like the Gaza one where because of the “conditions” (that is, full control of Hamas over the journalists inside Gaza) they have no way to present the photos of one of the sides?
Here it is from NYT:
"Our photo editor went through all of our pictures recently and out of many hundreds, she found 2 very distant poor quality images that were captioned Hamas fighters by our photographer on the ground. It is very difficult to identify Hamas because they don’t have uniforms or any visible insignia; our photographer hasn’t even seen anyone carrying a gun.
I would add that we would not withhold photos of Hamas militants. We eagerly pursue photographs from both sides of the conflict, but we are limited by what our photographers have access to."
Somehow I doubt that their photographer in Gaza “hasn’t even seen anyone carrying a gun”. There are plenty of stories of Hamas threatening journalists to report what Hamas wants - so the photographer probably just conveniently blinked whenever he saw a Hamas fighter.
So here is a question: let’s say there is some conflict where you have plenty of pictures/videos of one side’s soldiers but for some reason, systematically and for the duration, lack pictures/videos of the other side. To me it seems obvious that by publishing the pictures/videos of one side and not the other you are creating bias. Wouldn’t the media ethics (yes, I know, LOL and ROTFLMAO etc) require either withholding the visuals for the time being until you get some to create at least some kind of balance, or publishing a disclaimer every time that says “we cannot bring you the photos or videos of the other side’s fighters because our personnel are being threatened when they try to take them”?
I agree! Every side of every story should have the EXACT SAME representation. This is why I am looking forward to front page coverage of the Green Party during the next election and major features detailing how the East Somethingstan Youth Liberation People’s Army has succeeded in recruiting their fourth member.
Don’t see why. Just explain Hama will not allow their fighters to be photographed for obvious reasons. What carries the story is pix of the damage (on both sides), not the fighters.
First, I am not talking of every story. I am talking of armed conflict. And second, it is not about having “EXACT SAME” representation. It is about finding just ONE picture of the other side.
OK. Can you find me that explanation in the press?
From watching the coverage of the conflict in Western media it is easy to reach the conclusion that Israeli soldiers are in Gaza battling the civilians since there is no evidence in the stories of any Hamas fighters.
That is certainly not the impression I get. But I do get the impression, which appears to be the truth, that the Israeli bombs are killing more civilians than fighters.
No, it only “appears to be the truth” because you’re taking the numbers reported by Hamas on faith. Which just illustrates how “fair” the media is being in its reporting. So far only Time magazine dared to contradict it.
We have seen this before. A similar dispute over casualty figures occurred during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip in January 2009. The Israelis contended that the majority of the fatalities were combatants; the Palestinians claimed they were civilians. The media and international organizations tended to side with the Palestinians. The UN’s own investigatory commission headed by Richard Goldstone, which produced the Goldstone Report, cited PCHR’s figures along with other Palestinian groups providing similar figures. Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report.
…
In light of evidence—provided by groups that monitor Arabic language media (like the Middle East Media Research Institute)—that Hamas has instructed Gazans to describe anyone killed as a civilian, journalists have a responsibility to convey this uncertainty to their audiences and not present figures provided by Hamas and Hamas-affiliated sources as unqualified fact.
If that’s the case that Hamas is threatening journalists then I would think that media outlets would make that a story itself.
I think it would be very problematic to, as a standard policy, hold off on printing pictures or stories just so you can wait for the picture and stories from the OTHER side of the conflict to emerge. However, if the reason why nothing critical of the other side of the conflict is being reported because that side is threatening and controlling what’s reported than that should be made news. Continue reporting the news, but also report the news that the other side is doing, whether it be in regards to armed conflict, or attempting to hide the truth.
You generally get one article for free from the Economist. (If you want more, clear your cookies between stories.) So this should work for you even without a subscription.
It’s a short article, but I hope this is within the bounds of fair use.
Well, given the rampant pro-Palestinian bias in the media, we should all be familiar with Gazan complaints and their war aims, right? Otherwise, not.
It’s been noted that any nation in the world would respond if somebody was launching rockets from across the border. But from the Gazan’s perspective, laying siege is an act of war as well - or at least that’s how I would make the argument. Apparently the two parties agreed after the last set of military actions in 2012 that the siege would be lifted slowly. That hasn’t happened. (Possibly with good reason, but whatever.)
Anyway, since they live in an open-air prison, firing rockets is the only way they can protest, though they are fully aware that they will receive Israeli punishment from time to time. [“Only way they can protest”: horsepucky in my view.]
Israel rounded up 500 Hamas people after the murder of 3 Israeli students, even though the movement did not claim responsibility for the crime and golly gee I add, that’s one hell of a conspiracy. Anyway Hamas wants the 500 prisoners freed. They also want the siege ended, as agreed to in 2012.
Here is a copy of Hamas’ 10 point plan for a 10 year truce:
The Wiki link BrianGlutton posted cites sources from both sides and every one of them shows more civilians killed than combatants. The fact that Israeli bombs are killing large numbers of civilians is confirmed in public statements by folks like Benjamin Netanyahu, who I assume would have a pro-Israel bias. He blames the fact that Hamas intentionally embeds their fighters among the civilian population, which is also true. What can be said is that Hamas is waging a propaganda war stressing the number of civilian casualties, which they probably exaggerate, but I don’t see anyone taking those numbers on faith, nor is the general gist of those claims incorrect. The only thing the Time magazine article is telling us is that they’ve engaged in similar propagandizing in the past.
As for your general claim of media bias, media will always broadly reflect the perspective of the power base in their home countries. To suggest, therefore, that US media will only “report what Hamas wants” as you did, or that biases and sympathies will generally tend to run in anything other than a pro-Israel direction, is just ridiculous.