If (& I think you are) referring to my comments I certainly didn’t call you stupid. I am genuinely sorry if this is what you inferred. I think you are naïve if you rely on the media for an unbiased report, but stupid no.
I based my comments on 3 years working in a UK national TV news room and the experiences of my partner who is a broadcast journalist on national TV & Radio, and several close friends and colleagues who are/have been reporters both in Europe and the Middle East. I do understand 1st hand the editing process, the leverage and gatekeeping influence of politics in the media.

I have also researched and spoken on the media’s reportage of terrorism and have close academic friends who have researched media coverage of the first Iraq war & a friend who is about to publish a book on the last 25 years of TV coverage of the Israeli conflict. I also have the experience of being in Israel as a child & also spent time as a teenager during the early stages of war in the Ivory Coast and know first hand that the media coverage did not reflect what I personally witnessed.
Glof-pro -It wasn’t an off the cuff lightly made comment intended to hurt your feelings.

That's as may be. Watching the stuff on TV and listening on radio I personally have to say the coverage appears very fair. Where do you think it is unfair/biased Pea as I can't see it? I'm absolutely respect your expereince but I'm interested in your take on this.

A very crude example…
“Details have emerged about the deaths of four unarmed UN observers after an Israeli air strike hit a UN post in south Lebanon.” Seemingly this is a report that tells its audience about how those 4 UN employees died. But notice how their passing away is described as a death. Good on one hand as the word death explains they are not alive as the result of an air tack, and bad on the other as death doesn’t indicate that their not being alive was the result of anything deliberate. Again the airstrike “hit” a UN post. Actually the UN personnel called in over 5 times their co-ordinates, the airstrike didn’t crash or accidentally bang into them. The Israeli army knew the exact location and who was occupying it, so one might decide to replace the word hit with “targeted”.
“Details have emerged about the murder of four unarmed UN observers after an Israeli air strike targeted a UN post in south Lebanon.” –reveals a new bias all together. The 1ST sentence appears to be telling unbiased facts, that inform about the situation in Lebanon, favouring Lebanon, but is this really the case?

I think there is an excellent discussion of media bias on this website.
http://rhetorica.net/meter.htm

Where was this Pea....which channel?

BBC

Golf pro - what is your research subject area?

It will be HCI-ish [Computing and Psychology]. I going down the New Route in Oct.

Now that’s strange [and interesting] isn't it. Of all the channels I tend to perceive the BBC as the most anti-Israeli.

So the subtleties that pea describes aren't working on you - on your subconscious...

I take a bit [lot] more convincing. I'd like to see the text in full of the prog.

No, I mean from the BBC's point of view - they're trying to convice you that Israel are good, but you hear it as anti-Israel.

But Pea, How do you know all this extra info?

Im also sure the BBC article goes on to point out that the occupants of the post phoned in 10 times to try and get them to stop. To use just one sentence to support your argument is surely bias as well.

How would you write it in an unbiased way then? The first statement, in my opionin, not particullarily biased. I feel that to say the Israeli army deliberatly targeted a UN outpost to kill the unarmed UN occupants is reading far to much into the facts. To say that is to take the fact and to come to the conclusion that is based on your own personal bias. You are interpreting the facts.

That first statement states that a UN post was hit and 4 occupants were killed. It doesnt presume to try and tell us that the attack was deliberate (the evidence may suggest this, but I dont think it proves this to be the case and that the occupants were murdered.

The second statement is horribly biased. But im not an expert as I guess you are, so I probably have it all wrong.

Richmond, I think you make 2 valid points. only one sentence( it was all I could remember from last nights news + haven't got the time, energy to produce a full on analysis. Besides don't want to inflict it on you) 2nd point - the 2nd sentence is horribly bias -agreed. I wasn't trying to disguise it - i said it was bias. I was trying to make the point, certain words put together in a certain way can construct very different meanings...and bias. We're all bias one way or the other, I know I am - but I think it is important not to pretend.
Re - my extra info, well I guess I do what every one else does, I put together little bits and pieces from what I hear, see , read, from a variety of sources both 1st hand and 2nd hand.
I don't think there is a right or wrong in interpretation or representation - we all do what we do, dependng on who we are, & where we have been & what we think we know. The only point I am resolute on - is the media in NOT neutral.