Oct 25 Media Critique: “French Injustice”

Those damn Frenchies are labouring under the misapprehension that justice in the courts is a matter of objective reality, ie. the truth. How terribly inconvenient for Honest Reporting’s conspiracy monger, Philippe Karsenty, who has just lost the opening of his case against France-2 TV, whom he accused of perpetrating a hoax regarding the killing of Mohommad Al-Durra by the IDF in 2000.

But it’s not quite over yet. There are several more related defamation cases being brought by France-2 TV. Karsenty and his fellow conspiracy freaks will lose them too.

“BBC ADMITS BIAS?”
In a rare show of just an iota of even-handedness, HR includes a question mark in the subheading. And then goes on to provide the answer (yes, naturally), via rumours reported in the Daily Mail. Hey, when you already know the truth, who needs facts or rigorous analysis?

The evil, anti-Israel BBC has conducted a “secret meeting” where the cabal of Israel-haters were able to freely admit their biases.

A leaked account of ………………………… the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is ... anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

The BBCs Director of News, Helen Boaden , was there and had this to say,

For a start, this wasn’t a secret meeting... it was streamed live on the web. The meeting was made up of executives, governors and lots of non-BBC people like John Lloyd from the FT and Janet Daley from the Daily Telegraph. It was planned as a serious seminar to investigate and understand better the BBC’s commitment to impartiality in an age in which spin and opinion riddle much of the world’s journalism.

Impartiality - what a novel idea. Isn’t it a pity that HR has no knowledge of this concept.

Boaden explained this further,

When I first joined the BBC I asked a very experienced and subtle journalist what was meant by BBC impartiality. ‘It means we don’t take sides,’ he said. ‘We don’t take sides either explicitly or implicitly. We test all opinion toughly but fairly and we let the audience make up their own minds.’

Hhmmmm. This is exactly the problem for HR and its loyal but misguided minions. They have a very particular and strident point-of-view. Then, along comes the BBC offering a range of opinions and perspectives, even including (gasp!) ones that HR might not agree with. But, being true zealots they can’t tolerate this. Giving a voice to perspectives and narratives that clashes with their own one-eyed partisanship is, to them, the bias of the BBC.

“Gaza: Another Kidnapping”
This is just delicious.

HR takes a stand on principle! Or maybe not.

An AP photographer was kidnapped in Gaza and then released a few hours later, unharmed. There have been a spate of such abduction in the last year. HR criticizes this correctly, quoting the Committee to Protect Journalists,

It all has a chilling affect on journalists' ability to report the story.*

And if this is HR standing up for principle, then it would apply at all times, to all such actions, right?

HR has kindly supplied a paired example for our consideration of their possible conversion to principles.

Example 1 is above. Outcome – total commitment to journalistic freedom.

Example 2 was in last weeks ‘Media Critique’. Remember the Reuters story “When Cameramen Attack”? HR took the opportunity of a second-hand smear of Reuters by repeating the YnetNews allegation that a Rueters car was used to “transport a Hamas-linked Palestinian”. The real story was the Israeli attack on the Reuters press car,

An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists as they covered a military incursion, doctors and residents said.

One of the Palestinian journalists, who worked for a local media organization, was seriously wounded. A cameraman working for Reuters was knocked unconscious in the air strike….

And what did HR have to say about any “chilling effect” of not just a short abduction, but a military attack on a press vehicle with resulting serious injuries? Just this,

This is not the first time that members of the media have taken an active role in the story.

Yes, how dare they insert themselves into the story by being shot at.

Outcome – not only does HR fail to defend the journalists, it attempts to smear them and their employers for having the gall to be attacked by the IDF.

Can you imagine a similar response on Example 1? Palestinians abduct a press photographer and HR berates him/her for taking “an active role in the story”. No, neither can I.

And in a curious oversight, HR has failed to tell us what the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said about this,

"We condemn this missile strike on a vehicle that was clearly identified as press,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “The Israeli military must investigate this attack and hold those responsible accountable.”

It appears that HR, in this instance, has a radically different understanding of the issue, than does the CPJ.

The selective application of a principle means that it is not accepted as a principle, but only as a convenient tool to be used as required. Funny how a media monitoring organization like HR rejects the principle of freedom of the press. But then you and I know that HR is no such thing – it’s just a partisan pressure group deploying the language of fairness, accuracy and balance to attack those same principles.

* Ironically, or perhaps not, HR sources this quote from......Reuters.

Oct 18 Media Critique:“When Cameramen Attack”

A more stunning display of mendacity and partisanship by HonestReporting would be hard to find.

