Tonight I saw about half of the A&E documentary about suicide bombers in Israel, and their potential threat to the U.S. I began to get annoyed with what I perceived to be a slant in the information. To test this theory as objectively as I could, I started writing down each negative thing I heard about either side.

Below is my resulting summary. When a claim was put for the by show, I mark it as such. When the "other side" is presented refuting it, I note that as well. In cases where the claim did not sit well with me, and/or no contrary or deeper opinion was presented, I add my own comments in italics.

Contra Palestine

1. Claim: Asserted suicide bombings are rooted in religious fanaticism.
   What religion? How does this work to convince people to kill?
2. Claim: Showed Hamas leader claiming they never sought to hurt civilians, only military.
   Refutation: Had someone on who told us killing civilians was not justified.
3. Claim: Showed Hamas leader saying he'd never adovcate using suicide bombings against Americans.
   Refutation: Pointed out same leader had instructed Iraqis to use these tactics against American troops.

That's it. Next...

Contra Israel or US

1. Claim: The U.S. extends unquestioning support of Israel.
   Is our support really unquestioning? Have we never disagreed with Israel on even one action? I'd like to hear more evidence for this.
2. Claim: Depicts poverty, poor living conditions in Palestine as root cause for suicide bombings.
   Cause of poverty is never addressed. My understanding is that Palestine receives sizeable contributions of international aid. Where is this going? Why are wealthy Muslims not helping improve Palestine? What are the root causes of Palestinian unemployment? Does that reflect poorly upon Israel or the PLO?
3. Claim: Palestinians claimed that bombings would not stop until all Israelis were removed from Palestine.
   Never asked what they meant by "Palestine"; never mentioned that bombings continued while Palestine was not millitarily occupied. Never mentioned that Israelis don't behave same way until "all Palestinians are removed from Israel".
4. Claim: US was really the "Great Satan" and Israel was only a "Small Satan."
   If the US is the real problem, not Israel, then why? Can't be supporting Israel. if Israel is only the "lesser evil".
5. Claim: Israeli "overkill" (excessive military response) causes suicide bombings.
   Didn't explain why Israel's response was excessive, and when. Only showed the boy killed in crossfire during a skirmish, not a "response".
6. Claim: Presented number of Palestinian children killed.
   Didn't explain circumstances of death and definition of "child". Thus implied some of the suicide bombers were "killed" by Israel. I didn't hear the number of Israeli children killed by suicide bombers presented.

While the report wasn't completely black & white, I did notice that much less negative information was presented about the Palestinian position. (Much focus on how sympathetic the suicide bombers were.) This must either be because negative information doesn't exist, incompetance on the part of the reporters, or bias.

Yet I can think of much omitted negative information: Official support for indoctrinating children as suicide bombers including at school and on childrens' shows, PLO government corruption, direct PLO support of Hamas, PLO refusal to prosecute/hand over criminals provoking Israeli military incursions, use of women and children as shields by Palestinian combatants, etc.

Since this information exists, and would have produced a more balanced picture, that leaves us with incompetance or bias. Since I have trouble believing our intrepid reporters didn't know or discover, for example, that the PLO has been taking aid money, or that the children were encouraged in school and on state-sponsored television to be suicide bombers, I believe the omission of this information to be a clear example of bias.

But you saw that coming already, didn't you?

But still, there is something more substantial about counting claims as they are presented, and showing the bias as objectively as you can, rather than just making unsubstantiated claims based on one's own emotional reactions.