Thursday

State funded Broadcasting commission “Impartial”?

And what about the branch of the Swedish state authority broadcasting commission, which handles and checks for aired impartial media biased or slanderous errors? Well, an online search at the beginning of 2005 on their website for the single word Israel reveals 150 reported complaints (the word Palestine results in 76 hits) that has turned into case numbers starting from 1997. If 30 citizens reacted and reported on comments regarding the comments on Israel’s performance during the Eurovision Song Contest, that could produce 30 cases. And one ruling. If the case isn't simply dropped. Out of those 150 reported individual cases regarding broadcast media, a mere two have resulted in being ruled as biased or factually wrong (and another two ruled as “critical”), unlike the freed previously above mentioned example with the Hamas martyr children, after the state hired authority experts to investigate.

Well then, a closer look into those two sentenced cases. The first case was a radio show called Transit, which consisted of an interview with a Norwegian pro-Israeli person. The reporter asked about Sar-El, a volunteer program for the Israeli army, which focuses on non-combat simple work tasks. Two citizens filed complaints against the broadcasting of the program, claiming it worked as a recruitment commercial segment for the IDF.
The broadcasting Swedish Radio, SR, according to the notes in ruling of case 610/02 J, meant that the reporter’s intention, had been that the story was made…
“with a critical undertone in a conclusion about the foundation with the purpose of pointing to the strange thing that the foundation already could have recruited 75 000 volunteers to the Israeli war power [my note: In Swedish media the Israeli Defense Forces are commonly rhetorically re-labeled] with not one of the authorities or Scandinavian opinion creators even reacting”.

The reporter’s intentions were clearly not, by written accord, pro-Israeli, but rather the opposite. Still it was deemed that the reporter had conducted illegal recruitment according to Swedish crime legislation. Similar topics, never mind the numerous news stories, worked at the same time more or less as recruitment advertisements for the ISM and their “human shields” PR groups, urging people to travel to Israel in order to harass and intimidate security personnel (in order to protect and shield potential terrorists).
Secondly was when two media clowns (who started their journalistic careers with Aftonbladet) hosted a satirical TV show called Tredje Makten (the Third Power), where they hackled every issue and every ethnicity they could find, and kept mocking them, including anyone from Arabs to Holocaust victims as well as the state of Israel.
It seems as if some with scales that are somewhat out of proportion judge life and death issues.
So, these two cases just mentioned, which can be found online, are the only cases where anyone has been found guilty of breaking the rules of impartial media out of 150 different complaints during eight years. One of them was sentenced in decision SB 349/01 as being “critical”, which happened after the homicide bombing at the Tel-Aviv disco the Dolphinarium, where the Swedish news correspondent stood in front of an Israeli checkpoint boasting in an accusing way:
…”but one can come walking towards them just like I did. I could have had the entire bag filled with dynamite if I so wished. So this is really not about controlling terrorists but rather about harassment of the Palestinian inhabitants in this area.”
Finally, why not take peek at another filed complaint, which was also perceived by some as threats against Swedish Jews after visiting Arabs had stated that “Jews should feel scared” [in Sweden], where the persons involved were later acquitted in case no SB 606/02 Dnr: 342/02-20:
…“If Sharon says it is war, then certain rules apply. But one can always ask what kind of war this is, because it doesn’t have two equal adversaries. It is terror [My note: legal Israeli counter terrorist actions] ignited by despicable terrorist deeds, but let’s then discuss what the other on is. Is it really war or is it a kind of Israeli state terror that will lead to new terror deeds and so on?”
and
…“begins to understand what it is that drives these youths to blow themselves up together with those close by. But it is hard to understand what drives Sharon, what it is that makes him act in a way that looks like political insanity”…
These slanderous allegations against the entire nation of Israel, while making obvious excuses for terrorism, was said, by foreign experts re-occuringly invited to comment on the Israeli response incursion in Jenin, and was aired straight into millions of homes in Sweden by the two main media news shows Rapport and Aktuellt at prime time. And what does actually a “guilty” verdict mean in these cases? Prison? Fines? No, the mere dishonor of have been found out, to be found guilty of the state authority’s “exposition”. Cases where fines are being ruled are for example such heinous deeds as when the state television can be suspected of illegal sponsorship or product placements, like for example, for ice hockey events (decisions SB 221/05) where fines of 100 000 SEK subsequently are ruled.

Looks like the alternative bloggers can (and probably will) have a bright future taking over the state authority’s experts, appointed by the ruling government, to work with scrutinizing and judging the state sponsored broadcast media, for free.

Continue to chapter, Psychological warfare



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?