The pro-zionist and anti-palestinian propaganda evident in the brutish media, is so meticulous, so systematic, and so overwhelming, it can be the result only of zionist dominance. This section explores the means by which zionists exert their dominance over the brutish media. Dominance is achieved through ownership of media companies but also through zionist influence over non-zionist media companies. It should not be forgotten that there is also political pressure which can be produced by zionist actors, script writers, technicians, critics, etc in the media - after all, if the only scripts being written for film/television are about moslem fundamentalists rather than zionist fundamentalists then it is not surprising that this produces zionist propaganda.

The following is a list of the major companies which own a substantial segment of the brutish media.

Associated Newspapers owns the Daily Mail.

Hollinger International Inc. owns the Telegraph Group Limited which owns the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, the Weekly Telegraph, the Spectator magazine as well as other, lesser media interests, including the Saturday Telegraph.

Carlton and Granada jointly own the London News Network.

News Corporation owns News International which owns the Sun, the Times, the Sunday Times and News of the World.

Northern and Shell owns Express Newpapers which owns the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the Daily Star.

Maxwell was an infamous jew who owned one of the most popular newspapers in britain.

Lew Grade, a film producer and one of the founders of the ITV network.

Conrad black is not a jew although his wife is. It is almost certainly his huge business interests in the zionist state in palestine which turned him into a sharon loving, zionist extremist. Thankfully, however, he recently lost control over a substantial segment of the british newspaper industry.

There are many jews who own a substantial segment of the brutish media.

Creelman has been Managing Director of Anglia Television since 1996. Daytime television across the ITV network is mainly provided by Anglia. Before joining Anglia, he was a current affairs producer for BBC Television, and specialised in politics.

Desmond controls Northern and Shell which in November 2000 bought Express Newpapers which owns the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the Daily Star. Desmond made his personal fortune of £150 million selling pornography. For an example of desmond's zionist psychology see 'Which war are Zionist Fundamentalists Fighting?'

"Grade is the nephew of the Jew Lew Grade. Grade was formerly Controller of BBC 1 in 1984, Director of BBC Programmes in 1986, and was Chief Executive of Channel 4 from 1988 to 1997." (Thomas Sparks Jewish Control of the British Media May 2002 Update http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/jewishmedia_uk.shtml).

"Michael Green controls Carlton Communications plc which owns Central, London, West Country and HTV Wales and West. Green also heads ITN, which provides the news for the ITV network every day." (Thomas Sparks Jewish Control of the British Media May 2002 Update http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/jewishmedia_uk.shtml).

Morrison controls Granada plc which controls Anglia, Border, Granada, London Weekend, Meridian, Tyne Tees and Yorkshire.

Associated Newspapers owns the Daily Mail. The Managing Director of the Daily Mail is Guy Zitter.

See

There are many jews who control the production of media output.

"All BBC radio stations controlled by Abramsky, alone accounting for 49% of all radio listening in Britain. Abramsky has also been a Governor of the British Film Industry since February 2000.

Bookbinder was appointed the BBC's new Head of Religion and Ethics in July 2001.

"The present Director General of the BBC is Greg Dyke, who is thought to be a Shabbats Goy." (Thomas Sparks Jewish Control of the British Media May 2002 Update http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/jewishmedia_uk.shtml).

"Alan Yentob, Michael Green, and Michael Grade, holidayed together in the Caribbean and, together with the Jew Charles Saatchi, are referred to by insiders as the "St. John's Wood Mafia"."

Zionists also have a degree of influence over some parts of the brutish media they do not own. Some owners of the brutish media have vested interests in the zionist state which make them very reluctant to allow criticisms of the zionist state to appear in their publications.

“Last spring, there was a spat in the spectator between lord black of crossharbour, the magazine’s proprietor, and three well known contributor’s to his newspapers. William dalrymple, an wilson, and piers paul reed, wrote a letter complaining that “under black’s proprietorship, serious, critical reporting of israel is no longer tolerated in the telegraph group.” A few months later, sam kiley, a foreign correspondent for the times, resigned after a row with his editors. Middle managers at wapping, kiley claims, know that rupert murdoch has business interests in israel and would “fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-israeli lobbying group wrote in with a quibble.” Just before christmas, deborah orr, who writes a column for the independent, complained that she was “fed up with being called an anti-semite.” A tendency to equate anti-zionism - indeed, any criticism of israel - with anti-semitism is a persistent vice of zionist campaigners.”[8]

