What at first seemed like a straightforward controversy over war ethics has turned into one about irresponsible journalism.
The original question asked:
Should soldiers be compelled to risk their own lives by adhering strictly to military rules of engagement even when, in the fog and extreme chaos of war, they are faced with an unpredictable and fanatical enemy which is under no such obligation?
Now, I’m asking:
Is the media ever justified in abandoning journalistic standards of inquiry and investigation by publishing unsubstantiated hearsay?
What if they’re lucky enough to get hold of a sensational scoop that both exposes war crimes and bears out the very things they’ve been telling us all along, that Israelis are as brutal as Nazis – and the icing on the cake is that they’ve admitted it themselves?
Throw caution to the wind? Let the presses roll?
Seeking maximum publicity, Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence (to which the British Embassy has donated a generous grant) offered their report to the newspaper they felt would be most sympathetic to their cause, Haaretz.
But once bitten twice shy! Not so long ago Haaretz had their fingers badly burnt by rushing into print far too hastily with another uncannily similar tale. When it transpired that the whole thing was unsubstantiated and based entirely on hearsay, their credibility suffered a blow. So this time Haaretz behaved more cautiously, and before going to press they sought the IDF’s response. By which time the JPost had got hold of the story and published a critical version of it.
The BBC and some of the MSM also snapped it up, and beamed it far and wide tout de suite.
Which brings to mind Charles Enderlin’s impetuous decision to air the notorious Al Durah report on French state T.V. channel France 2, and to distribute it to eager broadcasters everywhere. The footage that shocked the world was later exposed as a fraud, fabricated in order to inflame hatred and provoke violence. But by the time the deception was exposed the desired effect had already been achieved, and the iconic image of 12 year old Mohamed Al Durah’s horrific death at the hands of the Israelis had the disastrous consequences the makers intended.
The fact that it wasn’t quite like that was neither here nor there. The exposé received little publicity.
If the these two episodes have something in common it’s the alacrity with which anything that discredits Israel is grasped, perpetuated and publicised.
A disregard for journalistic rigour and integrity seems to take effect and override other considerations the moment the opportunity presents itself.
The BBC can publish and be damned. No worries. If they are forced to retract something, or apologise at a later date, they can bury it in some godforsaken corner, and we can like it or lump it.
Unless, that is, someone very litigious threatens to take them to court.
Another great post on BBC anti-Semitism. Why aren't MPs tabling Motions in the Commons about this? I guess the left wing hate machine that is the BBC is just *too intimidating.
You mention the Al-Dura case, Sue. I was under the impression that it was strongly suspected to be a pallywood production, but that the French courts had not proved it one way or the other (IIRC France 2 had refused to hand over the full 29 minute tape to the courts).
Have there been developments of which I am unaware?
Yes, the last court case was thrown out because Enderlin couldnt prove he had been defamed by Karsenty (who had the temerity to say Enderlin was full of crap).
Do a google on Philippe Karsenty or Media Ratings (french online media watchdog) for plenty of info on this sham!
Mailman
You know Ive said this before. The BBC shouldnt be rushing after scoops because, unlike everyone else, the BBC doesnt rely on the money scoops bring in to stay in business.
If the BBC really wanted to be creditable then its objective should be getting the story behind the scoop!
Mailman
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/354621/the-al-durah-blood-libel.thtml
Bloody good read!
Mailman
Mailman
Yes, the BBC does not need to run after scoops.
Indeed it is POLICY that stories by the BBC should be thoroughly checked out.
There was no urgency about this case – it was not a "breaking news" story.
Jeremy Bowen and the other BBC Middle East staff know damn well that this story is very similar to another recent story that was strongly challenged. Another good reason to defer until they had got proper responses – and the story should have referred back to the earlier carbon-copy story.
I suppose the various NGOs and other pressure groups are playing a tag game on this – keep repeating the same old tosh, it doesn't matter that the credibility is highly suspect – the BBC will pick it up.
And why will the BBC pick it up? Because bad news for Israel is welcome news for the BBC.
….
Anyone noticed the constant BBC stories about arrested protestors in Iran being tortured, raped, or "disappeared ? The BBC's Middle east page is full of such stories – not.
Yep Mailman, that link had details up to where I thought it had got (although I forgot that 18 mins of the tape had been produced). I'll google further when I have a bit more time.
