[Amadou]

"How many thousands of times is reasonable for different standards?"

That is hyperbole. You've quantified something that is not really quantifiable. As long as that is your argument you'll got no satisfactory answer. All you are doing is begging the question.

[berntb]

>> [E.g. Sudan's atrocities is at least a factor thousand worse than anything from Israel] is hyperbole.

And that is not an argument. I motivated my position, you're calling names.

I wrote specifically that Sudan is at least a thousand times worse than Israel -- even with a Palestinian description (where e.g. killing people attacking civilians is not self defence). Look at number of dead, rapes, deportations etc etc -- what is NOT a thousand times worse?

If we can't quantify e.g. human rights violations we should close down international law.

Etc.

[Amadou]

Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism.

[berntb]

Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with.

>> Your complaint is that the media criticism is not proportional to the level of harm. The hyperbole is in your measurement of the criticism

Well, no.

One is at least a thousand times larger than the other in effect.

The criticism (in my local Swedish and from much of the European media) is much larger. See e.g. the UNHRC discussion above. That is all I need for my thesis to not be "hyperbole".

Notes: 1. Since the Syrian situation started it has been very quiet re Israel, the different standards would probably be too obvious. 2. Serious media, e.g. BBC/NY Times, was (well, by definition) more serious than bad media.

[Amadou]

Let me note that you are arguing something completely different than you started with.

Yes, I started off explaining why there is relatively unbalanced coverage.

You made it clear that your argument is based on hard numbers that you've basically made up. So now I am pointing out that making up hard numbers and not accepting arguments that don't precisely fit your arbitrary numbers is just a form of rhetoric. Measuring the effect of coverage is even more arbitrary. "Effect" is something so vague that there aren't even any units to measure it.

You will not receive any satisfactory answers because you have designed the question to be unanswerable so as to advocate a position rather than seek an explanation.

[berntb]

As an addendum, seeing this a few days later, I'll add a note also about the other side of my claim, to be complete; the Swedish/European media I'm familiar with.

For any given year before the Syrian crisis, you could find kilometers of criticism of Israel. On the other hand, the first thing I saw over decades in Swedish about the Tunisian dictator was when he fled!

The criticism of Syria, easily one of the planet's worst police states even before the present atrocities, was a bit more than Tunisia -- but far from even one kilometer/year.

(Note that Syria was a large part of the Israeli conflict, so it should be discussed quite a lot.)

(Not hard data, but hardly arbitrarily. I could continue with mentioning that Pallywood and torture among Palestinian groups where just censored in Swedish. And so on, and on.)

But frankly, I think you knew this too.

[berntb]

>>hard numbers that you've basically made up.

Here are quick overviews of the facts I claimed in the GP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sudan

http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/sudan-southsudan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_con...

But you knew that.

So it is easy to claim different standards as a factor of thousands. But you knew that, too.