“Middle managers at wapping, (sam) kiley claims, know that rupert murdoch has business interests in israel and would “fly into hysterical terror every time a pro-israeli lobbying group wrote in with a quibble.””[7] It should be pointed out that rupert murdoch pushed andrew Neil out of his job as editor of the sunday times because he ran a series of critical articles about an asian country in which murdoch had substantial interests. "As somebody else once pointed out there is no such thing as a free press; it’s owned and it’s the owners who ultimately call the shots. As Middle East correspondent Sam Kiley found out when he tried to submit a story at Rupert Murdoch's The Times. As he discovered it was not in line with the paper’s editorial policy on Israeli assassinations. “No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper. They didn't need to. Murdoch's executives were so scared of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop by tracking, interviewing and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece “without mentioning the dead kid”. After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit.” The Evening Standard, London September 5 2001 It would appear that Sam Kiley is one of that rare breed, a journalist with integrity." (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=178 January 24th 2003).

"In the 24 February 2001 edition of the Spectator, one of his writers dared to criticise "Israel’s" treatment of Palestinian civilians, provoking Black to a tactical Zionist rage, to which Lord Gilmour responded as follows: "A few weeks ago, Taki, one of The Spectator's columnists, wrote a wholly innocuous column in which, referring to Israel, he talked about "those nice guys who attack rock- throwing youths with armour-piercing missiles." […] [Black] decided to write an article in The Spectator fatuously accusing Taki of being anti-Semitic, and alleging that what he had written was "almost worthy of Goebbels". [...] Even so, although the pretence that critics of Israel are anti-Semites is a transparent fraud, it has proved an enormously successful blackmailing tool. Black referred to the Palestinians in his Jerusalem Post in 1993 as "vile and primitive", while Mrs. Black, the Jewess Barbara Amiel likened them to "animals" in the November 7, 2000 edition of their Telegraph. Conrad Black explained that, "If editors disagree with us they should disagree with us when they're no longer in our employ. The buck stops with ownership. I am responsible for meeting the payroll; therefore I will ultimately determine what the papers say and how they're going to be run." (Thomas Sparks Jewish Control of the British Media May 2002 Update http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/jewishmedia_uk.shtml).

The zionist lobby does not always work in secret behind closed doors or in the board rooms of major jewish corporations. It also works through letter writing campaigns. There are zionist organizations devoted to encouraging jews/zionists to write to media companies, journalists, mps, etc about alleged anti-semitism. Zionists believe that if the media expresses opinions different from those of ariel bin sharon then they are being anti-semitic - and that those jews who express opinions different from ariel bin sharon are self-hating anti-semites. During the second palestinian intifada there have been plenty of examples of jews/zionists writing to the media suggesting that it is anti-zionist simply to keep up the pressure on the media to continue being pro-semitic after zionist atrocities when large sections of the brutish public start sympathizing with the palestinians. The media in brutland and america is routinely pro-zionist so when, occasionally it fails to regurgitate ariel bin sharon’s views, zionists regard this as being anti semitic. They write in to complain about this anti-semitism in the hope that they’ll just go back to regurgitating sharon’s views.

“This week the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, claimed a similar anti-Israeli bias operated in the British media. Mr Sacks told BBC Radio 4's Today that Israel had been "very unfairly treated in the media".” [9]

Zionist dominance over the brutish media is also exerted through jewish/zionist actors, script writers, production staff, technicians, and even film/television/stage critics. The jews/zionists in the media use what freedoms they have within the media to promote the causes they believe in - just like anyone else. 

Perhaps the most substantial pro-zionist influence on the brutish public doesn’t come from brutland at all but from america - primarily hollywood. Brutish livestock consume vast amounts of hollywood fodder laced with zionist propaganda .. “the cultural propaganda that was always hollywood accounts for more than 80% of the films seen in britain and many other countries. So dominant is hollywood in our lives, and so collusive are its camp-following critics .. ”[10]

In brutland virtually all terrestrial television channels produce large numbers of programmes about the second world war, the nazis’ rise to power, and the concentration camps. They produce a disproportionately high number of major tv documentaries focusing on events that happened 60 years ago rather than with what the eco-nazis are doing to the Earth today.

The following list are some of the documentaries that have been on brutish television during a particular period of time chosen entirely at random.

