August 29 Media Critique: "Red Cross Ambulance Libel Exposed"

On July 23, 2 Red Cross ambulances were hit by Israeli fire. But now HonestRepoting tells us that, apparently, this has been “comprehensively debunked in a damning report”, by the aptly named blog, Zombietime. (It's worthwhile being cautious when HR starts throwing around "damning". Last time was when it loudly championed a newspaper report that used a "damning" photo that was clearly posed, only a few weeks later to loudly denounce the evil media for using posed photos.)

Zombietime argues that from the photo/video footage available it wasn’t a missile that struck the ambulances. This does expose the somewhat ‘herd-like’ behaviour of the media. Once a story begins to be reported it becomes somewhat self-sustaining, with competition fostering efforts to get a new angle or introduce new material to differentiate your product from others.

The intial report from the ICRC was quite circumspect.

According to Lebanese Red Cross reports, two of its ambulances were struck by munitions, although both vehicles were clearly marked by the red cross emblem and flashing lights that were visible at a great distance. The incident happened while first-aid workers were transferring wounded patients from one ambulance to another. As a result, nine people including six Red Cross volunteers were wounded. "The ICRC is gravely concerned about the safety of medical staff ", said Balthasar Staehelin, the organization's delegate-general for the Middle East and North Africa. "We have raised this issue with the Israeli authorities and urged them to take the measures needed to avoid such incidents in the future.

The increasing interest in the July 23 story has an exact opposite side. It’s quite interesting to read the ICRC reports as the conflict develops.

July 13,

Following reports from southern Lebanon of injuries to first-aid workers and severe damage to ambulances, the ICRC reminds the Israeli authorities that the emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement must be respected at all times. Staff, installations and vehicles bearing these emblems are protected under international humanitarian law

July 18,

In an incident on 13 July three volunteers were wounded when an ambulance was hit.

July 19,

We have reminded the Israeli authorities of their obligation under international humanitarian law to respect and protect medical personnel and their means of transport. We now expect improved access and security for medical teams

July 21

Though it is operational in various places in southern Lebanon, its range of action remains very limited because of the situation. Rescue teams reported several security incidents involving ambulances and relief convoys over the past days.

July 24,

Heavy bombing has continued in the south of the country over the past three days. Medical staff from the Lebanese Red Cross Society continue evacuating the wounded and sick under very difficult and dangerous conditions. The Society reported five security incidents in recent days affecting ambulances, events that highlight the obligation to spare those engaged in medical work………….Among other incidents of this type, on 19 July the Society's first-aid station in Insarieh was damaged, as were two ambulances. A first-aid worker suffered minor injuries. On 18 July, an ambulance received a direct hit while on a first-aid and evacuation mission.

What we have is a clear pattern of Israeli attacks on Red Cross ambulances back to July 13. Any media frenzy? None. It wasn’t of much interest, and while others don’t cover it, it remains hidden. This is the influence of editors who keenly watch other media outlets to make sure they aren’t missing something the others have. And what isn't reported, generally remains so.

What is really interesting is what happens after July 23, the day of the attack that HR wants to hoaxify.

In subsequent ICRC press reports and briefings, there are no further reports of Israeli attacks on the Red Cross until August 11,

On the night of 11 August hundreds of people fleeing the area of Marjayoun by car came under fire from Israeli aircraft. Six dead and 32 wounded were evacuated by the LRC to nearby hospitals. Among the dead was one LRC first-aid volunteer, Mikhael Jbayleh, who was killed while assisting a wounded person.

Though this one seems to be inadvertent, in the sense that Israeli aircraft were just attacking civilians in general, rather than the Red Cross specifically.

So whatever failures, if any, are highlighted by the media performance in this instance, it had an amazingly beneficial effect on the aim of Israeli pilots.

Perhaps the message from HQ went something like this-
“Hey you schmucks, you’re getting us bad PR, quit shooting at those ambulances”

It also highlights a routine tactic of the apologists. Don’t deny the overall charge at the outset, pick an element and try to discredit the whole by association. So, concentrate on the claim of the missile and try to create doubt around that element. Ignore the initial ICRC report that cautiously only indentifies “munitions” and the string of previous events that show the pattern of Israeli attacks on ambulances. The issue then isn’t whether or not Israeli forces fired at an ambulance, but what they fired with. If it wasn’t a missile, then nothing at all occurred.

Update
The story has even dragged in the hapless Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer. Downer berated the Australia media for being "very anti-Israeli", referring to the July 23 incident, no doubt taking his lead from the Zombietime story.

