|
RealityLicks -> RE: Gaza/Israel situation (1/16/2009 4:19:46 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Reality,
I understand. And, I have no actual knowledge of his personality, other than it is apparent that he is a Palestinian (or is at least an Arab who lives in Gaza), and may therefore be suspected of less than perfect impartiality.
Several other news organizations in the Middle East have been "caught" using local stringers with suspect loyalties, and in submitting (and getting published) photoshopped pictures for news stories.
And there is a widespread belief that the BBC is specifically reporting activities in the ME and about Israel that tend to favor one side over the other. From memory, there was even a leaked BBC document that gave guidance on how to cover the area, which many consider extremely biased against Israel, along with their own internal report that found widespread bias in other areas a little over a year ago.
Perhaps the reporter is the Edward R Murrow of Arabic journalist. He is currently trapped in Gaza. Hamas has been known to kill people they don't like. If his reports were laudatory about the caution the Israelis were using .... do you think he might be in a slight bit of danger?
Does his family live there as well?
Hell, CNN played footsie with Saddam Hussein just to keep an office in the pre-war Iraq.
And, tell me ... does Hamas have a Public Relations department? An information warfare office (by whatever name).
If so ... who or what would be the highest value conduit for them during this conflict, with most journalist not allowed in Gaza?
Finally, despite what Kaine is saying, please read my original post where this comes up, and notice the exact words I used .... "gives credance to" and "I have little doubt". These are not claims of absolute knowledge as Kaine seems to be reading them.
But I do have experience in this specific, very technical area, and I see all the hallmarks of something less than completely impartial, unbiased reporting.
Regardless, please read the article that started this strand of the discussion, and tell me how many times the article makes claims (even with appropriate "weasel words") that say that Israeli soldiers are acting in a less than honorable manner, and stack that up against journalist standards of proof, and tell me if you believe the report is completely objective?
Firm
PS You and I have had the "Is the BBC biased?" discussion before, methinks. [:D]
I have read the article and I think it is completely impartial. It does not state that the IDF committed these acts - of tricking Palestinian women and children into leaving their homes, then firing on them. It simply states that Palestinians are making these claims. Repeatedly, the BBC reporter writes that these incidents are unconfirmed, even by Israeli human rights orgs, like B'tselem. There is no attempt to present the claims as fact, merely as allegations. The underlying implication to the thinking reader is : if the international media were in there, we'd get clear facts. We could conjecture either that the wide distribution of these claims suggests a remarkable ability for bereaved people to become Hamas misinformation agents while receiving hospital treatment or, on the other hand, that this is an IDF tactic, undeclared to the world at large. But it would be mere conjecture. If you asked me to judge which version of the story I'd believe, the efforts of a fallible but reputable news institution or the PR wing of an invading army engaged in a horrifyingly assymmetric battle, I must say I'd choose the BBC. IDF press briefings are by nature propaganda opportunities and in the words of a famous Tel Aviv resident (Mandy Rice Davies) "They would say that, wouldn't they?" Firm, one source is being paid to report events and the other to present their employer in the best light. I'm sure that both are doing their best to meet their brief, regardless of their ethnic origin or the likelihood of reprisals from disgruntled partisans on either side of the fence. Let's have evidence before accusations, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