The repeat of this series shown on sunday evenings pays a great deal of attention to the concentration camps constructed during the second world war.

The same evening there is the first in a new series ‘Hitler’s Henchmen: Bormann’ looking at some of the leading figures within the third reich.

The timewatch series produces a programme .. “focusing on the double-dealing and ideological compromises within the third reich.”

The second episode in the series.

As a special treat for the zionist lobby there’s a whole saturday evening’s entertainment devoted to the third reich and the jews. The evening starts off with 75 minutes of ‘National Holocaust Memorial day’ which should be about as riveting as the queen mother’s birthday followed by the film ‘Schindler’s List’ a three hour ep(idem)ic. But no major documentary about sharon’s slaughter of palestinians in the chatilla and sabra refugee camps.

Channel 4 starts a series entitled ‘Science and the Swastika’. This is first of a four part analysis of science in the third reich.

The bbc continues to promote its pro pharming and pro semitic propaganda with another double bill. On bbc2 january 4th 2002 at 7.30 there was ‘Clarissa and the Countryman’ and at 9 o’clock there was ‘A Timewatch special ‘The Making of Adolf Hitler’ just in case any gentile might have forgotten how guilty they are for the concentration camps.

This programme was supposedly a reconstruction of the critical nazi conference at which hitler’s order for the use of extermination camps to slaughter millions of people was conveyed to the heads of the various state organizations that would be needed to implement the order. The minutes of this critical meeting were used as the basis for much, but not all, of the dialogue in the programme.

In the bbc’s advertisement for this programme eichmann was described as “the architect of the holocaust”. What the bbc may or may not appreciate is that this is the view of the zionist state prosecutor at the eichmann trial and not an academic assessment. So here we have a clear example of the bbc promoting zionist propaganda - whether knowingly or not.

So far on mainstream television there has been no programme about the zionists’ crypto-nazi lebensraum policy against the palestinians in 1947 which made millions of palestinians propertyless, homeless, and stateless. Similarly, there have been no programmes on the way that zionists have managed, with the aid of the united states’ economic clout, to force a large number of european countries, from germany, france, and switzerland, etc, to fork out billions of dollars in compensation to jews who lost their property during the second world war.

The reporting of the events leading up to the 1991 gulf war showed an unrestrained pro-semitic bias. There was little questioning as to why brutland should go to war against iraq when its strategic and military interests weren’t at stake.

Terrestrial television news provided plenty of interviews with a string of zionist government spokespeople such as yitzhak shamir and benjamin netanyahu both of whom are out and out racists. Their appearances on television gave them an air of legitimacy and acceptability. No effort was made to balance their appearances with spokespeople from the palestinian liberation organization - which is typical of the lop-sided multiculturalism that prevails in brutland. Over the last couple of decades, brutish television, especially news’ broadcasts, has become a conduit for crypto-nazi zionist propaganda but during the gulf war it became a megaphone. Television programmes ought to be compelled to give a health warning about their interviews with racist bigots in the zionist government. If non-zionist racists appeared on television there would be huge protests on the streets and in parliament but because they’re zionist racists they have to be treated with the utmost respect and given as much air time as possible. Once again, the zionists are being treated as a special case because they do not have to abide by norms applied to everyone else. This is an archetypal example of what is called in this work anti-racist racism.

There was a disproportionate number of jews in the brutish media, especially television, reporting on the war. Jewish reporters were given responsibilities for reporting on the gulf war despite the fact that they had special interests involved. The bbc’s news team consisted of joshua rosenberg, jon silverman, etc. This was positive discrimination gone mad. Where was the balance with moslem/palestinian reporters? Some of the tv reporters on the war were not objective, independent reporters seeking the truth but jews whipping up hysteria against saddam and all other arabs/moslems whilst doing their best to present the zionist state as a liberal democracy.

Reporting from palestine graves said, "Israel has acted in an exemplary fashion throughout the war".[14] This was soon after the alleged threat that saddam would launch a gas attack against the zionists. During the time this attack was supposedly pending, the zionist state in palestine handed out gas masks to all of its citizens but refused to hand out any to palestinian civilians.

A week into the gulf war, wheeler interviewed general alexander haig, a famous old war horse, and asked him about a report from the sole reporter left in iraq who’d said that collateral (i.e. human) damage was not great and that people were going about their business. Iraqi people showed no sign of fear even when the warning sirens went off because the americans were reportedly attempting to minimize civilian casualties. Wheeler asked, "Aren't we being a little too scrupulous?"

