Caperbush ([info]caperbush) wrote,
@ 2009-01-19 22:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Ethics of Journalism: A Short Quiz

(translated from http://riftsh.livejournal.com/91691.html)

 

 

Problem #1
 

In the summer of 2005, shortly after the Israel Defense Forces and Jewish settler withdrawal (otherwise known as disengagement), there was a wave of journalist kidnappings in Gaza.  Within a year and a half, more than ten journalists were kidnapped, including:

 

August 2005.  Mohammed Ouathi, soundman, Agence France-Presse and television channel France 3, is kidnapped in Gaza.

September 2005.  Lorenzo Cremonesi, correspondent, Corriere della Serra, is kidnapped in Gaza.

Mach 2006. Yong Tae-Young, correspondent, KBS, is kidnapped in Gaza.

August 2006.  Steve Centanni, correspondent, Fox News Channel, is kidnapped in Gaza.

August 2006.  Olaf Wiig, freelance cameraman, Fox News Channel, is kidnapped in Gaza.

Ocotber 2006. Emilio Morenatti, photojournalist, The Associated Press, is kidnapped in Gaza.

January 2007.  Jaime Razuri, photojournalist, Agence France-Presse, is kidnapped in Gaza.

March 2007. Alan Johnston, correspondent, BBC, is kidnapped in Gaza.

 

For some of those kidnapped, there were ransom and/or prisoner release demands; others were set free without further conditions.  Some were released in a few hours, others in a few days or weeks.  It was obvious that the main purpose of the abductions was to make it clear to the journalists who now runs the show in Gaza and what will happen to them, should they write/say/show things those in charge of the show would not approve of.  Journalists understood the hint, and after the BBC correspondent Alan Johnston was kidnapped on March 12th of 2007, no foreign journalists remained in Gaza.

In the nearly two years that followed, the information from Gaza came through local Palestinian journalists employed by different media outlets or working freelance.  It was a strange coincidence that it these two years these journalists didn’t produce a single article, photo or video report that would show launching rockets into Israel from densely populated civilian neighborhoods, cover construction of Hamas command bunkers under hospitals, or report on storing arms in the mosques, burning of churches and Christian clubs, and destroying every single Internet-cafe in Gaza.

Palestinian journalists knew what to expect should they step outside the boundaries set for them: over 50 of them were arrested by Hamas beween June of 2007 and August of 2008.  One journalist, a Palestinian cameraman for the German ARD news network, Sawah Abu Saif, was arrested by the Hamas security service in July of 2008 and severely tortured.

During these two years, no foreign journalists tried to get into Gaza, even though nobody prevented them from doing so.  However, as soon as the anti-terrorist operation Solid Lead began, this situation suddenly changed.  Foreign journalists expressed an urgent need to enter Gaza, which at that moment was declared to be a military zone.  The media started a mass campaign blaming the government of Israel for abusing the freedom of press (there was no such campaign during the kidnappings and arrests in Gaza).  The Foreign Press Association in Israel filed a court petition against the Israeli government (during the kidnappings and arrests in Gaza nobody filed any court petitions).

Question 1: What has changed?  Why have the journalists and their media agencies decided that now it would be safe to enter Gaza?  Please choose an answer from the following options:

a) Journalists caught a suicidal virus and completely lost their self-preservation instincts.

b) The media agencies were able to acquire bullet-proof invisibility cloaks with built-in microphones and anti-kidnapper repellent spray.

c) All the heads of military groups in Gaza in the past two years went through a Charm School, acquired perfect manners and made a blood oath to protect journalists at all costs.

d) Journalists and their news agencies knew that, once in Gaza, they would come under immediate control of Hamas and, without any opportunity for independent reporting, will be used as a propaganda tool, transmitting only the information that satisfies the demands of Hamas.  They also knew that since at the present moment such reporting is in Hamas’ best interest, journalist abductions and arrests would be temporarily held off.

Question 2: How many newspapers (throughout the world) wrote about the arrest and subsequent torture of the Palestinian journalist Sawah Abu Saif by Hamas?  Please choose the right answer from the following options:

a) 0-20
b) 20-100
c) 100-1000
d) more than 1000

Question 3: How many newspapers (throughout the world) wrote about the restrictions imposed by the Israel Defense Forces on reporter access to Gaza during the military operations there?  Please choose the right answer from the following options:

a) 0-20
b) 20-100
c) 100-1000
d) more than 1000

Correct answers: 1d, 2a, 3d


Problem #2

All the video and photo materials from the conflict zone in Gaza come from two sources: those captured by the Hamas-controlled Palestinian cameramen and those filmed by the IDF cameramen.  The Foreign Press Association in Israel called upon its members (i.e. practically all foreign media outlets represented in Israel) to boycott all the materials from one of these two sources and not to use them in any of the publications.

