wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/10/85)
Regarding the recent news item about the Egyptian officer shooting up the resort area and killing a number of Israeli tourists: The first TV news item covering this that I heard emphasized that the action was that of a single armed man (originally identified as a policeman) running amok, and shooting *randomly*, and that 5 or 6 Israelis *and* 5 or 6 Egyptians were killed. Succeeding news broadcasts (on other channels at the same timeframe, and on later newscasts) completely ignored the killing of Egyptian nationals and mentioned *only* the deaths of the Israelis (which were revised up to seven, I believe). Also later broadcasts variously identified the shooter as a "customs official" and a "soldier". I *think* that it was CBS (evening news) that reported the slaying of both Israelis and Egyptians, and that the other networks mentioned only the Israelis. However, I think that the next day, and thereafter, the network that originally mentioned that individuals of both nationalities were slain began to mention only the Israeli victims. Anyone follow this story and agree with these impressions I gathered? Anybody have any comments on this rather obvious "embedded editorializing" technique? It looks like a calculated method of inflaming pro-Israel individuals' anti-Egyptian feelings. After all, if it was the act of an independently-acting madman, who was shooting *people*, not specific nationalities, it can't be an act of political terrorism, and is a non-political mass murder. As the latter, it would not even be mentioned outside the country in which it happened, unless one or more of the victims happened to be famous. Could this have been a deliberate effort to politicize a truly non-political action? If so, anyone care to offer speculation as to the motivation behind such treatment and who would be behind it? (Conspiracy theories involving the Trilateral Commission are about as good as any others here, I suppose.) Will Martin UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/11/85)
WILL MARTIN writes: > Regarding the recent news item about the Egyptian officer shooting up > the resort area and killing a number of Israeli tourists: . . . > Anyone follow this story and agree with these impressions I gathered? > Anybody have any comments on this rather obvious "embedded editorializing" > technique? It looks like a calculated method of inflaming pro-Israel > individuals' anti-Egyptian feelings. Could be. The networks have been accused of pro-Israel bias and anti- Israel bias at different times. People go nuts and start shooting even in a MacDonald's. The only thing that inflamed THIS pro-Israel individual was a radio report to the effect that other Egyptian soldiers had prevented some Israeli medical students who were on the scene from rendering aid to the wounded Israelis. If that's true, it puts those Egyptians in the same class as the Russian soldiers who wouldn't allow an American sergeant to assist the American officer they shot in East Germany, with the result that the officer bled to death. That would reinforce the idea that the American/ Israeli side is civilized, while our adversaries on the Russian/Arab side are heartless barbarians. Any further information as to whether the above radio report was true? -- Matt Rosenblatt
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (10/13/85)
> Regarding the recent news item about the Egyptian officer shooting up > the resort area and killing a number of Israeli tourists: > > The first TV news item covering this that I heard emphasized that the > action was that of a single armed man (originally identified as a > policeman) running amok, and shooting *randomly*, and that 5 or 6 > Israelis *and* 5 or 6 Egyptians were killed. Succeeding news broadcasts > (on other channels at the same timeframe, and on later newscasts) > completely ignored the killing of Egyptian nationals and mentioned > *only* the deaths of the Israelis (which were revised up to seven, I > believe). Also later broadcasts variously identified the shooter as a > "customs official" and a "soldier". >..... > Anyone follow this story and agree with these impressions I gathered? > Anybody have any comments on this rather obvious "embedded editorializing" > technique? It looks like a calculated method of inflaming pro-Israel > individuals' anti-Egyptian feelings. Could it also be that the original report was based on *inacurate* first reports, while the later broadcasts where refined by more information? I believe that the Israeli government protested the fact that it was a *soldier* who had no business in the restricted zone who committed the murders. (I'm not 100% sure of this, did anyone else pay atention to Israels press release?) In any case, while you are correct that there is a danger of 'editorializing', additional time also (often) gives additional facts and details. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner talcott!sesame!slerner@harvard.ARPA
dwl10@amdahl.UUCP (Dave Lowrey) (10/17/85)
> > Anyone follow this story and agree with these impressions I gathered? > > Anybody have any comments on this rather obvious "embedded editorializing" > > technique? It looks like a calculated method of inflaming pro-Israel > > individuals' anti-Egyptian feelings. > IF IT WERE AN ISRAELI RUNNING AMOK IN EGYPT, THE NEWS WOULD HAVE SLANTED IT THE OTHER WAY. THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN SENSATIONALISM, THEY DONT'T TAKE SIDES. :-) ION? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lowrey "To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question.... ....or is it?" ...!(<sun,cbosgd,ihnp4}!amdahl!dwl10 [ The opinions expressed <may> be those of the author and not necessarily those of his most eminent employer. ]