Wednesday, May 14th
Last update08:18:13 PM GMT
Journalism Glance
The indictment says the two Palestinian journalists reported the beginning of Israel's ground incursion into Gaza on Jan. 3 while the information was still subject to military censorship.
Tuesday's indictment says they knew their broadcast for Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam TV could endanger Israeli soldiers by giving Hamas militants forewarning of the operation.
The charges could carry lengthy jail terms.
U.S. corporate media coverage of the Israeli military attacks that have reportedly killed over 900--many of them civilians--since December 27 has overwhelmingly failed to mention that indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets are illegal under international humanitarian law.
Israel's recent aerial attacks on Gazan infrastructure, including a TV station, police stations, a mosque, a university and even a U.N. school, have been widely reported. Yet despite the fact that attacks on civilian infrastructure, including police stations, are illegal (Human Rights Watch, 12/31/08), questions of legality are almost entirely off the table in the U.S. media.
When life-saving — arguably genocide-preventing — information is systematically and deliberately misreported and concealed by the world’s largest news organizations, you can safely consider it, too, an act of lying.
On January 9, The Associated Press released a report titled ”A look at the Islamic militant Hamas group.” Like virtually all AP reports on Israel-Palestine, it is loaded with examples of journalistic malpractice: omission of the most basic and vital facts, use of the most sensationalistic or flatly wrong language, contradictions, and untruths.
On Jan. 7, the Washington Post published a front-page lead article and an op-ed on the nomination of Leon Panetta as CIA director; both articles exaggerated the extent of opposition to the Panetta appointment and they demonstrated the weakness of mainstream media coverage of the intelligence community, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency.
The front-page article by Karen DeYoung, a seasoned reporter, and Joby Warrick, a newcomer to the intelligence beat, presented a one-sided and inaccurate account of the opposition to the naming of Panetta.
The op-ed by David Ignatius, who has relied heavily on unnamed CIA clandestine operatives as sources for the past 25 years, argues that the CIA “has demonstrated an ability to sabotage bosses it doesn’t like.” Such balderdash!
It is particularly ironic that such senior writers as DeYoung and Ignatius would rely on the views of clandestine officers who are particularly adept at manipulating people and opinion. Indeed, that is part of their job description. The reliance on anonymous CIA sources from the clandestine community does not make for good reporting or good journalism.
I watched BBC World News for a timed hour yesterday. In that time I saw:
If you don't believe me, try it yourself.
In fact, prior to the occupation, Jews represented a mere seven per cent of the population and owned three per cent of the land.
Taking the blinders off for a moment, I see a second atrocity perpetuated by the very people who should be exquisitely sensitive to the suffering of others. These people knew what it felt like to be ordered out of your home at gun point and forced to march into the night to unknown destinations or face execution on the spot. The people who displaced the Palestinians knew first hand what it means to watch your home in flames, to surrender everything dear to your heart at a moment's notice. Bulldozers levelled hundreds of villages, along with the remains of the village inhabitants, the old and the young. This was nothing new to the world.
Page 83 of 102