Question 1: Which of these two sources is The Foreign Press Association calling to boycott?

Question 2: Given such a boycott, is it possible to honor the key requirement of journalist ethics to present the facts objectively and impartially?

Correct answers: 1) The Foreign Press Association called upon all its members to boycott photo and video materials produced by the IDF.  2) Decide for yourself.


Problem #3

In 2008 - beginning of 2009, there were several military operations underway throughout the world, similar in character and magnitude to the operation in Gaza: the operation of the Turkish army against the Kurdistan Labor Party, the operation of the army of Shri-Lanka against the Tamil Tigers and the IDF operation against Hamas.

Question 1: How many journalists were covering the Turkish army operation against the Kurdistan Labor Party?

a) 0-100
b) 100-500
c) 500-1000
d) more than 1000

Question 2: How many journalists were covering the Shri-Lanka army operation against the Tamil Tigers?

a) 0-100
b) 100-500
c) 500-1000
d) more than 1000

Question 3: How many journalists were and are covering the Israel Defense Forces operation against Hamas?


a) 0-100
b) 100-500
c) 500-1000
d) more than 1000

Correct answers: 1a, 2a, 3d



(41 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]riftsh
2009-01-19 09:13 pm UTC (link)
Thank you very much for the excellent translation! A couple of very minor (and optional) points:
"sound person" is normally (and politically incorrectly) referred to as a "soundman" or more neutrally "sound technician"
"filed a court petition" instead of "filed a court case"
"propaganda tool" or "propaganda soundbox" instead of "propaganda outlet" (although "outlet" is good enough)
Thanks again!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-19 09:22 pm UTC (link)
You are very welcome. I agree with your comments and made all three corrections. Thank you for putting this together!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cema
2009-01-20 01:50 am UTC (link)
"Sound technician" it is.

Edited at 2009-01-20 01:50 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Удачный перевод. Коротенькие уточнения
[info]cema
2009-01-20 01:49 am UTC (link)
Вторая "задача": надо бы жирным шрифтом выделить заголовок.

К третьей "задаче": covered или were covering?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Удачный перевод. Коротенькие уточнения
[info]caperbush
2009-01-20 01:55 am UTC (link)
ah! great point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]aregjan
2009-01-20 02:02 am UTC (link)
Question 1: What has changed? Why have the journalists and their media agencies decided that now it would be safe to enter Gaza?
*******
Mmmm, and what makes you think that the journalists now consider Gaza to be a safer
place? You think journalists earn their money by finding safe places? Or by finding places where they can collect news-worthy stories? In this sense, 1d utterly doesn't make sense: if it's just a matter of safety, everyone could have just stayed in Manhattan/Paris/etc..


Questions 2-3...how many journalists (in your opinion) would bother reporting that Osama Bin Laden slapped his wife? Now, how many would report that George Bush slapped Laura Bush?
The point being -- there is nothing surprising or news-worthy about the fact that Hammas, a world-recognized terrorist organization, is mistreating journalists. On the other hand, Israel, which is a respected and recognized member of UN and a signatory of all kinds of treaties on freedom of speech and such, will make a *huge* news-storm if it does even the tenth of what Hammas does. And that's expected, and there is no need to resort to implied accusations of antisemitism to explain that. In other words, Israel, as a member of international community, is bound by much higher moral standards than any Palestinian organization -- and to be honest I am surprised that you are so surprised by that. :) Do you seriously consider it appropriate to compare Israel to Hammas or Hezbollah? I would think that the very notion of such a comparison should be offensive to any Israeli...

All the video and photo materials from the conflict zone in Gaza come from two sources: those captured by the Hamas-controlled Palestinian cameramen and those filmed by the IDF cameramen.
**********
How come nobody else is reporting from there? That's right (from the link you gave):
"The move was also prompted by the Israeli army's (IDF) refusal to allow reporters to enter the territory to cover the conflict in which some 1,100 people have been killed..."
It seems that IDF *is* interested in us being limited to those two sources...why?