In brutland, there have been many television documentaries about poverty in africa but, as far as is known, there haven’t been any about the poverty of palestinians in palestine or in refugee camps around the middle east. This is because of the zionist dominance of the brutish media. It is not as if the scale of the palestinian refugee crisis is too small to be taken seriously.[15] A similar point could be made about america and the american media.

In his sunday morning breakfast television show, frost interviewed benjamin ‘le pen’ netanhayu for 10 minutes about the general election in the zionist state of palestine. Netanhayu is a former, extreme right wing, prime minister who, like yitshak shamir and menchem begin before him and ariel bin sharon after him, did everything he could to stall the peace process and continue to increase the construction of illegal zionist settlements. He was a star performer in the brutish media during the gulf war when the bbc and itv believed it was perfectly feasible to allow this racist to air his racist views on national television.

The bbc news announced that the zionist army had shot two young boys, one aged 11 years old, whilst throwing stones at the occupying army. This announcement was nothing more than a notification and took approximately 5 seconds. The following day two suicide bombers killed a large number of zionist colonists and the bbc devoted the whole panoply of resources to expose the evil deed. The bbc news at 10 opened with the rather bald statement that “Terrorists kill 28 in Israel.” There were pictures of the scene of the bombing - the zionist military ensured there was plenty of video coverage of such events although the same is not true of the atrocities inflicted on palestinians. There were pictures of some of the injured. This is the usual way the bbc fosters support for the zionist state: providing sympathy for zionists who have died whilst barely notifying the public of the deaths of palestinians killed by the zionist military. Three reporters were used in the article two of whom are jewish! One did an explanatory article about the violence although he did distance himself from zionist propaganda to the extent that he described events as a cycle of violence rather than, as the zionists have demanded, the notion of discrete acts of violence in which palestinians initiate violence and zionists retaliate in order to defend themselves.

Orla guerin’s report on bbc 1’s evening news included speculation that the zionist state of palestine was going to start assassinating palestinian political leaders - they’d already slaughtered a number of body guards protecting palestinian leaders so it wouldn’t have been a big leap to executing the leaders themselves. Her extensive report identified some of the zionist victims of palestinian attacks and she then interviews the relative of one of the deceased who, none too surprisingly, demands revenge against the palestinians. I can’t remember geurin doing this sort of interview with the relatives of palestinian victims and allowing relatives of palestinian victims to demand revenge because the whole intention of this reporting is to generate sympathy for the zionist state.

Paxman stated, “Israel is a democracy.” [17] The fact that paxman can’t distinguish between a racist state in which large numbers of racists have the vote, and a democratic state shows a profound level of ignorance which makes one wonder what he is doing heading such a programme. If a group of people invade a country and drive out a large proportion of its inhabitants, then set up a democratic system for the victors, does this make it a democracy? Does this make the democracy legitimate?

A new statesman editorial has also made the astounding claim that .. “Israel is after all a liberal democracy ...”[18] Yes, in exactly the same way as apartheid south africa. What has the left come to making such a statement?

The mirror presents a three page article on palestinian suicide bombers. What makes this contribution even more critical is that the first of these three pages is the front page. It lists ten suicide attacks.[19] There is not the slightest attempt to provide any sort of balance by listing the land that the racist state has expropriated from the palestinians, or the number of houses they’ve demolished nor the scale of the slaughter they have inflicted on palestinians, nor the restrictions they’ve placed upon palestinian civilians.

Pilditch wrote an article for the ‘mirror’ newspaper providing lots of personal details about two zionists killed by palestinian freedom fighters. This was intended to evoke sympathy for the victims. There was no mention of the fact that they were living in a settlement that had been built illegally on land stolen from palestinians. The last paragraph of his article was, “In retaliation seven palestinians were killed as israeli tanks rolled into the streets of gaza hours later.”[20] In other words, the palestinians are cold blooded murderers who start the killings whereas zionist state terrorists are peace loving people who murder palestinians only in retaliation for what has been done to them - which usually means massacring 3-10 more people than the number killed by palestinians. (Exactly the same storyline was used by olga guerin on bbc2). This is the zionists’ ‘stack of plates’ theory of terrorism in which palestinians initiate all violence whereas the zionists only respond to violence in order to defend themselves. However, his article on the killing of the crypto-nazi zionist rehavam zeevi was fair and balanced.[21]

