While I applaud his decision to have her on the show immediatly after the-powers-that-be gave her the boot, Hayes does come off as an apologist for the network in particular and the media as a whole.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

He also doesn't do it very well, or comfortably. He reminds me of what Cenk was like during his brief stint in the mainstream media, however he'll probably continue to be an apologist for the $$.

Her on Democracy now speaking about this situation.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/23/msnbcs_sole_palestinian_voice_rula_jebreal

I'm conflicted... I do agree with her, there is certainly more time given to the Israelis giving out their version of what is happening, but it also seems like she's wasting her opportunity to talk about the Palestinian side of things and it's spinning into a story about the coverage and putting attention on her.

Chris Hayes is likely being honest in that it is hard to find any "official" to speak for the Palestinian side. Since it's not a unified group, the government in Gaza doesn't seem to be involved, just Hamas fighters.

It's not just airtime given to Israeli officials, it's the manner in which these interviews are conducted. Channel 4's Jon Snow didn't have any representative for the Palestinian point of view either, just Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman. But he confronted him on the bullshit he was spewing, he put the atrocities right in his face.

US media, on the other hand, gives them free reign to promote their own point of view without any challenge. What about the intentional attacks on hospitals, schools and mosques? What about the bombings of UNWRA schools? What about the bombing run in Khan Younis that reportedly killed 19 children from the Abu Jami’ family? What about the attacks on Al Jazeera?

Plenty of material to challenge the Israelis on, yet they decide to be a one-sided mouthpiece instead.

Wow ! Go girl !

Then don't get an "Official" US media constantly report the Official view on many things. Just open a New York Times article on some controversial thing the US is involved in, you'll constantly find quotes like "Officials say...an official said...Pentagon Officials say."

There are other commentators you can go to. Really respected ones who could be given an hour on the topic and it would be tremendously educational. That won't happen and it's not just because of balance, it's because of Concision. Concision is used to help keep complex viewpoints or opinions and facts that don't fit the narrative out of the conversation completely.

I've always loved this Chomsky blurb on concision in US media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlL2Jj-kCNU

I'm mostly referencing the big news channels and their desire for having someone to interview on-screen. The best reporting I've seen about this current conflict has come from bloggers.

@radx The talking heads on the news outlets in the US have been spineless about everything for a long time now. I think it's partly due to fear of being cut out by the parties/administrations, and that they're more concerned with putting non-threatening well-dressed people in as the on-air talent rather than someone who is a good journalist.

It's okay to be anti-semitic if you are in the US media.

Don't think that's the argument here. The argument is more about balance.