Question 1: How many journalists covered the Turkish army operation against the Kurdistan Labor Party?
********
Answer1: how many civilians were killed as a result of Turkish army's operation?
Answer2: in Western audience's perception, how relevant was the Turkish or Shri-Lankan operation to regional/international stability, as compared to the current conflict in Gaza?

p.s. btw, you really ought to site the sources from where you get these numbers...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-20 02:14 am UTC (link)
Areg, I have a lot to say on what you wrote, but it's after 4am here - I'll reply tomorrow, OK?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bebopmonkey
2009-01-21 01:46 am UTC (link)
areg covered most of what i wanted to say, but let me just add that recently there was some IDF footage that was suppressed and released anyways by an israeli tv station showing some civilian casualties.

it is obvious by their actions that israel is trying to control the flow of information and restrict access in a way unprecedented since.. oh wait, there's the bush white house.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 02:44 am UTC (link)
Please see below my two replies to Areg's comment. "Unprecedented" doesn't apply - the war in Lebanon was extensively covered by the media - again, see below.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 02:52 am UTC (link)
Missed your point about the civilian casualties. Look, there are such casualties in every war - the point is to minimize them. I am not sure what you mean by the suppressed footage - I live in Israel and we have been reading/watching about the civilian casualties here throughout the war. We also know that at least some of those casualties result from Hamas using civilians, including women, children and elderly, as human shields, from some of the Hamas leaders forcing their families to stay with them in locations they know are going to be bombed, and from the extensive booby-trapping of schools, private homes and civilian subjects such as parks and the zoo (I think Gaza only had one) that Hamas routinely practiced during the war.

In case you haven't seen this, you should: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
And this too: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129290

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bebopmonkey
2009-01-21 03:04 am UTC (link)
this is tragic and awful... but still. are you saying that if you live near a viable military target, then your death as a non-combatant is acceptable? i disagree with this on a fundamental level.

i live in the us, and there are plenty of places where thousands of civilians would be in harm's way were there a similar attack here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 03:26 am UTC (link)
It IS tragic and awful. No civilian death is acceptable, but it doesn't mean every civilian death is avoidable. Please remember that Hamas exclusively targets Israeli civilians and that the government here has the responsibility to protect its citizens. As is, they've been waiting for 8(!) years to do this, making people here incredibly angry. Imagine rockets falling regularly where you live - what would you expect the US government to do about that?

I was in Israel during the war with Lebanon, working in the north as a volunteer. During the month that the war lasted, over 400 missiles fell on our town, called Tsfat. It was a very intense time, to say the least, but we were able to cope because we knew that ultimately it would end and life will go back to normal. Plus, most of the families with kids have evacuated during the first week of the war. But people in the south have to live with this day in and day out, having 15-20 seconds to make it to a shelter when the sirens go off (we had 30-40). It tears the very canvas of their lives apart and sooner or later it has to stop. Hamas knew what it was doing, firing the rockets further and further into Israel - they may be violent, but they are not stupid. The fact that we waited for 8 years to retaliate makes the world feel that we can actually bear with the attacks - I mean, what's a few rockets between friends? It might be the biggest mistake we made in this conflict, costing people dearly, on both sides.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bebopmonkey
2009-01-21 03:47 am UTC (link)
i am not apologizing for Hamas. and i agree, it would be a nightmare to live through that.

I am saying that Israel is only creating more radicals and Hamas supporters with each civilian they kill. According to the most recent numbers, about 1400 Palestinians were killed in the most recent conflict, 700 of them civilians. That's half. So for every two military targets hit, one civilian is killed. That's pretty horrible numbers.

According to the "laws of war" (and i'm paraphrasing), the military value of the object has to be greater than the costs of carrying out the goal. In this case i would question if that is the case. The military goals were:

1. Stop the rockets
2. Stop the smuggling of weapons
3. Cripple Hamas

The rocket attacks have ceased, but only because of the cease-fire. at best, the offensive hampered Hamas' ability to fire the rockets. It is questionable whether the other two goals were achieved. i guess time will tell.

And i can say i empathize with what it's like to live in a war zone. When i was four or five, iraqi planes would bomb tehran on an almost nightly basis. lights out, cowering in the basement, etc... i can only imagine what rocket attacks would be like. but that is also why i can empathize with Palestinian civilians.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 04:09 am UTC (link)
For sure. But we don't know for sure how many civilians got killed in Gaza - so far the only numbers we have are given by Hamas, and these guys are known to distort such things. Today they said that only 40 of their fighters have been killed - surely an impossibly low figure.