Embarrassingly for Downer, a journalist from The Australian newspaper (a conservative Murdoch publication) has responded, including to the the Zombietime claim that the appearance of rust in the photos proves that the damage couldn't have occurred on the 23rd, but much earlier, making it all a hoax. He was there and saw the ambulances the next day. This is what he said,

I was in Tyre on the night of the attack and investigated the incident closely the next day. ……….. We inspected both ambulances, whose mangled roofs were not rusting at the time. By the time the photos used on the blog site were taken, rust had appeared. But this is entirely normal in Lebanon's sultry summer climate, where humidity on the coast does not drop below 70per cent.

It's worth reading the whole article from The Australian to see it completely destroy the Zombietime story that HR is pushing. By peddling this stuff, once again HR demonstrates that it thinks its' readers are totally gullible.

And on that score, they're right.

August 22: "Covering the Conflict in the North."

This is a bit like a game. See how many ‘errors’ HonestReporting makes in it’s sermons to the faithful.

HR has done us the favour of a “review some of the worst cases of media bias”.

It’s heady stuff. Just look at this,

“Hezbollah manipulation of Journalists”
The problem, supposedly, is that CNNs Nic Robertson “simply accepts” the claims of the Hizballah press officer who appears on the segment. HR quotes Robertson as saying “No evidence of military equipment here”.

But true to HR form, this isn’t exactly what he said. This was Robertson’s comment, as they surveyed the rubble,

No evidence apparent of military equipment

A perfectly accurate summation of what the viewer could see on the screen. HR manipulates Robertson words by removing the important qualifier “apparent”.

Just the usual “manipulation” and “bias” that we expect from oh-so HonestReporting.

HonestReporting is to honesty, what Orwells ‘Ministry of Truth’ was to truth.

“Disproportionate Reporting”
This is no more than a demand for more coverage of damage in northern Israel, without the slightest hint as to why the coverage might have been “disproportionate”. My guess is that it’s because the much greater damage in Lebanon received greater coverage. That’s disproportionate for HR.

They make reference to a HonestReporting UK story that purports to show the BBC exaggerating damage, but it’s just another example of HR distorting items of media coverage to fabricate its claims.

“Inflated Accounts of Lebanese Casualties”
What do we call this? Studied stupidity, deliberate obtuseness?

HRs example is an AFP story that reports the claim by the Lebanese PM of the death of 40 civilians in Hula. Only one person was actually killed. HR says that AFP “simply accepted Siniora's accusation at face value:”

No, you idiots – AFP reported them. Just as it endlessly reported Israel claims that it never targeted civilians despite evidence to the contrary. This is what reporters do, they report.

This is an old favourite of HRs – to conflate reporting with endorsing. Reporting is ‘x said 20 people died’, while endorsing is ‘20 people died’.

Basic stuff that any half serious media critic knows.

“Manipulated and Staged Photographs”
I always enjoy it when HR shoot themselves in the foot, a rather frequent event.

They revisit the digitally altered image of Beirut, then present a pair of photos, one with a young man lying in the rubble and then another with the same man up and walking around. Apparently he was injured while helping clear the rubble. For HR this is some kind of evidence of media bias – he wasn’t injured in the actual bombing, just the aftermath. That does raise an interesting point – any civilians killed or injured when buildings collapse due to earlier Israeli bombing are not, according to HR, victims of Israeli bombing.

Next, HR fulminate over staged photos. In one scene a body is being put into an ambulance. This is re-done, presumable to get a ‘better’ shot. There is no suggestion that the body isn’t real, just that it was “posed” for the benefit of the camera which is “manipulation”, and hence part of anti-Israel bias, according to HR.

HR is deeply concerned that “numerous photographs have been …….deliberately staged”.

Shocking isn’t it? But just how principled is HR’s stance over “deliberately staged” photos? As we’d expect from HR – not at all.

Remember this photo from just a few weeks back?

And remember how HR stated that these were “damning photos’?

As is immediately obvious to anyone, this is a “staged” photo. The driver casually leaning on the open door, looking to camera, the crowd on the back of the truck, which they wouldn’t be if it was actually in use. It’s as spontaneous a photo as you might get at a birthday party.

Since HR acknowledges the “need for factual, impartial and fair reporting”, I’m sure they won’t mind if people send them an email (action@honestreporting.com) asking to explain their manipulation of quotes and their endorsement of “posed” and “deliberately staged" photos.