The mirror refuses to follow the zionists’ analogy for the conflict i.e. that palestinians always initiate violence whereas zionists only use violence in retaliation for something done to them. The ‘voice of the mirror’ has stated, “The barbaric cycle of violence is never-ending.”[22] It also tries to be even handed - which is somewhat odd considering that ariel bin sharon is a mass murderer, “Both sharon and arafat say they have clean hands but neither can claim that.”[23] If the mirror stated that sharon ought to be put on trial for mass murder there would be an uproar. However, the mirror’s stance on the middle east has been far less bigoted than most other types of media in brutland.

Parry presents a variation on the pro-semitic ‘stack of plates’ theory of violence in the middle east. The first sentence of his article starts off in accordance with this zionist propaganda, “Israel launched retaliatory air strikes on palestinian security complexes last night after a suicide bomber brought terror to an israeli shopping mall.”[24] However, the last sentence of the article is, “The attack (the suicide bombing) came just hours after an israeli helicopter gunship assassinated hamas leader bakar hamdan, 25.”[25] So parry correctly explains the sequence of initiation and retaliation but the presentation of the sequence is such that most readers, who read only the first couple of paragraphs of an article, would once again obtain the impression that the zionists are only retaliating against palestinian initiated violence. Only readers who read the entire article, including the last sentence, would appreciate that it was the zionist state’s shoot to kill policy that had triggered off palestinians’ retaliation.

It is truly remarkable that when ariel bin sharon threatens to confiscate yet more palestinian land in order to set up a security buffer between the palestinians and the zionists, shaw sees this as a peace proposal. Illegal zionist settlements cannot be regarded as buffer zones between the two peoples because they are often built in the middle of palestinian land and deliberately meant to provoke palestinians into violence, “The latest violence undermined proposals by israeli prime minister ariel sharon to set up security buffer zones to protect israel from palestinian attacks.”[26]

Even before the zionist army carried out its invasion of palestine in april 2002 the voice of the mirror was condemning sharon’s tactics, “Israeli prime minister ariel sharon has proved that aggression does not work. His policies are now totally bankrupt.”[27]

The observer is one of the few brutish sunday newspapers which do not take a pro-semitic stance over the middle east. The following editorial is probably one of the most radical in the brutish press for justice in the middle east, “Both the US and Britain must now demand that Israel abides by UN resolutions requiring a retreat to its 1967 borders, including the withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the Old City and the evacuation of settlements on Palestinian land. While insisting there is no tolerance of Palestinian extremists who believe that Israel should cease to exist, Mr Blair must tell Ariel Sharon that it took it successive British governments 30 years to learn in Northern Ireland - you cannot defeat the bombers in your midst only with armies and assassination. You have to use justice and negotiation, too. As the Arab proverb has it: 'There is no point swatting flies if you have not drained the swamp.’”[28]

In april 2002, the guardian published some of the findings of greg philo’s research into the brutish media’s treatment of the palestinian intifada. He discovered many aspects of its appalling pro-semitic bias - many of which have already been highlighted earlier in this work. He argued that the brutish news media has deliberately kept brutish people in the dark about the history of palestine because it knows that as soon as it is explained that the zionists have been stealing palestinian land for the last sixty years, then large parts of the brutish public would start supporting the palestinian cause, “The group analysed TV news coverage of the major intifada (or uprising) by the Palestinians, which began in September 2000. We focused on the lunchtime, early evening and late night news on BBC1 and ITN, since these attract very large audiences. The bulletins from September 28 until October 16 2000 (a total of 89 bulletins) were transcribed and the number of lines of text that were devoted to different themes were counted. Of 3,536 lines of text, only 17 explained the history of the conflict. It was apparent that many people did not understand that the Palestinians were subject to a military occupation and did not know who was "occupying" the occupied territories. ”[29] By refusing to put current events in their historical perspective, the zionist dominated media has been able to present events in palestine as being a conflict between a supposedly secular, western, liberal, freedom loving, government and palestinian terrorists. The same ignorance of history is also transparent in america.[30]

Philo published his research in june 2004 - 'Bad News From Israel' by Greg Philo and Mike Berry (Pluto Press, £10.99).