Even if the civilian to Hamas fighter ratio is one to one, it's practically unheard of for this type of warfare. I've come across civilian/fighter statistics in other recent wars, but didn't save them, and it's almost 6am here so my research skills are about to shut down completely. I am sure you can find those numbers online. Usually it's something like 10 civilians for three fighters, or even higher. Israel really does go to great lengths to get the civilians out. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work - not in the least because Hamas is perfectly willing to sacrifice these civilians in the first place.

There is a lot of questioning here as to whether we achieved the goals of the war. Most of the people, myself included, think that we pulled out of Gaza way too quickly. During the last days of the war we really got to the point of fighting directly with Hamas, house to house, on the ground. There were very few civilians in the areas of direct fighting and we had a chance to confront the terrorists more directly than in any earlier point in the operation. The quick pullout that followed will most likely lead to another confrontation in the near future, unfortunately, unless we'll have to engage Iran directly sooner than the things heat up with Hamas again.

Re-reading your post... wow, you ARE from Iran? When did your family come to the States? How did they escape?

What you say about creating more radicals would be true, had the goal of getting back all of Israel not be on top of Hamas' agenda and a centerpiece of its organization charter. It is as radical as it gets no matter what we do - I haven't actually realized to what degree until this conflict, because I was sick throughout the war, stuck at home, and instead of volunteering could do nothing but read the news. There are a few sites, like palestinianmediawatch.org and memri.org that have a lot of clips of Hamas and Egyptian leaders and clerics speaking. It's very educational.

Thank you for all your comments - I am glad I had a chance to share my thoughts with you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bebopmonkey
2009-01-21 04:25 am UTC (link)
good dialogue is always appreciated, and your insights are illuminating.

Engage Iran directly? i fear that day. not just because i have family there, but i think the results would be immensely destabilizing for the region. the US blocked Israel's last request to do so.

i plan on re-writing my immigration story soon. it was one of the first entries on my LJ.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 04:40 am UTC (link)
I'd love to read it!

Believe me, nobody here wants any military engagement with Iran. As is, things are so fragile, and once you live in Israel, you really begin to appreciate how small the country is. We simply have no room for war! When the news of Gaza came in, my first thought was about Iran - and it is my greatest concern. If anything starts happening between Iran and Israel directly... I don't even want to think about it, to tell you the truth. We've seen many miracles happening here - hopefully finding a new venue of communication with Iran will be one of them.

Also... throughout all these tragic events I've been thinking of those people, in Iran, PA, Gaza and other places in the world where moderate voices are currently silenced, grieving the suffering they must endure, bearing unwilling witness to those regimes. I grew up in the former USSR, in Kiev, and even though when I was living the the worst of the government hostilities were over, the way of life and the propaganda machine were still very much in place. I remember those years as a distant dream, because it's hard for me to accept that so many people I know and love lived all or most of the precious years of their lives trapped in that reality, with no chance of escape. We are really very lucky, because compared to them we are truly free.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]riftsh
2009-01-20 02:53 am UTC (link)
Are you really that condescending towards Hamas/Hezbollah/etc or am I misreading something here? Do you truly believe that they are less than human? If not, why the double standards? Why you are so willing to judge them by different criteria?

Nobody knows how many civilians were killed in Kurdistan and Sri Lanka. Precisely because the media for whatever reasons is not particularly interested in this question and journalists are not eager to cover those conflicts. I can extend the question to include the number of civilians killed in the past several months in Kongo, Somalia, Uganda, Pakistan, ...
Do you know these numbers? Do you care? Did you see these numbers on the front page of Boston Globe? If not, why?

Those are all interesting questions. Much more so, than a trivial one as to why IDF (and all other responsible armies in the world) restrict journalist access to the battlefield.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aregjan
2009-01-21 03:06 am UTC (link)
Why you are so willing to judge them by different criteria?
**********
The criteria *are* the same -- in fact, Hamas/Hezbollah/etc have been banished from
any international arena and have been labeled as terrorist organizations. That said
and universally accepted, any further ad-noseum repetitions of such judgments
are neither interesting nor news-worthy...which is precisely what we are discussing.