Confusion over “Myths and Facts”

Several weeks ago HonestReporting issued an email alert to its subscribers, yet again offering guidance on what constitutes the apologist’s official narrative in Israels latest war in Lebanon. It’s in the form of a video called “Lebanon: Myths and Facts”.

Here are some of the perspectives that it would like its readers to appreciate;

“Myth: Israel is attacking Lebanese civilians”

Like the dead in Qana were a myth?

What do independent bodies like Human Rights Watch say?

Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes.

So Israel is attacking civilians. No myth.

“Fact: Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields”

HRW again,

Hezbollah fighters must not hide behind civilians – that’s an absolute – but the image that Israel has promoted of such shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong……In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.

So Hizballah is not using “human shields”. Not a fact, but a myth.

"Fact: Israel strives to minimize civilian casualties, dropping leaflets repeatedly asking them to leave for their own safety…..targetting only military objectives"

HRW again,

In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians.

And on the issue of leaflets HRW says,

Israeli warnings of imminent attacks do not turn civilians into military targets

Moreover, the logic of the leaflets undermines the very rationale they are meant to provide. They are an implicit recognition of the presence of civilians, to which the Israeli response is – we’re going to bomb there anyway.

And then there have been the attacks on civilians who have tried to flee as the leaflets urged.

HRW again,

Israeli forces have fired with warplanes and artillery on dozens of civilian vehicles, many flying white flags. …… the attacks have killed and wounded civilians who were fleeing their homes after the IDF issued instructions to evacuate.

And to finally completely destroy the logic of the “leaflets” there is this, from the BBC,

Since Monday, when Israeli jets dropped leaflets warning unequivocally that any vehicles daring to travel would be hit, there has been virtually no traffic on the roads. Not that there was much before. So in Tyre, the only way to move without that dire threat hanging over you, is to walk. And even that is hardly comfortable – (BBC August 10, 2006.)

Now the leaflets provide evidence of a direct admission that civilians will be targeted by Israeli forces.

It’s clear that HonestReporting has accidentally transposed the words “myth” and “fact” in its script.

“Myth: Hezbollah has a justified grievence with Israel”, “This is not a border dispute”.

The ongoing occupation of the Shebaa Farms area might be considered a grievence. There is no doubt that Israel occupies the area, but says that it is Syrian, not Lebanese, territory. And Israel continues to hold Lebanese citizens in Israeli jails, taken from Lebanese territory during Israels occupation of southern Lebanon, in defiance of international law. Also in defiance of Israeli law, and despite the Israeli Government argeeing to release them in a prisoner swap and then reneging. Could it be that this constitutes some tiny basis for a justified grievence?

In its email, HR describes this video as part of the “educational tools” in fighting the evil scourge of “media bias”. But then in it’s final sentence, all pretense is dropped and HonestReporting is, for a change, quite candid – “The film exposes …….the actual facts that the media should be reporting”.

Yes, the facts, as HonestReporting wishes they were, are what the media should report.

August 6 Media Critique: "Bold Distortions and Outright Lies"

Occasionally even Honest Reporting gets something right.

This time they note the controversy over a manipulated photo that appeared in a Reuters story. The photo was altered, with smoke added. Reuters issued a correction and pulled the photo. Doctored photos are a serious problem and HR is right to highlight it and request action.

But HR is rarely content with just the facts. There is no story about the media that can’t do with a bit of exaggeration and distortion to foster the world wide anti-Israel media conspiracy. The altered photo, says HR, ”is an outright lie”. That must mean it was a complete fabrication, implying something that never occurred. Was it? Here is the original and the altered version (below).

Well, as you can see there was an Israeli air-strike on Beirut and it did result in billowing black smoke, just a little less than the altered image shows. HR sees a conspiracy to “make damage in Beirut appear much worse than reality”. Does it really do this? There is no actual damage to be seen in either version, just smoke. Just like HR’s over-hyped claims.

In its opening paragraph, HR yet again goes for hype over facts,

Despite evidence that Israel is taking unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties, some in the media have accused the IDF of using disproportionate force against a harmless civilian population.

Where would anyone get such an idea that Israeli acts might be disproportionate? Well, what about here,

The Israeli government has blamed Hezbollah for the high civilian casualty toll in Lebanon, insisting that Hezbollah fighters have hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. However, in none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in the report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or prior to the attack…………… Human Rights Watch urges Israel to immediately end indiscriminate attacks and distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants. – Human Rights Watch.

