Source G - Palestine Is Still The Issue “It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it” – John Pilger

About the author … Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger does not pretend to deliver an objective view of his subject matter. "Impartiality and objectivity now mean the establishment point of view..." "channel the official truth," and thereby "simply transmit lies." "Impartiality and objectivity now mean the establishment point of view..." he declared in a 2002 interview. Those journalists who claim to be objective, according to Pilger, only "channel the official truth," and thereby "simply transmit lies." He sees himself, by contrast, as an anti-establishment crusader who champions the cause of the Palestinians.

Information or propaganda??? sensationalist emotive language John Pilger has been accused of presenting information in a sensationalist manner to support a foregone conclusion; using emotive language to make a political point; treating a subject emotionally with disregard for inconvenient detail. For example, Pilger endorses these Israelis as "a group of courageous Israelis united [with Palestinians] in the oldest human struggle — to be free.”

accusing Israel of a wide variety of misdeedsMuch of the film consists of Palestinians accusing Israel of a wide variety of misdeeds — for example, causing the death of a newborn by refusing a pregnant mother entrance through a checkpoint to routine, systematic terrorism. leading questionsPilger guides the Palestinians through their stories, asking leading questions, and rephrasing their words for emphasis.

In the film, Elhanan suggests that the Palestinian suicide bomber who killed his daughter was as much a victim as was she. "The boy whose mother was humiliated in the morning at the checkpoint will commit suicide in the evening," "The boy whose mother was humiliated in the morning at the checkpoint will commit suicide in the evening," he declares in the film, demanding that Israel acknowledge its guilt. Israelis who aren’t in line with the filmmaker are granted less time to present their perspectives. For example, a brief segment on Pilger’s visit to a settlement includes two Israelis responding to questions, interspersed with Pilger’s own commentary about supposed Israeli state terrorism. The only high-ranking Israeli included is former Ambassador Dore Gold whom Pilger challenges on what he asserts is Israel’s supposed practice of terrorism. Pilger recounts as an example of terrorism an Israeli sniper who supposedly targeted an elderly, cane-bearing, Palestinian woman on her way to receive chemotherapy point, without providing names, locations, or dates. The Interviews