Nobody knows how many civilians were killed in Kurdistan and Sri Lanka.
******
Mmmm, not really. While the coverage of those events less than those in Gaza,
they were still pretty thoroughly covered. Furthermore, the Kurds at least are
pretty vocal and well-perceived by world media, not least because they are a major
part of the Iraqi gov.'t.

Do you know these numbers? Do you care? Did you see these numbers on the front page of Boston Globe? If not, why?
*******
I do know (to some degree) and I do care. Now, how is this relevant to the subject matter?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 03:15 am UTC (link)
"Nobody knows how many civilians were killed in Kurdistan and Sri Lanka." If true, wouldn't it be reason enough to look even deeper into it?

As to repeating "ad-noseum" - I am not so sure. I am yet to see a compelling account of putting full responsibility of what happened in Gaza over the past two weeks on Hamas' shoulders. And the responsibility for instigating this conflict is theirs, fully and unequivocally.

The numbers of attacks on Israel are relevant, because the current media coverage gives the impression that the blood-thirsty Jews are chasing and killing the civilians in Gaza just because they just feel like doing so, for no good reason whatsoever - with obvious implications for everyone involved.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 03:36 am UTC (link)
> The criteria *are* the same

Sorry, to me "if it does even the tenth of what Hammas does" and "is bound by much higher moral standards than any Palestinian organization" does not look as the same criteria.

> I do know

Lucky you. The honest commentators on these conflicts admit that they do not know the precise numbers for lack of independent observers and reporters on the ground. But really verifiable was the third part of the question: "Do you see these numbers on the front page of your morning newspaper?" And that is one of the main points of the original text.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aregjan
2009-01-21 01:59 pm UTC (link)
Ok...but how is that relevant to the current conflict in Gaza? Is what's going on in Africa somehow absolving Israel of what many people feel is a heavy handed and disproportional military response.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 03:20 pm UTC (link)
> how is that relevant

It is relevant for two reasons:
1) You can define a military response as "heavy handed and disproportional", only if you can compare it to other military responses under similar circumstances. This can't be done, because the other ones are poorly covered in the press or not covered at all. Or sometimes they are covered, but not called "heavy handed and disproportional" (e.g., NATO in Afganistan, compare the ratio of civilian to non-civilian casualties there and in Gaza).
2) It shows the extreme hypocrisy of "many people" who are not willing to absolve Israel of the same things that do not even interest them in the other parts of the world.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aregjan
2009-01-21 04:22 pm UTC (link)
1) You can define a military response as "heavy handed and disproportional", only if you can compare it to other military responses under similar circumstances.
***********
This doesn't make any sense. That way we can compare the bombing of Gaza to, say, gazing of the Kurds in Halabja and claim that IDF is being Mother Teresa herself.

2) I don't see what's so hypocritical about people being well informed about the plight of the Palestinians but not being as informed about the plight Somalis. Hypocricy would be if say the international community were to forgive the Sudanese gov.'t for its actions in Darfur, and not be as forgiving towards Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians -- however that's clearly not the case.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 04:51 pm UTC (link)
1) Makes perfect sense to me. There are no good mathematical models for military conflicts. I am not aware of any equations for calculating the proportionality of response. So, our only benchmarks are empirical, gathered in comparisons with other practical solutions.

2) That's not the case? What constitutes "international community's forgiving" in your view? Try to calculate in terms of the number of UNSC resolutions. Or may be you can offer a better measure?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aregjan
2009-01-21 04:55 pm UTC (link)
Do you mean UN resolutions (afaik every single UNSC resolution condemning Israel has been vetoed by the US)? If so, the number of such resolutions is only indicative of the number of its Muslim members (in comparison with the number of its Judaic members).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 05:12 pm UTC (link)
> afaik every single UNSC resolution condemning Israel has been vetoed by the US

not true, but the number of resolutions that have been voted on and the vote results are even more indicative than the number of adopted resolutions

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Part 1
[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 02:42 am UTC (link)
OK... here we go.

Question 1. Exactly. Had safety been the only issue at hand, why wouldn't the journalists remain in Gaza all along, despite the kidnappings, covering Hamas' atrocities in "managing" the local population and firing rockets at Israel daily? After all, you say that in Western audience's perception what's going on there is "relevant... to regional/international stability."

I think what the author of this piece is trying to convey is the knowledge that the journalists must have about the necessity of collaborating with Hamas upon getting into Gaza at this point and their willingness to do so.