But wait, there’s more. Next we have some classic HR dishonesty. HRs ‘Media Critique’ refers to a National Review Online story by Tom Gross, which itself is discussing the CNN program ‘Reliable Sources’ (3rd hand is always good enough for HR!) CNN is interviewing one of its own reporters, Nic Robertson, about Hizballahs media management. Gross makes a bit of a hash of it, writing that,

Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon was stage-managed from start to finish by Hezbollah.

If you look at the CNN transcript, that isn’t quite what Robertson was saying, and just in case that you have the impression that Robertson admitted his own report was “anti-Israel”, he didn’t , that was just Gross editorializing. In case anyone is a bit slow on the up-take, Gross is at pains to make clear his total commitment to objective journalism with the title of his article ‘Media Missiles: Working for the enemy’. (Psssttt!. Enemy= Hizballah/Lebanon).

But Roberston did have some interesting comments to make,

But from what we can see, there appear to be a lot of civilian damage, a lot of civilian properties….........That you have to point out to the audience and let them know that this was a guided tour by Hezbollah press officials along with security.

The last point is, of course, relevant. Journalists who are relying on a partisan source need to inform their viewers of this. Robertson’s explicit acknowledgement of this is deliberately ignored by Gross, who claimed that this demonstrates "how the news media allows its Mideast coverage to be distorted." Not only that but Gross tries to spin this as the journalist “letting it slip”, as if the activities of public relations officials in conflicts and how journalists deal with it, was some great mystery until now.

However, this does reveal a fundamental bias in media coverage. CNN acknowledges the potentially distorting influence of Hizballahs media management and HR is keen to highlight this. But what about the other side? What about Israels media management, or doesn’t this exist? For CNN, it doesn’t seem too, not that the National Review noticed this. Fortunately, Matthias Gebauer from Der Spiegel, recently wrote about this exact topic. From his experience, this is what the Israeli General Press Office does,

In Israel, reporters are on an all-inclusive package trip -- and are well looked after.

Well-thought-out story ideas including transportation, lunch and selected military experts -- all these things are offered without ever having to be asked for. Many journalists happily accept the offer. For days, images of Israeli artillery units flickered on TV screens the world over -- one reason of course being that the PR warriors always took the camera teams to the frontlines around sunset. The soft, warm twilight is favored by camera men and photographers.

An e-mail that arrived on Wednesday is a good example. It offers no less than 11 news stories. The Israeli refugees, perhaps. Or the problems with Arab Israelis? A feature about how an entire village has been dispersed across Israel? A report on people who had to leave their houses? Former hostages? Or a village that has been shot at for decades? It's all available.

There's no need to go anywhere.

Just a bit more than a guided tour. Imagine if Hizballah were providing whole story lines for journalists to use; HR would be apoplectic.

Any chance that HR will describe this as “media manipulation” by Israels GPO, as journalists having “misled viewers with selected footage from Israel”, or criticizing those who have been “taken around the damaged areas by Israeli government minders”?

Absolutely no chance.

August 1 Media Critique: "Qana in Context"

HonestReportings latest media critique calls for “context” in the reporting of the Israeli bombing in Qana that killed dozens of civilians.

The context that HR suggests is in 3 parts,

1. HR claims that 150 rockets have been launched from Qana, referring to the IDFs website as the source of information. Perhaps further context might be provided by via a link to a Hizballah website where they deny this.

2. That Hizballah are operating from civilian areas. HR provides a photo and a link to a Herald Sun newspaper report. The photo is of a truck-mounted anti-aircraft gun, with a building in the background. This is commonly what is known as ‘defense’ in its real sense, such weapons being used to shoot down attacking aircraft. A second photo in the Herald Sun article shows a man posing for the photograph holding a gun, with a large fire and rubble in the distant background. It’s impossible to tell where the photo has been taken and what it is meant to portray. The caption informs readers that the man is a ’militant’.

3. That the IDF dropped leaflets advising people to leave. The implication being that by not leaving, Israel is absolved of all responsibility for subsequent events.

Leaving aside the details as HR sees them, it calls for "the media to examine the Qana tragedy in context", with the obvious implication that this is not happening.

Lets test the HR suggestion by looking at the coverage by the BBC, a frequent target of HR, to see if they have failed to provide the context HR expects.

A BBC report the day after the bombing gave this context,

Israel has insisted that Hezbollah sheltered in Qana and used it as a base to fire rockets across the border………The IDF said in a statement that Qana had been used since the beginning of events as a ‘hideout’ and a place from where approximately 150 rockets had been fired into Israel.

The IDF also said that residents in the village and surrounding areas were warned in advance to stay out of areas where rockets were being launched at Israel. – BBC, 31/7/06.