I've just blogged this, about shameless Pro-Brown propaganda on the Al Beeb website.
Many of the "journalists" on Haaretz are evidently less concerned with objective journalism than in coming out of their closets and proving how lefty and anti-establishment they can be. And anti-establishment, of course, means anti-IDF. They really are a sickening bunch.
Meanwhile I scouted around for an e-mail address for Peter Horrocks, Director of the World Service, but came up with a blank. He's talking about "Fortress Journalism" on The Editors blog
..I pointed out the difficulties they have recently put in the way of open communication with the editors on that blog..
here
..I'd be interested to know whether people accessing the BBC website in Britain have a more user-friendly version of The Editors. Somehow I doubt it.
This
shows the contempt with which the BBC regards feedback from the public. 500 characters, i.e. about 100 words, for a comment on a World Service programme? They must be out of their tiny minds.
So here are the choices I have as I attempt to let Mr. Horrocks know about the biased decisions being made on a daily basis by the "editors" on the World Service, more specifically the decision to trumpet the "Breaking the Silence" allegations by anonymous Israeli "soldiers" for an entire day from the rooftops:
*Mention it in a comment, which he almost certainly will neither read nor respond to, on his "Fortress Journalism" blog.
*Complain to the BBC "complaints" website, and look forward to yet another wild goose chase.
That is, no choice at all.
Mel on this.
As always she is spot on.
Honest Reporting notes that the BBC has 'edited' a quote from the report. (Also the Independent, but that is outside the scope of this blog).
BBC
The BBC’s ‘Breaking silence on Gaza abuses’ also contained an inaccurate quotation. On the subject of the rules of engagement in Testimony 7, an interviewee said:
‘Fire power was insane. We went in and the booms were just mad. The minute we got to our starting line, we simply began to fire at suspect places. Also, it was still dark when we went in, we got there just before dawn. You see a house, a window, shoot at the window. You don't see a terrorist there? Fire at the window. It was real urban warfare. This is the difference between urban warfare and a limited confrontation. In urban warfare, anyone is your enemy. No innocents.’ (Our emphasis)
The BBC omitted the sentences, ‘Also, it was still dark when we went in, we got there just before dawn’ and ‘It was real urban warfare. This is the difference between urban warfare and a limited confrontation.’ These sentences also provided some context to the nature of the fighting from the interviewee’s perspective – in this case, that it was dark and that urban warfare is different from limited confrontations.
These inaccuracies raise genuine questions about how this journalism is researched, compiled and checked. It is standard practice when omitting material from a direct quotation to uses an ellipsis to signify to readers that something is missing. The fact that this has not occurred is worrying.
In both cases it is unclear who is responsible for the editing of quotations. Just Journalism has notified both The Independent and the BBC about these issues and is awaiting a response.
Sorry. It was Just Journalism not Honest Reporting. HR also do good work in this area.
Problematic quotation of Israeli soldier
Meanwhile the BBC is yet again having its lefty expectations sabotaged in the 'Readers' Recommended' section of the Have your Say on
Afghanistan
When a comment like this one..
.. Added: Saturday, 11 July, 2009, 24:09 GMT 01:09 UK
Keep going lads – the British public support you and know you are doing your all – not only to do good for Afganistan but to protect us all back home. Your fight is our fight.
John Gray..
..gets over 600 recommendations, the subversives at the BBC must be biting their nails.
I must apologise to you all for my earlier behaviour and attitude to this excellent forum.
My boyfriend left me recently and Nan has told me I will have to start paying rent for the basement. I cannot of course raise the £70 a week she is asking as all of my income support is spent on my kerb crawling efforts every Friday night.
As you can imagine the pressure all this is having on me is forcing me to act like a psychotic twat.
Please forgive me and ignore me.
Another great post on BBC anti-Semitism. Why aren't MPs tabling Motions in the Commons about this? I guess the left wing hate machine that is the BBC is just *too intimidating.
You may prefer to think of the BBC as a left wing Hate Machine. However it would be more useful, accurate, and less divisive to see the BBC for what it REALLY is.
Which is a HATE MACHINE pure and simple.
Sorry much worse; broadcast world wide, highly subsidized by the UK citizenry by force using the criminal law, controlled by The British/world establishment 100% of the time, wildly over paid, over respected, and wholly Fascist/Communist HATE MACHINE, on speed.
