WAR in GAZA???

[m0tbaillie]

I just don't like groups that pretend to be un-biased.

It's okay that you've only been exposed to the sorry excuse for journalism that is the US MSM.

Try BBC if you want a credible example of unbiased reporting, or Der Spiegel, but don't, however, think that unbiased, non-partisan reporting doesn't exist. It's just rare in the US.

 

[swerdna]

It's okay that you've only been exposed to the sorry excuse for journalism that is the US MSM.

Try BBC if you want a credible example of unbiased reporting, or Der Spiegel, but don't, however, think that unbiased, non-partisan reporting doesn't exist. It's just rare in the US.

Actually, I speak fluent German and love Der Spiegel (www.spiegel.de at least). My only regret is not being able to subscribe to the magazine. BBC's pretty good too, but they can be a bit cheeky.

 

[Volante55]

General to the topic:

I find it interesting that people have such varied views concerning the behavior and purpose of the news media. In this country we tend to value unbiased reporting as an ideal. I would argue that this is a less common value in other parts of the world, especially continental Europe. A different view is to suspect all news sources of potential bias (intended or unintended), accept their known tendencies, and read them through that lens. This is difficult in our culture due to the insistence of most news outlets that they are, in fact, non-biased.

I don't see a need for bias to be explicit or omissive. A news channel, for example, only has 24 hours in a day; their allocation of time may be a form of passive bias.

 

[Slammer2]

Unless you're a commanding general of the operation or something similar, you're not going to know exactly what the heck is going on. Find some version of the story that interests you and have fun with it. Most people typically find the slant of the story that they want to hear and then argue that thats the better version.

 

[Flash]

Unless you're a commanding general of the operation or something similar, you're not going to know exactly what the heck is going on. Find some version of the story that interests you and have fun with it. Most people typically find the slant of the story that they want to hear and then argue that thats the better version.

What makes you think that a commander will know more? Often they will know less than others.

Part of the reason I have been arguing, futilely so far, that you sometimes find reliable and factual information in sources you would not often expect. You could be missing out on a big part of the story if you choose to ignore the source because of a bias.

Another part of the reason is that I am fortunate to have access to many sources of info, some I know to be very accurate. When I have to rely on open source information I often have to turn to sources like Al Jazeera and others in the Middle East region in order to get the job done, fast and right. With that kind of experience, I have learned that Al Jazeera is a fairly reliable source for first-hand news along others in that region of the world, it is just that simple.

 

[wink]

In the words of a BBC article from yesterday, "It is impossible to independently confirm casualty figures as Israel has refused to allow international journalists to enter Gaza."

This sort of complaint is beginning to bother me. Why is it that the Israelis are to blame for the BBC, and other western sources, not having a journalist in Gaza? Does Gaza not have a border with Egypt? Why doesn't BBC complain that the Egyptians are not letting them into Gaza. Or maybe the Egyptians would allow them in. Or maybe an enterprising CNN reporter could get smuggled into Gaza via the sea. What the the western media really want is not a open border or conduit into Gaza, but an escort by the Israeli military to provide them protection from the Islamic fanatics that would cut off their heads if captured. And as long as the Israelis are not willing to risk an operational security breach or divert resources to shepherd journalists the same media will imply the Israelis have something to hide. The reality is, western media could get their story first hand if they wanted to, they are just too afraid for their necks. I can't blame them. But I wouldn't be critical of Israel either.

 

[Flash]

This sort of complaint is beginning to bother me. Why is it that the Israelis are to blame for the BBC, and other western sources, not having a journalist in Gaza? Does Gaza not have a border with Egypt? Why doesn't BBC complain that the Egyptians are not letting them into Gaza. Or maybe the Egyptians would allow them in. Or maybe an enterprising CNN reporter could get smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

The Israeli's still retain a degree of control over all of the border crossings and whether or not they are open or closed, even the crossings on the Egypt-Gaza border. I am not sure of all the details but I believe the international agreements that govern the border crossings into Gaza require Israeli consent for everything that goes into and out of the strip, officially. Another factor is Egypt's dislike of Hamas, which they consider a bit of threat to them as well.

They also have a pretty tight blockade in place off the Gaza coast, no ships go in or out without their approval. You can ask the crew and passengers of the 'Dignity', the ship that played bumper boats with the Israeli Navy a few weeks ago.

The Gaza airport has been closed by Israel, which controls the airspace, for a while.

So in reality, Gaza is locked up pretty tight by the Israelis with a little help from the Egyptians.

 

[exhelodrvr]

This sort of complaint is beginning to bother me. Why is it that the Israelis are to blame for the BBC, and other western sources, not having a journalist in Gaza? Does Gaza not have a border with Egypt? Why doesn't BBC complain that the Egyptians are not letting them into Gaza. Or maybe the Egyptians would allow them in. Or maybe an enterprising CNN reporter could get smuggled into Gaza via the sea. What the the western media really want is not a open border or conduit into Gaza, but an escort by the Israeli military to provide them protection from the Islamic fanatics that would cut off their heads if captured. And as long as the Israelis are not willing to risk an operational security breach or divert resources to shepherd journalists the same media will imply the Israelis have something to hide. The reality is, western media could get their story first hand if they wanted to, they are just too afraid for their necks. I can't blame them. But I wouldn't be critical of Israel either.

"Why is it that the Israelis are to blame for the BBC"
Because most of the Israelis are Jews.

 

[Bevo16]

"Why is it that the Israelis are to blame for the BBC"
Because most of the Israelis are Jews.

That's pretty much it. God forbid that they be allowed to defend themselves.