That does appear to be exactly what HR was requesting, the BBC even repeating the Israeli defence twice, so what is their point?

The next section may help to answer this.

HR suggests that maybe all is not as it appears in a section titled "Emerging Doubts”. One ‘emerging doubt’ is that the building collapsed completely some hours after being bombed. Why this is meant to be some mystery, is itself a great mystery.

The other doubt HR would like to cultivate is about the number of casualties,

The Red Cross has published that 28 corpses were evacuated from Qana, 19 of which were children. These figures clash with the Lebanese report that 57 people were killed.

Its source for this is the Israel- based Ynet News,

Red Cross publishes that 28 corpses evacuated from Qana, contrary to Lebanese reports that 57 people were killed. -Ynet News, 1/08/06

Is this really true? Here’s the ICRC press release from which Ynet News gleened this tidbit,

In today's military operations by the Israel Defense Forces against the village of Qana, a building sheltering civilians was directly hit. At the time of writing, the Lebanese Red Cross Society and the Lebanese Civil Defense have extracted 28 bodies from the rubble, 19 of whom are children.

Amazing how omitting just a few words can be so useful. So, the Red Cross was issuing a press release on the day of the bombing that gave the information available at that moment, which wasn't the final tally of dead, but the number of bodies so far recovered, as the ICRC made perfectly clear. No doubt both Ynet News and HonestReporting understood this quite well.

Just more of the dishonesty we expect from HonestReporting.

Perhaps HonestReporting could have included the next paragraph of the same press release to give some much needed context to the issue of the IDFs leaflets,

Issuing advance warning to the civilian population of impending attacks in no way relieves a warring party of its obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law. In particular, the principles of distinction and proportionality must be respected at all times.

That must be the wrong kind of context.

The aim here is not to provide context, but to muddy the waters. Outright denial isn’t required, in fact that would be less effective when the outcomes are undeniable, but suggestions (false ones) of exaggeration of casualty figures and other agendas, imply that all is not as it might appear. Linking this to other incidents where HR claims that false accusations were made (eg. the IDF shooting of Mohammed al-Dura) sends a clear message – don’t judge this yet. And that is the primary goal. Highlight, exaggerate or even fabricate any semblance of doubt to forestall judgment and then let time do the rest.

The other important goal is to reassure the faithful that the IDF remains the most moral army in the world and that the scourge of anti-Israel media bias persists, despite what the facts might suggest.

HonestReporting – your regular inoculation against reality.

July 27 Media Critique : Sheilding Israel

I’ve been waiting patiently for the latest Media Critique from 'HonestReporting'. Usually when Israels actions put it in the media spotlight, HR is there quickly to pressure news outlets to maintain an ‘Israel friendly’ perspective, via its' media critiques asking its' readers to bombard media outlets with complaint e-mails On this occasion it has been 11 days without anything significant. Why so long I wondered, then I came across this,

Shariv [media advisor to Ehud Olmert] said that Israelis have been interviewed by the foreign press four times as much as spokespeople for the Palestinians and Lebanese. As proof of Israel's success, he also cited a poll of Sky News viewers that found that 80 percent believe that Israel's attacks on Lebanon were justified.

"We have never had it so good," Meir said. "The hasbara effort is a well-oiled machine." (Jerusalem Post. July 17, 2006)

How true. HonestReporting finds itself without a great deal to do. Despite Israels obvious breaches of the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilian infrastructure, ambulances and killing UN peacekeepers, few news stories mention this explicitly and fewer still that these are War Crimes. But before they get too confident, there is some difference between successfully getting your point out and people actually believing it. In this case Israel might find that the images of devastated apartment buildings, dead children and blown-up ambulances are more than its’ “well-oiled” hasbara "machine" can cope with.

But it’s always worth having something to complain about. There are are a horde of loyal, if gullible, HonestRepoting readers who need to have their belief in pervausive anti-Israel media bias re-confirmed lest reality, as confirmed by the Israeli Prime Ministers' media advisor, starts to intrude on their carefully cultivated fantasies.

HEZBOLLAH USED UN AS "SHIELDS"?

HonestReporting seems to believe that the media has made a,

automatic knee-jerk response that has accused Israel of deliberate murder.

I can't say I've seen any examples of this in news reports. Though Israeli claims of it being a 'mistake' are well reported. Perhaps that is why they fail to offer any examples.

HR then quotes a story from the Ottawa Citizen which is their example of more in-depth and considered response to the killings,

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago….