Questions 2-3. Areg, seriously. Comparing warfare with its loss of life, blood and gore to dignitaries slapping their wives is preposterous, no matter what the scale of the conflict in question. There are about 30 million Kurds, and over the years approximately 30,000 have been killed over the years and another 10,000 are in prison, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Hardly a First Lady slap, eh?

The past three weeks have been a very tense and difficult time for all of us here, but I have to admit that by calling "Israel... a respected and recognized member of UN" you did put a huge smile on my face. Considering that last week we nearly got kicked out of the UN last week and that during the years of the existence of the State of Israel a disproportionate number of the UN resolutions had to do with what's going on here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel), criticizing Israel severely most of the time (and, yes, most of the time we did ignore them) this is a very hopeful and positive statement :)

As to Israel and Hamas or any other Palestinian organization being held up to different moral standards, this is moral relativism at its best. The kindest thing we can do for Hamas and similar world entities is to hold them up to the highest standard of morality and deal with them accordingly. The problem is not that if Israel does one tenth of what Hamas does, it would cause a "huge news storm." The problem is that when Hamas does what it does, no news storms result. And as long as we'll continue to presume that it's OK to hold it or other PA entities to a different moral standard, this awkward silence continue to be the case, to the detriment of the population that is struggling under its control.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]aregjan
2009-01-21 03:59 am UTC (link)
Question 1. Exactly. Had safety been the only issue at hand, why wouldn't the journalists remain in Gaza all along, despite the kidnappings, covering Hamas' atrocities in "managing" the local population...
********
I already said -- because non of this is news-worthy, at least not any more than say
the topic of a central-African dictator's despotic rule. Hamas has already been
roundly dimissed as an organization of terrorists and thugs, and any further statements
on the subject are not something of a news.

Questions 2-3. Areg, seriously. Comparing warfare with its loss of life, blood and gore to dignitaries slapping their wives is preposterous, no matter what the scale of the conflict in question.
********
I am not sure how you concluded that I am comparing wife-slapping to loss of life...
I simply contrasted the examples of Bush and Bin Laden to demonstrate the significance
of context and background.

Concerning the Kurds...I thought you were referring to the military operations that
Turkey launched against PKK last year -- the civilian death toll was pretty minimal, afaik. If you are referring to the extended war between Turkey and PKK, then yes, the death toll is much higher and the handling by Turkish authorities is incomparably more brutal and atrocious -- however most of it has been stretched over time, and at
no point the mortality rate has reached the 1200/4weeks that we see in Gaza. Also, Kurds have not been as successful as the Palestinians in publicizing their cause.

As to Israel and Hamas or any other Palestinian organization being held up to different moral standards
*********
Mmm, my statement on higher standards seems to have confused many. Katya, the absolute standards are the same: as a result Hamas has been condemned as a terrorist organization, is subject to all kinds of strict embargos by the West, etc. ect.. If Israel wants to enjoy membership of UN and be an equal member of the international community -- i.e. benefits that Hamas doesn't have access to -- then it is also bound by higher requirements and responsibilities...JUST like any other civilized Western country.

As to part 2...

Your argument about why IDF prevents journalists from entering Gaza are a bit big-brother-ish: IDF loves the journalists, and doesn't want them to get hurt. :)
Clearly, most of the journalists who want to take the risk are adults and many of
them have actually seen many wars -- if they want to get into Gaza, they should be
allowed, so that we do not have to choose between IDF propaganda and Hamas propaganda.

As to the rockets...first and foremost, both BBC and NYT have been reporting
on deaths and injuries from the rocket attacks, well before this war. Now as to the rate of reporting -- clearly the mortality rate among Israelis due to the rocket attacks has been an order of magnitude less than the mortality rate of Gazans due to the current war. And the rate of reporting reflects this.