I’ll provide some context here, by starting at the bottom of this section and working up. HR provides some examples which purportedly demonstrate the anti-Israeli perfidy of the media.
The first one is, yet another, re-run of an old story. And I’m so glad they’ve dragged this one out. It’s a fine example of HRs appalling standards. The story is about what a Palestinian journalist working for the BBC, is alleged to have said at a Hamas rally in 2001. What HR didn’t tell its’ readers was that the original story appeared in the Jerusalem Post and the source of the statement was an unidentified ‘Hamas website’. Only a fragment of a statement appeared in the JPost. This is it,

despite the pace of current events and the sensitive circumstances applying to journalists and media organizations, which are waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people

As you can see, it’s a bit strange. My opinion is that given the nonsensical grammer, the first part of the statement has been conveniently edited out. Most likely that first missing part relates to the 2^nd phrase, “which we are waging….”. This obviously concerned HR as well, so they decided to do a little editing to ….er…. clarify things for their readers. This is HRs version,

Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.

It really did help to remove that first fragment, get rid of the comma and add “[are]”. Now the meaning is just so clear.

Next HR refers to a YnetNews story on an incident in Gaza in August. A Reuters car came under missile attack from the IDF. HR invokes this absolutely fabulous piece of distortion by inference to smear Reuters,

Reuters itself was accused in September 2006 of misusing press vehicles to transport Hamas-linked Palestinians

Really? No, not really.

The car was carrying 2 journalists. YnetNews alleges that one was “Hamas-linked”, whatever that means. It was carrying 2 journalists to cover a breaking story, not to “transport a Hamas-linked Palestinian”. Isn’t that a lovely piece of negative suggestion?

And Hamas-linked – what, he lives in Gaza, or his cousin’s- wife’s- uncle is a member? An alternative to “Hamas-linked” is 'not actually a Hamas member'. But to 'transport a Palestinian who is not a member of Hamas' doesn’t have quite the same effect does it?

And by the way, the Reuters car, which was struck by the Israeli missile, was clearly marked on all sides and the roof, as a press car. Now that’s nothing to interest HR is it? –the targeting of the press by military forces. No, nothing to see here, move on please.

Which takes us to the point of this ‘Media Critique’, “When Cameramen Attack”. You know, if HR said that the sun rises in the east, I’d want independent verification.

Well, for a start how about HR indulge in just the slightest bit of journalistic fairness, and make that “When Cameramen Allegedly Attack”. But that would be delving in to the world of ‘fairness and accuracy’ to a degree that would impair HRs ability to lie and distort.

This is the story which HR gets from Arutz7,

On Tuesday, a Reuters cameraman [Imad Bornat] was remanded to prison until trial for his part in rock-throwing attacks on security forces in Bil'in, where the separation fence is a constant target of protesters.

So what we have is an allegation, made by the Israeli Border Police that is being heard in an Israeli Military Court. Excuse me if I’m not overwhelmed by the legal process here.
Before we go any further, let’s shine a little light onto the notorious Israeli Border Police.

Just a few weeks ago a similar case made it into the courts; the Border Police alleging violent behaviour at the regular Bil’in protests over the route of the Seperation Wall.

Tel Aviv Magistrate`s Court revealed Tuesday that police officers lied while testifying against 11 left-wing activists accused of violent acts during anti-fence demonstrations in the West Bank village of Bil`in. The court acquitted the activists.

Judge Muki Landman harshly criticized the police`s behaviour in his ruling.
`A feeling of serious discomfort has arisen from the mighty gap between the officers` testimony and what is seen in the video tapes,` Landman wrote. `I cannot rule out the possibility that had it not been for the videotapes, I would have reached a different result regarding the defendants.` – Haaretz, Oct 3, 2006.

Right, so the Border Police committed perjury in court in an attempt to have Bil’in protesters jailed. And there was this story on the same day demonstrating the tender mercies of the Israeli Border Police,

‘The officer shot my brother when he was laying on the floor, his head down,’ Murad Abu Aya said……..

The Justice Ministry's Police Investigative Unit (PID) has refuted the version of events given by the Border Police officer who killed the Palestinian.

Police said the Palestinian, a 29-year old West Bank Palestinian from Tarqumiya who worked in a building site next to the Jaffa flea market, was shot after he tried to steal a rifle from one of the officers. During the struggle the gun went off, fatally wounding the Palestinian, a police spokesman said.

However, the PID investigation found that, contrary to the policeman's initial testimony the officer illegally used his weapon thus causing the death of the Palestinian.

Over the course of the investigation, the policeman changed his testimony, and stated that he fired his weapon without a struggle or any sort of provocation from the victim or his friends.- Haaretz, Oct 3, 2006.

Back to the story . So we have allegations by the Border Police regarding Imad Bornat.
Curiously (or maybe not), Bornats' attorney is demanding that the video be shown as his defence.

Bornat's attorney has denied all charges waged against his client, and said the video footage the cameraman took will prove his innocence.

And remember, it was the video that cleared the 11 defendants in the previous court case. And most likely, it was video shot by Imad that cleared them. Imad and his brother have been videoing the Bil’in protests for the past 10 months.