So, the UN observer said the UN was used as a “shield”?

This is what he wrote,

The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity.

Hmmmm, where did the claim of a “shield” come from? It turns out they are not the words of the deceased in his email, but the opinion of a former UN Commander commenting on the email.

The Khaim area is a Hezbollah stronghold, so undoubtedly there are Hezbollah positions in the area. But the UN observer post has been there for decades, its position is known precisely. Responding to the suggestions that the Israeli fire may have been targeting nearby Hezbollah fighters, UN spokesman said,

At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area. So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets, that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

Quite an effort from HR – construct a straw man and then knock it down with an article that is just a little misleading. Now that’s a shield.

HEZBOLLAH'S MEDIA MANIPULATION EXPOSED

What evil has Hezbollah perpetrated now?

Wait for it – they have driven ambulances! The fiends. Hezbollah was allowing camera crews to film empty ambulances driving off with sirens blaring. It was an “orchestrated …media event”. They must be taking lessons from the Israelis.

I’m not sure why HR is complaining. Surely it better to have empty ambulances driving off into the distance shown on TV, than have the image of the ambulance bombed by Israel shown everywhere.

Media In and Outs

It’s time to take go back to the archives of HonestReporting to look at some of their past efforts at misleading, misquoting, misrepresenting and otherwise fabricating allegations of anti-Israel bias in the media.

This one from 2004 is on media coverage of the visit of Ghandi’s son to Israel by AFP and another article from the Guardian about Ghandhi and how his approached might work in the Middle East.

It takes just a few lines of ‘Palestinian Hunger Strikers - Modern Ghandi’s?’ before coming across the very first display of, what can only be described as, dishonesty. In this case, misleading representation of anothers’ views.

HonestReporting provides a short excerpt from the Guardian story that looks very bad, in which it is claimed the journalist says that Gandhi,

would undoubtedly have appreciated the concept of jihad

This is the whole paragraph from HonestReporting,

Amid the wave of articles on Palestinian prisoners' hunger strikes, AFP indicates that Mahatma Gandhi's grandson visited Israel and will fast for one day in solidarity with the prisoners. The Guardian goes so far as to state that the elder Gandhi himself 'would undoubtedly have appreciated the concept of jihad' against Americans and Israelis. These prisoners, held for terror involvement, are thereby likened to the great figure of modern non-violent resistance.

Wow! That really is an amazing claim for the Guardian to make. But is that really the writers point? Is he trying to equate the hunger-strikers with Ghandi or that Ghandi would apprieciate jihad against Israel? Is this some terrible sop to these Palestinian prisoners because of the claimed European bias that favours Arabs?

Hardly.

This is the whole paragraph from the Guardian,

Gandhi was a Hindu but readily incorporated other ideas into his philosophy. Like many Muslims today, he would undoubtedly have appreciated jihad, self-sacrifice and martyrdom as concepts, though not the methods that often accompany them.
He didn't believe in killing people …..

So besides the simple fact that HonestReporting altered the Guardians words, they also created the opposite meaning to that in the original. On top of this, despite the reference being inserted in the middle of a paragraph that talks about the Palestinian hunger strikers, the Guardian story is nothing to do with this issue – it does not mention or refer to the Palestinian prisoners hunger strike at all. It is entirley about what role Ghandi's non-violent mode of resistence could or should play in the Middle East. The Guardian article certainly doesn't mention anywhere that Ghandhi would have "appreciated", "jihad against ...Israeli's". HonestReporting has taken two articles on different issues and creates the impression that they are discussing the same issue.

It is clear from other sections of the Guardian report that it is in fact being critical of the lack of non-violent strategies in the Middle East. Even the sub-heading shows this,

Gandhi's model of non-violent resistance has met with suspicion and repression in the Middle East, writes Brian Whitaker

or this,

Some, of course, would offer a different explanation: that Islam is an inherently bloodthirsty religion. This is a view that Bin Laden and his kind have done much to encourage

The Guardian story then finished with several tales of how Arab regimes have reacted in a violent and illegal manner against their citizens who have tried non-violent protests.

But HonestReporting spins all this as an example of pro-Arab bias!! Incredible.

This is not an example of bias by HonestReporting, but plain and simple fraud and crude propaganda.

Just another crock of shit that’s manna from heaven for those HonestReportings readers who are unable to think for themselves.

July 16 Media Critique: "Israel Under Fire"

Rather than addressing specific allegations of media bias, this time HonestReporting takes aim at what it calls “myths” in current coverage of Israels attacks against Lebanon and counters with what it alleges are “facts”. Let’s take a look.