One of the most remarkable facts about the media’s coverage of the conflict in the middle east is that it never mentions zionists’ theft of palestinian land. Whenever it mentions zionist settlements it never states whether such a settlement has been built on legally acquired land. The media always implies that zionist settlements are just housing estates like those that might be found anywhere around europe - it never mentions that the settlements are part of a military strategy to dominate and oppress the palestinian people, “As Avi Shlaim suggests, the settlements were part of a policy of exerting strategic and military control, by for example "surrounding the huge greater Jerusalem area with two concentric circles of settlements with access roads and military positions". The settlements were also built so that they could exploit the crucial resource of water in the occupied territories. It would not have taken long on the news to say that much of the Palestinian economy depended on water and that each Israeli now consumed three times as much water as a Palestinian. Our interviewees knew very little of such matters.”[31]

Philo confirms the analysis promoted in this work that the media supports the zionists’ ‘stack of plates theory’ of violence in the middle east i.e. it presents the conflict in palestine as one in which palestinians initiate violence whilst zionists only respond to violence, “There were many examples of the Israeli viewpoint being adopted by journalists. Palestinian bombings were frequently presented as "starting" a sequence of events which involved an Israeli "response". On Radio 4 it was reported that "Five Palestinians have been killed when the Israeli army launched new attacks on the Gaza Strip in retaliation for recent acts of terrorism". In another exchange on BBC Radio 4, David Wiltshire MP was asked "What can the Egyptians do to stop the suicide bombers - because that in the end is what is cranking up the violence at present?" He replies, "Well that is one view, the Israeli view... ". On Channel 4 News a journalist reports that: "the Israelis had carried out this demolition in retaliation for the murder of four soldiers". The extent to which some journalism assumes the Israeli perspective can be seen if the statements are "reversed" and presented as Palestinian actions. The group did not find any reports stating that "The Palestinian attacks were in retaliation for the murder of those resisting the illegal Israeli occupation."[32]

The media invariably reports that zionists have been butchered or slaughtered by palestinians whilst stating that palestinians are merely killed, “A news journalism which seeks neutrality should not in fact endorse any point of view, but there were many departures from this principle. The analysis found words such as "murder", "atrocity", "lynching" and "savage cold-blooded killing" were used only to describe Israeli deaths. Terrible fates befell both Israelis and Palestinians but there was a clear difference in the language used to describe them. For example, on October 10 2000 it was reported that Arab residents of Tel Aviv had been chased and stabbed. This was described on ITN as "angry Jews looking for Arab victims". In the Guardian these events were described as a pogrom. The reports on television news were extremely brief but two days later when two Israeli soldiers were killed by a crowd of Palestinians there was very extensive coverage and the words "lynching" and "lynch mob" were very widely used. This difference in the use of language is noteworthy. This is especially so since in this period, at the beginning of the intifada, nearly 10 times as many Palestinians had been killed as Israelis. The news, on the occasions when it did give figures, stated that more Palestinians had died than Israelis, but only 30% of our sample of 300 young people believed this to be so. The same number believed either that the Israelis had the most casualties or that casualties were equal for both sides. Israelis spoke twice as much on television news as Palestinians and there were three times as many headlines that expressed the Israeli view as that of the Palestinians. The lack of explanation on the news about the origins of the conflict plus the differences in the manner in which both "sides" had measurable effects on some public understanding. As one 18-year-old in a focus group commented: "You always think of the Palestinians as being really aggressive because of the stories you hear on the news. I always put the blame on them in my own head."”[33]

Philo’s research shows the media has given much more time to the zionist side of the middle east conflict than they have to the palestinian side, “Israelis spoke twice as much on television news as Palestinians and there were three times as many headlines that expressed the Israeli view as that of the Palestinians.”[34]

Philo has reflected on the reasons for the media’s failure to provide the right context for understanding events in palestine, “So why does the news not give proper explanations of the history and context of events? One reason is that the news, along with the rest of television, exists in a very commercial and competitive market and is concerned about audience ratings. In this respect it is better to have great pictures of being in the middle of a riot with journalists ducking stones than to explain what the conflict is about. There is a second, perhaps more crucial reason why the TV newsrooms do not dwell on the history and origins of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is that to explain these or to refer to them as underlying the violence could be very controversial. Israel is closely allied to the United States and there are very strong pro-Israel lobbies in the US and to some extent in Britain. It is clear that a lack of discussion of the origins of the conflict and of the controversial aspects of the occupation would operate in favour of Israel.”[35]

Philo questioned the media about their reporting of events in the middle east.