And finally, as to balance of reporting...Katya, if two countries go to war, and one
of them looses 12 citizens, while the other looses about 1200 -- which of these do you
think will gain the most of sympathy and publicity (irrespective of the deep causes behind the difference in mortality)?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 04:17 am UTC (link)
It's morning here again, and I don't have the presence of mind for another extensive intelligent argument. Given everything we've said before, I am a bit confused - what's your point, in the end? My main thing in this discussion is that even with the numbers of casualties on both sides, limited reporting, etc., the main responsibility for loss of life in this war lies with Hamas, because if not for Hamas, this war wouldn't be happening to begin with. The Western media doesn't reflect this view and I have a big problem with that, end of story.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]aregjan
2009-01-21 02:49 pm UTC (link)
My main thing in this discussion is that even with the numbers of casualties on both sides, limited reporting, etc., the main responsibility for loss of life in this war lies with Hamas, because if not for Hamas, this war wouldn't be happening to begin with. The Western media doesn't reflect this view and I have a big problem with that, end of story.
*********
I think the quiz that you posted was attempting to imply something more than just that -- that there is some sort of an antisemmitic conspiracy in world news media, with the deliberate purpose of bending the truth and discrediting Israel
(something along the lines of this - http://alisa-ivanovna.livejournal.com/169745.html)

If this is not the case and you are simply frustrated by the superficiality of reporting coming from Gaza, then that's another question, and I would offer this simplistic explanation: people, journalists in particular, always sympathize with the underdog, and are always inclined to blame the bully, no matter what the circumstances. I see this a lot on reporting about the Karabakh conflict: most of the reporters always ignore the fact that
a) Azeris were the ones who militarized a political conflict and
b) were first to deliberately and en masse attack civilians (pogroms of Armenians in Baku and Sumgait)
and instead focus on the fact that Armenians, by being victorious in the war, are currently occupying ~7% of Azerbaijan proper (primarily consisting of buffer zones around Karabakh). They write about 1.1mln Azeri refugees, and utterly forget about the 0.6 mln Armenians who had to abandon their homes in Azerbaijan (proportionally there are more Armenian refugees than Azeri refugees, however most of them have either moved to Russia or otherwise live in better conditions than the Azeri refugees, hence do not look as tragic and news-worhty on news photos as their Azeri counterparts). Furthermore, most of the reporters like to drop stupid lines like "The Armenians *say* that the have inhabited Karabakh for millenia" (instead of the more appropriate "most of historic documents and Greek/Roman/Persian accounts on Karabakh point to a very early Armenian inhabitation"). Do I attribute this to an intrinsic pro-Azeri bias? Absolutely not: it's simply the nature of a liberal reporter to side with the looser and blame the winner.

p.s. on a side topic, isn't it ironic that those parties who today are blamed for antisemmitism (such as the European left) are the political descendants of those who hid Jews in their cellars during WWII....while those who get ADL medals (such as Silvio Berlusconi) are the political descendants of those who collaborated with Nazis in sending Jews to Aushwitz?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 05:16 pm UTC (link)
> on a side topic, isn't it ironic that those parties who today are blamed for antisemmitism (such as the European left) are the political descendants of those who hid Jews in their cellars during WWII....while those who get ADL medals (such as Silvio Berlusconi) are the political descendants of those who collaborated with Nazis in sending Jews to Aushwitz?

The real picture is very far for black and white. Archbishop Sheptytsky hid Jews in his palace in Lviv, while communist commanders of the partisan units in Lithuania were sending Jews, who escaped from Vilna and Kovno ghettos to the partisan-controlled forests, back to the ghettos.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 05:18 pm UTC (link)
far from

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Part 1
[info]caperbush
2009-01-22 01:17 pm UTC (link)
Exactly. The example of Azeri's and Armenian's is a perfect illustration of what I am frustrated about, just as you said above - an extremely superficial and sensationalist press-coverage, driven by a deluge of sympathy to the perceived underdog that drowns every voice of reason and makes every piece of information the said underdog provides unquestioningly palatable to the reading public.

I perfectly understand the reasons media takes this approach, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up against it and try to lay out the facts as best we can. For example, today we read that Lorenzo Cremonesi, the Corriere Della Sera guy who was kidnapped in Gaza in 2005, reported that the number of casualties in the strip has been grossly inflated - a doctor in one of the Gaza hospitals said that the numbers are around 500-600 people, most of them Hamas fighters between the ages of 18 and 23. The numbers are going to be further confirmed, hopefully, but even as is - isn't it an important piece of information? Hasn't the world been all crazed up for three weeks about hundreds of civilians dying?? And yet it's nowhere to be found on the major news channels - at least not yet. Here is the article reference: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html

Btw, today CNN published a rare piece on Sri Lanka forces and Tamil Tigers fighting: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/22/sril.lanka.tamil.tigers/index.html - with the numbers of people who died there.