Myth 1: Israels response is disproportionate.

And the facts as HR would like it’s readers to believe,

The definition of a "disproportionate" response is a subjective one.

Perhaps we can ask the opinion of the International Committee of the Red Cross who have the role of monitoring compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Their "subjective" opinion on this is the one that counts,

Pierre Krähenbühl, the ICRC’s director of operations…….. added that “the high number of civilian casualties and the extent of damage to essential public infrastructure raise serious questions regarding respect for the principle of proportionality in the conduct of hostilities.” (ICRC Press Release, 19/7/2006).

The first casuality of war? HRs commitment to truth.

Israeli military operations in Lebanon are taking place in response to an unprovoked border attack which left 8 Israeli soldiers dead and two kidnapped by the Hezbollah.

Unprovoked is in the eye of the beholder it seems. Hizbollah claimed it was reacting to the Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. Perhaps the scores of dead civilians there may be regarded as some kind of provocation.

Any civilian casualties in a conflict are, of course, tragic and regrettable. Civilians on both sides are suffering. However, Israeli air strikes on Lebanon are not intended to kill civilians, unlike the hundreds of Hezbollah missiles that are targeted specifically at Israeli civilians who have been forced into bomb shelters for their own safety.

Strange. The opening paragraph, as noted above, clearly points out that Hizbollahs first strike was against military targets – the IDF.

How often will we hear of this lame defence- “not intended to kill civilians”. What exactly is intended when suburban offices and buildings are bombed by F-16 jets?

Israel has also been criticized for targeting Lebanese infrastructure such as the Beirut airport. However, it is also interesting to note what has not been targeted.

Oh please! And they call this a media critique?? This is lame, lazy and totally unconvincing apologetics. Yes, Israel committed war crimes, but please focus on the war crimes it didn’t commit. No one with a shred of credibility could seriously claim to be interested in “factual, impartial and fair reporting” after such a blatant call for partisan news reporting.

Myth 2: Hezbollah is an indigenous Lebanese ‘resistance’ organization.

HR then provides it’s version of the facts via its all-time favourite tactic – highly selective quoting. In this case it’s more of a case of selective editing. Quoting the Council on Foreign Relations, HR supplies most of the brief CFR information on Hizbollah, but leaves out these 2 very pertinent paragraphs that address the issue that HR claims is a myth,

Hezbollah was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon...

Experts say Hezbollah is also a significant force in Lebanon’s politics and a major provider of social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services, for thousands of Lebanese Shiites. It also operates the al-Manar satellite television channel and broadcast station.

Just in case anyone didn’t get that – Hizbollah was founded in Lebanon in response to Israels 1982 invasion, ie. it was an armed resistance group formed in Lebanon, and continues to operate in Lebanon today providing social services, participating in elections and generally behaving in a very indigenous manner.

It’s a curious fact that pro-Israel advocates place such great store on attempting to discredit others by claiming that they are in some way alien to a particular location. Doubly curious given the history of Zionism.

Myth 3: Israel continues to occupy Lebanese land, specifically the Shebaa Farms area.

According to HR,

On May 24, 2000, Israel completed the unilateral withdrawal of all IDF forces from southern Lebanon, in accordance with Israeli government decisions and UN Security Council Resolution 425, ending an 18-year presence there……….. The United Nations views the Shebaa Farms area as Syrian territory. Therefore, UN Security Council Resolution 425 - which concerns Lebanon - does not require Israel to withdraw from this area.

A nicely deceptive slieght-of-hand. Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, but not from the Shebaa Farms, which are considered to be Syrian by the UN, but not by Lebanon or Syria. So, Israel does occupy the Shebaa farms, just not the Lebanese Shebaa Farms. And this area is also covered by a UN Security Council Resolution requiring Israel to withdraw, which it has so far (after almost 40 years) failed to comply with. HonestReporting – as accurate and honest as ever!

Myth 4: Arab prisoners held in Israeli jails were kidnapped from Lebanese soil and should be released.

HR almost immediately confirms that this “myth” is in fact true,

Those prisoners held in Israeli jails captured during Israel's stay in southern Lebanon are, likewise, held for terrorist offences and due to the inherent risk that they will return to their previous activities.

HR simply defends this as reasonable.

Another stupendously appalling and mendacious effort from the team at HonestReporting, who are determined to give honesty a bad name.

