How Much Can You Hear?
| 12:56 UK time, Wednesday, 26 July 2006
We don't say, but perhaps we should, that some of our reporting of the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is subject to reporting restrictions.
The Israelis have a system of military censorship which operates after the fact: it affects us if we transmit something the Israeli military thinks is likely to provide useful information to its enemies.
This means, for example, that we are not permitted to do a kind of running commentary on incoming rockets, saying that they are falling into the sea or have just missed an oil refinery.
This has not been a big problem for us so far - we're providing broader coverage and context.
But should we preface our reports from Israel with a disclaimer, as we used to do when reporting from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, for example?
Of course the censorship exercised in Israel is hardly comparable in style with Saddam's 'minders'. Then we had to show every script, every picture, to the bored officials 'protecting' us.
But the situation in Israel is reported to be troublesome for Arab media, especially Al Jazeera.
As the Guardian reported a few days ago:
" the Arabic news station, says the authorities repeatedly interfered with its reporting of events in northern Israel last week. Several of its staff were detained and questioned by police and one was later shot [with rubber bullets] in the West Bank. Israeli authorities respond that the network has distorted events, blowing them out of proportion."
The Foreign Press Association is quoted as saying that Al Jazeera's coverage is not "significantly different" than on other channels.
If you're an Israeli, maybe coming across an Arab camera crew near Israeli military units would not please you. However hard they insist they are dedicated to showing all sides.
It's been a hope of some media visionaries that wider, non stop news coverage would make it harder for states to go to war.
That may be the case one day. But it's not a simple proposition.
For now state governments are bound to try to control the flow of information.
Comments
Understood. Thanks.
That's reasonable, since it's a fact. On the flip side, I also think some preface about the origin of the rockets fired by Hezbollah is also inorder. Namely that Hezbollah INTENTIONALLY fires them from within and around civillian areas and that is the primary cause of the civillain casualties inflicted by Israeli air strikes.
1)The focus and emphasis is on Israeli military actions in Lebanon and Gaza while attacks against Israel are mentioned only fleetingly and in passive language.
2) There are no interviews or human interest stories examining Israel’s toll in a conflict started by Hamas and Hizballah.
3) There are no live reports from Israel, but there are several from Lebanon.
4) The Israeli perspective is allowed to be drowned out by the Arab perspective both in the disproportionate number of anti-Israel speakers and the time allotted to each.
waiting for an answer in my Inbox.
Blair is Britain's Affair. Since Bush [and the Democrats/Republicans] have been destroying the world with its Cold War Tactics, the time has come for the world to demand an opening in US Politics so that Alternative Parties [such as Libertarians/Greens/Independents] can compete on an equal basis. I say this as a US Citizen by birth who has seen Republicans and Democrats destroy the USA and taking the world with it.
For those who want to hear the Israeli Perspective, Kol Israel broadcasts on Internet and Short Wave Radio.
Re Israeli vs Lebanese loss of life - I haven't seen it mentioned that Israel (by law) has shelters built under every dwelling. Not only is it very smart, it explains why more Israelis have not been killed by Hezbollah bombs - this aside from Hesbollah acting behind the civilian population in Lebanon - showing what little regard they have for Lebanese citizens.
In my opinion the US government believes that Moslems are synonymous with what they used to call Red Indians.
If they are a peaceful kowtowing crowd like the present regimes in Saudi, Egypt or Jordan they can be traded with. If they are an 'uppity rabble' like the Palestinians whether in Palestine or Lebanon they are being 'Oil Less' are of little consequence and can be dealt with as the Native Americans were dealt with by dispatch of a well armed expeditionary force.