“The broadcasters deny bias. Roger Mosey, BBC head of television news, said: "I don't believe there's any institutional bias towards one side or other in the Middle East conflict."”[36]

“ITN said: "We've been covering this conflict fairly and impartially for more than half a century. We are not in the business of providing a daily history lesson."”[37]

This section added july 30th 2004.

Philo’s work is a major step in the right direction to understanding and exposing the systematic and comprehensive nature of pro-semitic bigotry in the brutish media.

Philo may well be right that the quantity of time devoted to zionists is much greater than that devoted to palestinians. But this does not expose the full scale of pro-semitic bigotry. It overlooks the huge advantages that zionists are given in preference to the palestinians over what could be called the ‘quality of the time’ in the media. For example, most of the interviews with zionist politicians take place in professional news’ studios producing good quality film like any other part of the brutish media. This enables zionists to present themselves in the best possible light whilst being interviewed. Palestinian politicians, on the other hand, are rarely able to enjoy such professional treatment. Most palestinian politicians are interviewed over the phone because either they are under some sort of zionist curfew or because the zionists have destroyed their media centres which would have enabled them to produce good television interviews. When people are interviewed in television studios they have far more advantages over those interviewed by phone. It is often difficult for television watchers to hear interviews conducted over the phone because of crackling on the line and the lower sound quality used by the telephone system. In addition, television presenters conducting interviews over the phone are able to interrupt what interviewees are saying or even cut them off when making a good point. To give but one example of the difference in the quality of time allocated to zionists and palestinians. On BBC 2’s newsnight programme jeremy paxman interviewed a spokesperson for ariel bin sharon’s government who was in a professional television studio and then interviewed a palestinian who was on the telephone - doubtlessly because of racist curfew restrictions. Paxman allowed the zionist about 70% of the interview time and kept cutting off the palestinian. The zionist spokesperson, like all the others before him, denied there was a cycle of violence in the middle east insisting that what was happening was palestinian initiated violence and zionist retaliation - the ‘pile of plates’ analogy.[38]

Virtually all reporters in the brutish media use a standard format when presenting a report into the conflict between palestinians and zionists. Firstly, the report starts off with film footage of bereaved zionists mourning the death of one of their relatives. This scene setting suggests it is palestinians who have initiated the violence and immediately encourages viewers to give their sympathies to the zionists. Secondly, the report continues with an interview with a bereaved zionist who will almost invariably demand retaliation - thereby suggesting, once again, that palestinians initiate the violence whilst the zionists only carry out retaliations. Thirdly, in order to show balance in the report, there is film footage of the palestinians who are subsequently murdered - thereby making the murder of the palestinians seem much less morally unacceptable because zionists are only defending themselves. Fourthly, the report often concludes with an interview with a zionist in a nice warm television studio and perhaps, but not always, an interview with a palestinian over a crackling, low sound quality, telephone line.

By definition, the zionists always initiate violence because they established the zionist state by force. Ariel bin sharon has always initiated violence against palestinians but the media refuses to recognize this fact.

The media constantly mentions that the allies are attacking moslem countries because they are not abiding by united nations’ resolutions, but it never mentions that neither the zionist state nor the united zionist states of america are also refusing to abide by united nations’ resolutions. The media refuses to depict the zionist state as a rogue state.

There are too many zionists in the brutish media who are deliberately distorting the news for the sake of their commitment to the zionist state.

“Reporters Sans Frontieres, the international pressure group for journalists, has condemned Israel in the strongest terms for its "grim toll of attacks on press freedom". In an outspoken statement, RSF accused Israel of taking a "racist attitude to the Arab media" and claimed its violations of press freedom were "deliberate". "The policy of the Israeli authorities towards the international media, especially Palestinian journalists, must be condemned for what it is: a massive, deliberate and conscious violation of press freedom and an unprecedented low in the history of Israel," the organisation said. RSF also claimed 10 Arab media offices were "occupied or ransacked" by the Israeli army. "The figures show the brutality of the Israeli army and its discriminatory, even racist attitude towards the Arab media and Palestinian journalists," said RSF. "These have not been blunders but a deliberate policy of hiding from the world the truth of the Israeli army's violence and abuses, which must be clearly condemned and met with international sanctions," it added.” [39]