So, no, I don't suspect the world-press of being a part of the anti-semitic conspiracy, but I can't research every conflict that is going on out there, precisely because of the lack of information and press coverage, and since I have no sources of knowledge on those conflicts other than the press, whatever I'd have to say wouldn't be too useful. With Israel the situation is obviously different - I live here, have a chance to get better information just by the virtue of being physically present, and am naturally deeply invested in fair coverage of what's going on, because it reflects on all of us in so many ways, both long and short term. Because of this, when things aren't done right, I strongly feel that we have to speak up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]aregjan
2009-01-22 02:16 pm UTC (link)
On that, I agree with you completely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 1
[info]caperbush
2009-01-22 02:45 pm UTC (link)
Thank you :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Part 2
[info]caperbush
2009-01-21 02:42 am UTC (link)
"How come nobody else is reporting from there?" Well, part of the question we covered above - Hamas pushed all the independent journalists out of Gaza well before the war. You might remember that during the war with Lebanon 2.5 years ago there was extensive media coverage of the Israeli operations - lots of internatinoal journalists worked from both the artillery positions and with the ground fighter troops throughout the war. There were a lot of lessons we learned from that, the main one being that ongoing real-time reporting often compromised the troops positions and the security of the operations. This time, given the territorial constraints and the difficulty of urban warfare in Gaza, the IDF couldn't afford taking the same kind of risk, and I completely understand that. The ground fighters train extensively for urban warfare which can be extremely perilous, especially given the massive underground infrastructures Hamas built in Gaza. They know how to recognize and avoid booby-traps and have the skills to move very swiftly on the ground. With all my respect to the journalists, I am sure they wouldn't be able to keep up and would be a huge liability to the troops. I don't presume you think IDF decided to keep journalists out of Gaza to prevent honest reporting that could possibly hurt the public opinion more than what Hamas has produced news coverage-wise during the war? Point is, keeping the journalists out probably hurt our publicity short-term and in no way prevented the flow of negative information from Gaza, but it probably saved quite a few lives.

With respect to your last point on Western audience's perception as to what's important to regional/international stability - well, again, I disagree. The media has the power of shaping the perception of what's important, and at any rate, at this point of the evolution of our civilization, we should be equally concerned with violent conflict and loss of human life no matter where in the world it happens. However, if we stick to your view of this for a moment, a natural question arises - why have the daily rocket attacks on Israel largely escaped the media attention, if what happens here is indeed so important? I mean, since we left Gaza, thousands(!!!) of rockets fell into southern Israel, reaching farther and farther into the country. We had a bunch fired again today, in full breach of the nascent cease fire, and there was no mention of it in the Western media - and no, it wasn't because of the inauguration, because I assure that you if Israel had done something dramatic in Gaza today, it would be in the news. There is a great lack of balance in coverage of the conflict here, and I think it's high time it gets fully acknowledged.

Re: the sources - agreed. Next time I translate something like this, I'll research the sources in case the original article is missing them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Part 2
[info]riftsh
2009-01-21 03:50 am UTC (link)
> the sources - agreed.

It was not a PhD thesis, and citing requirements for a blog entry are slightly different. In this particular case there was no easy way to explain the numbers - they are the estimates (thus the ranges, and not the exact numbers), but fairly reasonable ones, based on LexisNexis and Dow Jones Factiva databases (e.g., obtained by counting unique bylines in the lists of hits generated from comparable queries limited by relevant and comparable time periods)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2009-01-27 12:25 am UTC (link)
I think that caperbush was trying to make the world make the comparison. And I'm sorry, but I don't think that being compared to a Palesitnian is offensive. One of my ISRAELI grandfather's best friends is an Arab.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aregjan
2009-01-27 01:26 am UTC (link)
And I'm sorry, but I don't think that being compared to a Palesitnian is offensive.
*******
I didn't say that being compared to a Palestinian is offensive -- please re-read what I wrote.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
See Boston Globe article on Al Jazeera
[info]lucy_chronicles
2009-01-21 07:11 am UTC (link)
The only channel showing REAL war. bloody.

biased not showing bloody ISRAELI's. it's all for the arabs but at least it's REAL. found this from a repost on lew rockwell. many a point.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/18/the_violence_network/?page=full

(Reply to this)


[info]nomaed
2009-01-21 09:44 am UTC (link)
Good translation, but the operation is called "Cast Lead" and not "Solid Lead" (a mistake I made at the beginning too).

(Reply to this)

(41 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…