Propaganda 4 Corner Reflection

"Deception is just as bad as telling an outright lie"

First of all I agree with this claim in some extent, but I still believe that deception is still identical to a lie. By looking at the definition, "Deception" means to cause someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage. I think that to say whether Deception is just as bad as telling an outright lie depends on situations and intentions.

Let's say that a man, whose mother is very old, sick, and has to stay in hospital for a long time , is sentenced to death with an act of crime. His family decides to deceive his mom in order to not make  her health getting worse. In this situation, I think it is acceptable because the action is benefiting the one being told. Therefore it can be said that "Deception" is not bad in this case, in fact it might be seen as a good decision since it prevents a sudden shift in mother's emotion which can potentially kill her. 

On the contrary if someone is deceiving the fact so as to portray one-sided view and distort the actual fact, I think it is unacceptable and can be seen as a worst deed. Referring to the article "The truth about Jessica", I believe the act of American media, which is distorting and choosing to inform certain facts so as to satisfy people's expectation and change the value of the action, is exploiting people's right to know truth. Some people might enjoy such a report while some people still want to know what is actually going on. By reporting certain or selected information, people's ideology might be shaped into bad way. Someone might see a footage from war is something to enjoy because the authority chooses to present in a thrilling way (act of heroic by real life actors). However, the reality is totally different because war is a situation where people are fight, injuring and dying. Choosing to portray one-sided information is unethical. So I think that in this case Deception is just a lie which is worst deed.

Media Biased Ideology Rewrite

Originial Source: New security measures considered amid continuing violence in Israel 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/13/middleeast/israeli-palestinian-violence/

The original source contains some biased view regarding the violence within Israel and also further criticizes the violence in Middle East Region as a whole. The news is representing in a way that lead the audience toward one-sided view to understand that Israel will use forces to reduce and end the violence. It [the new agency] also interviewed a man who involved in the conflict, and later implies that the Palestinian [attackers] had tried to negotiate but it didn't work. Although CNN did interview, they interviewed "a youth" who might not able to comprehend things as adult. So his/her notion or ideology might only follow the majority of Palestinians who take part in a violence.

Furthermore the claims made by Israel authorities to Palestinians are mostly describes as "terrorist" which provides a negative perspective from the Israel's side. The negative words such as "bloody, terrorism" are used quite a lot within the article. This and other aspect used to describe the situation potentially makes the aspect of the news to be in a negative side as a whole.

Pastiche: 

So what I'm trying to create here is to rewrite similar news article but biased to Israel side. I will try to write in a way that what Israel is tring to do is to create peace negotiation and to reduce the tension in Jerusalem as well as to settle through dispute diplomatically. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urges negotiations for peace in Jerusalem violence

Although there were many clashes between Israeli police forces and Palestinian that injured dozens of people, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu is showing clear sign that he is willing to move toward peace amid questions from people "when, how, or will the violence stop?"

Mr Netayahu has urged Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to hold negotiations to settle the conflict that led to deadly violence. He said he was "perfectly open" to a meeting that might be potentially "useful"

Tensions between Isarelis and Palestinians have been gradually increased after several attackers - mostly Palestinians - had been wounded recently. However Mr Netanyahu clarifies that a security deployment in Jerusalem to cope with the assault carried by Palestinians was to calm the tensions between the two sides and control a situation within Jerusalem. 

"Right now as we can speak, we can meet - I have no problem with that - and we shall stop immediately this wave of incitement and attacks against Israel," Mr Netanyahu told a news conference. 

Furthermore the Israeli leader said he was also willing to meet US Secretary of State John Kerry and Jordan's King Abdullah for diplomatic talks to defuse and seduce the tension. In this case the White House and US state department confirmed that Seretary of State John Kerry would travel to the region soon.

Some critics have also suggested that the violence is the consequence of the absence of any progress toward peace. Mr Mahmoud Abbas, a Palestinian President, likewise accused Israel of using unnecessary force against Palestinians that resulted in the death of 13-year-old and 15-year-old boy killed. He said Israel was carring out "execution of our children in cold blood". 

However Mr Netanyahu rejected this as a "new big lies" in the news conference saying that the police was merely trying to end an act of violence. He said the two boys were carrying a knift and had stabbed two Israeli policemen already. 

Israeli authority said new measures, such as homes of attackers would be demolished and families would be expelled from Jerusarem, have also been implemented to penalize those who use violence

Though Human Rights authorities comdemned the new measures, Mr Netanyahu emphasized that such measures need to be implemented to deal with "people wielding knives, meat cleavers, axes, trying to kill people on the street".