seen as "liberal".

      Pathetic.

      I like that Fox's counterpart in the Middle East, Al Jazeera is the one example that's said to be "fair and balanced". Isn't that the channel these idiots are always saying is showing anti-US and anti-Israeli propaganda?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (August 18, 2006 6:30 am ET)
         

      HEY CAVUTO NEED TO ASK WHY DID 2 PRODUCERS FROM THE AMMAN JORDAN OFFICE RESIGN FROM FOX BECAUSE THEY SAID WE CAN NO LONGER WORK WITH A NEWS ORGANIZATION THAT CLAIMS TO BE FAIR AND BLANCE WHEN YOU ARE SO FAR FOR THAT. YOU CAN READ MORE AT www.democracynow.org

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (August 18, 2006 8:58 am ET)
         

      What I find a bit odd is how the right wing news talkers like FOX are constantly compelled to compare themselves to the so-called mainstream media... as though to set themselves apart and make themselves special. They constamtly interject themselves into any story if even by comparison to the "other" media. Even in this incident the subtext of the message is "WE wouldn't jeopardize American security like the liberal media are doing." At first glance all of this would seem to represent some form of insecurity on the part of FOX and others... but it also strikes me that it is a cynical attempt to hammer into the soft heads of their viewers that liberals are evil people. Apparently it's working to a great extent. It's not just sad but something Orwellian that we could not have imagined happening in America. For me, and I suspect many other Americans, I am less concerned about issues of right or left but rather the truth, common sense and rational thought.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rdarmand (August 18, 2006 10:32 am ET)
           

        I'm "liberal" in some ways, and "conservative" (not neo-conservative) in others.

        With our government today, I'm not really concerned about Right or Left... I'm concerned about what rights we have left.

        There is no reason for Cavuto to even ask this question. It's a terribly loaded question that serves no real informational purpose.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by common_sense_101 (August 18, 2006 12:40 pm ET)
             

          So should the media censor out any question that involves liberalness? I think it is a legitamate question.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by rdarmand (August 18, 2006 1:19 pm ET)
               

            A question such as this could have been asked in many ways without disingenuously linking "liberal" and "terror".

            They could have asked if the conflict/war coverage was slanted. They could have asked about the levels of access the different governments gave to reporters to see if that was a factor. There were many other ways to ask this same question without the fearmongering "They are helping the terrorists!" rhetoric.

            Besides which, this discussion of the conflict/war was also equating "Lebanese citizen" with "Hezbollah terrorist" - which wasn't neccessarily the case.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by common_sense_101 (August 20, 2006 2:34 am ET)
                 

              The same type of loaded questions are asked on this site everday but it appears to be that if you agree with a certain view point it is okay to ask loaded questions.

              Personally I enjoy the loaded questions on both sides because they spark discussion. I think some people on this site like to make their own imaginary links to write off a legitimate question.

              You can disagree whole-heartedly with the question but don't write someone off for asking.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 18, 2006 10:20 am ET)
         

      Where are the usual suspects? Where's Shannon, Leatherhelmnut, AnotherAmerican, etc. on this one?

      Could it be that even they find this too embarassing for comment?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by parcival (August 18, 2006 10:51 am ET)
         

      Well, this degenerate if fostering my belief in terror: The death penalty. Get him off the air and on the gallows where creatures of his ignorance belong.

      That these utter morons are considered "news media" exposes the corporate media for their complete valuelessness.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dem02020 (August 18, 2006 12:19 pm ET)
           

        As good a place as any, to observe yet again the new technology staring us right in the face (right this very instant!)...

        Where would you have read (or heard broadcast) any kind of analysis or rebuttal to what this hack at Fox said, as cited in this item, before (or outside the scope of) the Internet Wire?

        Nowhere, that's where.

        It's really only a few short years ago, that hacks like this one at Fox had a near monopoly on the reporting of national events (and commentary on the same). With cable television, that power was shared by only five or six privately-owned corporations nationwide; before cable, it was really just three.

        But with the advent of this new technology (right before your very eyes, right now!), we have that power of reporting (and commenting on) national events, held by those few cable and network broadcasters, smashed into a million pieces, each of them a website...

        All of them beyond the control of those relatively few privately-owned corporations; all of them accessible to you, lightning quick and twenty-four hours a day, around the world...

        Again, who and how would anyone rebut or even subject to a public analysis, the things said by hacks such as the one cited in this item, before the Internet?

        Now we have MMFA, the Huffington Post, TPM, Crooks and Liars, ThinkProgress, the blogs so many...

        It's a near endless list; look at your own favorites folder or history, to see your own sub-list.

        As a technology to smash and destroy the previously and closely-held power of those relatively few privately-owned corporations, it's here and it's now and it's working their destruction faster than anyone could have imagined (faster than those "media" hacks seem to realize: They continue to hack away as though they still hold this near monopoly; they seem unconcerned at their plummeting ratings, and the ridicule they incur here and publicly by so many comedians who now make a good living satirizing that "media". They don't seem to get it, or least don't want to let on, if they do).

        An awful lot of People have been awfully concerned for an awful long time, at the awful power held by this awful hack "media"; a power that has threatened our Democratic process...

        Those same concerned People have wondered as to how to smash this power, and restore integrity and truth to the reporting of national events (and even the commentary on the same) here in this country.

        The solve to the problem is now; the fix is here (you're looking at it right now! You are!).

        The Internet Wire, it's strangling the life out of that privately-owned hack "media".

        Praise!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (August 18, 2006 1:37 pm ET)
         

      When you dump this much BS at once, it's bound to have a grave impact on the environment. For God sakes, no one light a match!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by bexter (August 18, 2006 3:26 pm ET)
         

      "...showed an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of images of damaged buildings and victims in Lebanon..."

      And maybe that's because there was a disproportionate amount of death and distruction on the Lebanon side.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (August 20, 2006 6:50 pm ET)
         

      Commonsense, are you actually comparing posting something on a BLOG with saying something on a Nationally Syndicated Cable Newschannel? Seriously?

      So if Ann Coulter says "Al Gore, Total F--g" on a Cable Newschannel says that's the same as my next door neighbor saying "Bush is a Cokehead." Sure. Same thing, same audience level, same impact. Surrrre..

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (August 20, 2006 6:54 pm ET)
         

      you dont get it, do you? It's not fair for the "liberal media" to show ten times more damage and death in Lebanon than in Israel, even though more than ten times more damage and ten times more death took place in Lebanon. In fact, it's Anti-Israel! It's Anti-War On Terror! It's Anti-Troops! And so on and so on...

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.