How can we EVER expect to have any peace on this planet with evil such as this daily propagated by The BBC, around the ignorantly unsuspecting globe?
Peace is just simply not going to happen, if the BBC has anything to do with it. Or is it?
World peace will happen one day, but at a massively over expensive price.
A sort of peace will only be allowed to happen once the worlds establishment have finally effectively taken over the free will and minds of almost the entire worlds population, completely stolen virtually all of this planets natural resources, and control or own its entire productive capabilities.
At which time the BBC will have finally done its job. World Fascism/Communism will be overtly running the UN. Which will suddenly become what it was always supposed to be.
Instead of a dangerously subverting war organizing and managing bunch of power crazed and highly gready gangsters.
Wars only ever happened because some bankster along with another conspired together to cause them. Otherwise the war would only have lasted until the cash runs out. Which would have been usually a day or two. After which time, the combatants would have had to return to the land to grow their food and care for their families.
Since the time of Edward 1st and a long time before him, WARS cost money. Lots of money. They only got financed because there was GOLD or Silver, to be obtained to pay back the banksters. In the middle ages this cash would either have come from very rich Muslims, the Pope in Rome, or the Jews. Or a combination of these. Taxes of course helped, but how could a despotic ruler tax what hardly then existed? Which was gold or silver owned by a pathetic bunch of half starving peasants.
War has ALWAYS been a business, and a potentially very profitable one at that. However many already very rich investors found it to be a rather too risky one.
Tyrants like Edward 1st, often could not bring themselves to pay back the cash with interest. It was much easier to simply kill all of the Jews, and just pay back the Pope with promises, or not at all. Therefore the Jews, the Muslims, and the Pope, eventually joined forces. they just never bothered to give us so much as a clue, that they had. Clever or what?
This is why the banksters took to employing highly trained assassins. Who's sole job it was to surround a certain despotic monarch or leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon with potentially murderous people determined to make absolutely certain this did not happen again. This was done as a condition for the loan. These people were known among other things as secret services. The Pope used the services of The Jesuits. The Jews used what later became Mossad and The KGB. The British Empire effectively used a combination of all 3, and later added also MI6 and the CIA into the equation.
Make sense?
No I thought not, your simply not up for the truth are you? You would rather just continue to attempt, and dismally fail, to make sense of the lies you have always been told.
Atlas
Have any of the IDF soldiers been named ? If not , there is no way of knowing whether the "testimonies" have been fabricated or not ,and the BBC would make no effort to verify them, just gleefully publicising any anti-semitic propaganda fed to them.
http://www.seconddraft.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=522:pallywood-qaccording-to-palestinian-sourcesq&catid=58:according-to-palestinians-sources&Itemid=159
A very illuminating video (not sure all of it is convincing though) –I think the Palestinians are very canny about world opinion and how to get international attention and sympathy.
Thanks to lazy journalism by the West in the Palestine there will always be a symbiotic relationship between Hamas and our Press (inc our mate J Bowen)
Opinionated, 10:33 pm
Sorry for your troubles.
In the olden days when you were just a twinkle in Hillhunt’s eye, you swore you didn’t work for the BBC. I wouldn’t want to imply that you were (he was) being economical with the actuality, but I was wondering if your (his) evangelical espousal of the BBC’s valiance had prompted them to offer you (him) a job in the interim?
Only, if not, I was wondering what was motivating you?
You seem such a nice young man. Who could ignore you! The pathos and honesty in your comment is truly painful.
Now, let’s have some robust criticism of my post.
P.S. Don’t drag David Vance into all your criticisms of me. I demand criticisms of my own.
Thank you Sue. Melanie Phillips wrote a great piece debunking the previous set of unsubstantiated allegations about the IDF (in March) which also appeared in Haaretz and (of course) were all over the front page of the Guardian:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3470006/the-guardian-goes-to-pallywood.thtml
Jonathan Hoffman
The Jerusalem Post (and the Wall St. Journal) have been much more sharp-eyed and well-researched (and less biased) on this story than Haaretz.
This week has seen the 'Breaking The Silence' report AND the Human Rights Watch (Saudi donation sleaze using Israel hatchet jobs as bait) 'Precisely Wrong' smear job completely discredited – to the point where it would be laughable if anyone believed anything they said again.
I have a few posts about the whole thing up at the blog if you'd like to have more detail.