War of course is a form of terrorism used by the wealthier nations.
In spite of the extensive use of high tech weapons by the coalition of the willing, they have killed many thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A terrorist can use a guided missile or a car bomb. A terrorist may wear a uniform or not. A terrorist may be of any colour or religous belief.
The side which controls the media defines who are terrorists and who are soldiers doing their duty.
Language is important and we may easily be mislead by accepting the definition given to a word by spin doctors.

I suspect that Fran’s article is a disguised attack on the ABC alleging anti Israeli bias. If Fran said directly that the ABC is more sympathetic towards the Palestinians that would be easier to refute as any snapshot of the media over a reasonable period of time would clearly show the reverse. This all can be easily measured in terms of air time etc.

To imply that the Palestinian position has been given more sympathy when setting program formats and discussion agenda is frankly ludicrous. The ABC could conduct a whole series of discussions about Iran and its nuclear threat representing each side equally, however if they NEVER discuss Israel’s nuclear arsenal and how the Arab peoples feel about it you have focused on an agenda that suits the supporters of the USA and Lacuid.

The whole discussion about the merits of what was at the time the proposed Iraq question throughout 2002 carefully avoided the Israel factor preferring to focus almost exclusively on WMD’s. Even when the PM used non compliance with UN resolutions as a reason for war in ABC interviews on both Lateline & 7:30 Report, no one in the ABC asked how will the Arab world react seeing UN resolutions enforced so harshly and bluntly against the people of Iraq and never enforced against Israel? Even if this were a irrational perception on the Arab part it was nonetheless highly relevant to how the intervention would be accepted by the Iraqi people and the whole success of the mission depended on its legitimacy in their eyes and those in the region.

The obvious questions of concern to those who did not support the proposed intervention were never addressed in the priority that they would have set if they had any input to the discussion agenda.

Quite frankly if the ABC was biased in the manner implied by Fran’s article we would have seen Scott Ritter on ABC more often than we saw Richard Butler. The fact is Richard Butler was interviewed and included in discussions many times whereas Scott Ritter was not.

Sarah10
I expect journalists to be honest, whoever they work for. Reality is, journalists, are either, honest, biased, scared or gagged.
The ABC staff have been doing Howard's "balance" for years, they are not allowed a personal opinion, so freedom of speech is denied.
The word "Terrorist" "Terrorism" [creating or causing terror in my language] is used as a propaganda tool, dominately by America, England and Australia, who promote, "they are evil", "we are righteous".
Palestine, Iraq and Aphganistan are occupied by their invaders and their peoples have experienced the most intensified and sustained terror, than any other nation in recent history.
When bombs are dropped from the sky this is just as cowardly, as bombs exploded on the ground, the difference though, from the sky more killing effective than on the ground.
Coaching or influencing journalists will not change the standards of reporting, as government and corporate bosses will maintain control of the airwaves and the dailies. Long live Democracy.