May 7 Media Critique: "Report Critical of BBC Mideast Coverage"

The focus here will be HonestReportings latest efforts, but occasionally I’ll go back to past ‘Media Critiques’ to highlight a particular tactic used by HonestReporting, or sometimes just for a laugh when we see what incredible distortions HonestReporting must perform to raise the spectre of media bias against Israel. This is one of former.

The May 7, 2006 ‘critique’ was in honour of the BBCs release of its investigation into the impartiality of its Israel-Palestine conflict coverage. HonestReportings main take was that the report recommended that the BBC use the term “terrorism”, which forms its byline. This has long been a major focus of HonestReporting.

And what is the heading of the HonestReporting story?- “Report Critical of BBC Mideast Coverage”.

Sounds like HonestReporting has scored a win. Or has it?

So, what is the nature of this critical report? What are the criticisms? Let’s start with the overall assessment of the BBC performance, according to the review there is,

• “little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias…….there was evidence of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial”

• “the news reporting from location…is of high quality”

• “outstanding examples of current affairs programmes…..”

HonestReporting then highlights this excerpt,
“gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective. There is also a failure to maintain consistently the BBC's own established editorial standards, including on language. There are shortcomings arising from the elusiveness of editorial planning, grip and oversight. In summary, the finding is that BBC coverage does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”.

A tantalizing finish to that paragraph. What is this misleading picture? HonestReporting doesn’t fill in this gap for it’s loyal band of brain-dead readers. But let me. The report lists a few of these gaps,

• “there was little reporting of the difficulties faced by Palestinians in their daily lives…”

• “failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation…”

Ah, so that’s the BBCs “misleading picture”! It doesn’t show viewers/listeners just much Palestinians suffer under Israels brutal occupation. If only HonestReporting would devote a little time to addressing that bit of media bias.

The exposure of the real bias in BBC coverage can only inspire this limp evasion from HonestReporting,
“Of course, in a report of this size and scope, many parties are able to find positives and negatives, something reflected in the reaction of both the press and other interested parties”.

But not to be deterred or let down it’s baying mobs who have been primed to expect to feast on a smorgasbord of proven BBC anti-Israel bias, HonestReporting refers to a Times (UK) story on the reports release. The Times notes, as part of the reports criticisms, that Israelis get more ‘air-time’ than Palestinians do in BBC coverage. HonestReporting “is sure that this will be greeted with a healthy degree of skepticism by its readership”. Of course they will, as HonestReporting has been telling them for years of the BBCs unending bias against Israel, in complete defiance of the facts.

Hilariously, then HonestReporting adopts the classic ‘begging-the-question’ style of illogical debating. Again it quotes the Times,
“as the Times points out, the ‘references to “identifiable shortcomings” surprised BBC News executives, who are more used to accusations that their coverage is routinely anti-Israel’”.

How mendacious can you get? BBC News executives are used to accusations of anti-Israel bias because HonestReporting goads it’s gullible readership into deluging the BBC with ill-founded complaints of bias, then uses the fact of such complaints to darkly hint that there must be some basis for accusations despite an independent investigation finding the very opposite of HonestReportings frequent claims.

This just demonstrates again, that despite HonestReportings claims to support “factual, impartial and fair reporting", it actually wants just the opposite. If it really did value honesty, this May 7 ‘critique’ would instead be titled, “Report Critical of BBC Mideast Coverage: Biased Against Palestinians.”

Fat chance.

Welcome

Honest Reporting; This self-described media monitor labours mightily to expose the vast and unrelenting phenomenon of anti-Israeli bias in the media.

Honest Reporting claims that it demands “factual, impartial and fair reporting” and holds reporters and media organizations accountable against this noble sentiment. However, as we shall demonstrate, Honest Reporting hasn’t the slightest interest in any of these things. Its’ ‘Mission Statement’ tells us what it is really about – “to advocate for Israel”. Media bias is just a convenient vehicle to push their own pro-Israel no-matter-what advocacy. Their aim is to deluge reporters and media organizations with complaint emails when their news coverage doesn’t approach the demanded level of obsequiousness towards Israeli actions, or worse still, represents Palestinians as people with their own story to tell.

While one would think that any group with the audacity to call itself ‘Honest Reporting’ would be rather scrupulous regarding facts, Honest Reporting is anything but, regularly displaying a highly flexible approach to objective reality. Honest Reporting regularly misrepresents, misconstrues, or just plain gets it wrong (sometimes less generously called lying) in it’s so-called ‘Media Critiques’.

Which is a why a blog devoted to Honest Reporting can go by no other name than Dishonest Reporting ………………