In this mornings New York Times, a short must read, we get a somewhat behind the scenes description of media performance- through the lens of the media- with regard to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
JERUSALEM — Three times in recent days, a small group of foreign correspondents was told to appear at the border crossing to Gaza. The reporters were to be permitted in to cover firsthand the Israeli war on Hamas in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling against the two-month-old Israeli ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza.
Each time, they were turned back on security grounds, even as relief workers and other foreign citizens were permitted to cross the border. On Tuesday the reporters were told to not even bother going to the border.
And so for an 11th day of Israel’s war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it waited in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering, but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel, where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups financed mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.
Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel’s history, in this one the government is seeking to entirely control the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy.
Again, this is a short must read that contains much more than I am able to include here.
Throughout this conflict many of us have questioned whether or not we are getting accurate, unbiased information- whether the US MSM has an interest in slanting and shaping news coverage to construct a reality that fits an agenda viewers would otherwise support.
If so, then, where in this situation could one turn to for reliable unbiased information when information is restricted at the source itself? When other information suggests something else strays beyond the average message being conveyed by all other sources? When sources, such as the New York Times, who have been known to promote propaganda, can be easily and completely dismissed?
Today, via Juan Cole:
And from Juan Cole, Raed Jarrar's blog Sunday:
I guess it's a new Israeli crime to add to the pile of crimes. The number of Palestinians who were killed and injured in the last 10 days of this Israeli open war on Gaza is 3000 now. The Israeli targets included 14 mosques (some of them during prayer), electricity lines, gas stations, storage of oil-products, currency exchanges, Al-Shifa general hospital, TV and radio stations, and dozens of homes.
And from other news reports, we know he leaves out attacks on other elements of civilian infrastructure government buildings, police stations and training facilities, possibly other hospitals, with restrictions on UN and other medical aid, universities and schools including the recent UN run school, electricity and water supplies are off, and food, cooking oil and heating oil supplies are also being restricted to people who live behind walls while foreign nationals have recently been allowed to leave.
Would we assume then, if we had seen news reports reporting each of these incidents that Israel was justified in attacking these targets because they were coincidently relevant to some terrorist related activity? Would they include the seemingly standard lines from some spokesman/woman stating some disclaimer to any wrongdoing?
Upon this self-reflection, how well/honestly/accurately does media see its own image?