I have sympathy for the children that are being hurt or killed becuase of the fighting, but that's about it. The people of Gaza had free elections and they voted for Hamas. IMHO, they are getting what they asked for. If the kids there are looking for someone to blame, they find the answer in their parents' eyes.

 

[wink]

The Israeli's still retain a degree of control over all of the border crossings and whether or not they are open or closed, even the crossings on the Egypt-Gaza border. I am not sure of all the details but I believe the international agreements that govern the border crossings into Gaza require Israeli consent for everything that goes into and out of the strip, officially.

So that must exclude rockets, rifles, RPGs, military comm equipment, and militant personnel, just to list some of the contraband that makes it into Gaza, even now. Tunnels?

Another factor is Egypt's dislike of Hamas, which they consider a bit of threat to them as well.

True enough. No debate. Do note my comment above though. Maybe the Egyptians don't dislike Hamas enough. Maybe the Egyptians aren't trying hard enough for a host of other reasons.

They also have a pretty tight blockade in place off the Gaza coast, no ships go in or out without their approval. You can ask the crew and passengers of the 'Dignity', the ship that played bumper boats with the Israeli Navy a few weeks ago.

The Gaza airport has been closed by Israel, which controls the airspace, for a while.

So in reality, Gaza is locked up pretty tight by the Israelis with a little help from the Egyptians.

That the Israelis are doing what a nation at war is expected to do is not the question. Do you really believe that CNN, BBC, Reuters, or any other western media outlet could not get a man in if they really wanted too? Yes or no, please. If the answer is yes, then why don't they do it and stop bitching? I provided just one good answer above, and I still think it is the most likely.

 

[Flash]

So that must exclude rockets, rifles, RPGs, military comm equipment, and militant personnel, just to list some of the contraband that makes it into Gaza, even now. Tunnels?

That is why I said official, there are reportedly numerous tunnels that funnel arms and other goods (livestock included) into Gaza from Egypt. Some of these are reported to be very large and very deep, up to 20-45 feet deep. A large part of the motivation is money, the Bedouins in Egypt and enterprising Gazans make a lot of money smuggling goods in the the Gaza Strip. Hamas is well supplied by these tunnels too, they have had a steady supply of rockets since the Gaza Strip was pretty much cut off almost two years ago.

True enough. No debate. Do note my comment above though. Maybe the Egyptians don't dislike Hamas enough. Maybe the Egyptians aren't trying hard enough for a host of other reasons.

The Egyptians are trying to walk a fine line, their own populace has been quite restless and supportive of the Gazans, to a degree. They also have their own domestic Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is pretty much the grandaddy of all modern Islamic groups. They are also following the letter of the law though, agreements with Israel limit the number of security forces on the border and Israel has reportedly not 'consented' to them to increase that number. That is not all too clear though.

That the Israelis are doing what a nation at war is expected to do is not the question. Do you really believe that CNN, BBC, Reuters, or any other western media outlet could not get a man in if they really wanted too? Yes or no, please. If the answer is yes, then why don't they do it and stop bitching? I provided just one good answer above, and I still think it is the most likely.

I wouldn't expect the Israelis to do any less, just pointing out what is the reality. I do sincerely think that the western news organizations are not willing to risk their regular reporters lives getting them into Gaza. Israel has been pretty explicit about not letting them into the territory, and they pretty much control all of the access. They have to run through their own risk assessments and with pretty much everything a possible target in Gaza, why risk going in alone and unafraid? Especially relying on what is probably very risky entry and exit routes, probably the same routes that smuggle in the arms and livestock that the Gazans use. And believe it or not, BBC has recently come under pretty severe criticism for letting one of its reporters into Somalia, she ended up getting killed. This was even though she was fully aware of the dangers.

And there is never an expectation that reporters die for their jobs. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is a different expectation for soldiers.

 

[swerdna]

There are two possible reasons why the BBC doesn't have reporters in Gaza:

1 - They can't get anyone in.

2 - It is so unsafe that they don't have an office or resident reporter there.

I bet it is option two. Didn't we all see this coming? War in Israel/Palestine is as predictable as a sunrise. They have news reporters based out of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem...why not Gaza? Something tells me that the rent is cheap.

 

[Flash]

There are two possible reasons why the BBC doesn't have reporters in Gaza:

1 - They can't get anyone in.

2 - It is so unsafe that they don't have an office or resident reporter there.

I bet it is option two. Didn't we all see this coming? War in Israel/Palestine is as predictable as a sunrise. They have news reporters based out of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem...why not Gaza? Something tells me that the rent is cheap.

Because access to Gaza, even before this latest Israeli attack, has long been difficult. Not only that, fully staffing a place with a reporter is expensive and they only do that in a central location in the region and in areas that have increased interest. There was really little reason to have reporters in Gaza before the attack, if they could get in.

That is why many news organizations rely on local stringers and you see by-lines with non-western sounding names.

 

[swerdna]

Because access to Gaza, even before this latest Israeli attack, has long been difficult. Not only that, fully staffing a place with a reporter is expensive and they only do that in a central location in the region and in areas that have increased interest. There was really little reason to have reporters in Gaza before the attack, if they could get in.

That is why many news organizations rely on local stringers and you see by-lines with non-western sounding names.

If that is the case, why isn't that the explained reason? Why does the BBC need to say that Israel won't let them in?

It seems like the BBC was caught off-guard.

 

[sevenhelmet]

^^^
Possibly for reasons already stated in this thread. It may be nothing more than Israel being concerned about their own security right now. I admit, it actually makes sense, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.