Now let’s look at a very interesting timeline. On October 2, a court rules that video footage, probably shot by Imad Bornat, proves that Border Police were lying in their testimony against 11 protesters. Fours days later, the Border Police at the next Bil’in protest arrest Imad Bornat and allege that he was involved in throwing stones. He is then injured while in their custody.

Witnesses said that Border Police troops had beaten the cameraman, but the army says the man was hurt when a piece of communications equipment hit him in the back of the jeep he was being held in.

Director Pollack and artist David Reeb are set to submit letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Wednesday, signed by dozens of artists, journalists and cultural figureheads protesting Bornat's arrest.
'Bornat's video footage shows the arbitrary and routine violence committed by Border Police and the army against the protesters, and especially against the residents of the village of Bil'in', they wrote.- Haaretz, Oct 10, 2006.

A radio “hit him”? Was someone was holding it at the time?

[Judge]Katz said the cameraman still appeared to be injured during the hearing, five days after he was arrested, raising doubts regarding the authenticity of the troops' version of the events. – Haaretz, Oct 10, 2006.

Imagine, the Judge in an Israeli military court doubts the veracity of the statements of Israeli Border Police. No chance of HR taking a hint from an Israeli military court judge I suppose?

But all HR wants is for the media to be “fair” and “accurate”. Nothing like leading by example is there?

“FRENCH TV COVERUP REVISITED”.
Yet another ‘revisit’. And HR has backed a sure fire loser here. Some crazy Israel-right-or-wrong zealots are being sued by France-2 TV, for claiming the footage of Mohammad Al-Durah’s shooting was a hoax.

Well, the day after HR published this ‘Media Critique’, these 3 clowns lost the first part of their defamation case, and damages were awarded to France-2 TV.

And they are going to keep on losing. They produced 4 expert witnesses to support their conspiracy fantasies. One of them is a medieval historian. I kid you not.

Yes, HR please keep us informed, we all need the laughs.

“CORRECTING THE RECORD”

Mistakes are thankfully rare…

Glad we’ve cleared that up. All the distortions, misrepresentations and lies by HR are deliberate.

This is an amazing effort, even for HR. Not once, not twice, but three times distorting and lying over a photo that appeared in the NYT. To cap off its’ deceit, HR claims this latest version of the lie over the Hicks photograph is, with amazing audacity, a “correction”!!

In our last communique, we should have mentioned that, irrespective of Tyler Hicks' explanation, the photo in question has previously been proven to be staged.

No. Totally untrue. Talk about ‘beyond chutzpuh’.

HR itself said about the photo, that the man photographed was “pretending to be dead”. All other claims about the photo being staged were, likewise, completely wrong. Let’s hear from the photographer again, who was there and witnessed the event,

I photographed the search effort, but otherwise there were no injured or dead visible. Soon there was a panic among the people that Israeli jets were coming overhead and would strike again. This sent the gathering crowd running away from the scene, which is a difficult task over the jagged cement and exposed rebar of a collapsed building.
In the commotion, one man fell from a considerable height onto his back and was seriously injured. He was then helped by others who rushed him to an ambulance.

Hicks gave some other fascinating insights into the Lebanon war that didn’t make it into HRs report,

Bombardments by the Israeli military were common in southern Lebanon, but often too far for us to reach with any level of safely. From the beginning of the conflict the Israeli military had been rocketing vehicles regularly, the roads were littered with the remains of civilian cars.

HonestReporting; dishonest, credulous and with no credibility.

Oct 11 Media Critique: “Immoral Nuclear Relativism”

This sub-heading pretty much sums it up for HonestReporting,

North Korea's nuclear test prompts false comparisons with Israel's own nuclear capabilities.

HonestReporting is howling about this story. A Sky News reporter, Ian Woods, had the temerity to point out the obvious double standards in the Israeli media coverage of North Korea’s nuclear test.

Though HR has trouble deciding if its point is that the article was comparing the countries, or their nuclear weapons,

One is an ultra-repressive communist dictatorship in North-East Asia; the other is the only real democracy in the MidEast.

It’s the later of course, but HR can’t help but adding a touch of feigned outrage.

HR isn't happy with Woods,

Correspondent Ian Woods states that "nowhere did any [Israeli media] reports mention what is the country's worst kept secret. Israel is a member of the nuclear mafia."

This so-called "mafia" includes the USA, UK, Russia, France, China, India and Pakistan, while Iran aspires to join this club. Yet, Sky prefers to concentrate solely on Israel.

HR is concerned over the use of the word “mafia”, but omits a rather crucial piece of information. The phrase is used by Woods after he quotes an Israeli General to that effect,

"The nuclear club is turning into a mafia," said Major General Uzi Dayan, a retired commander in the Israeli Defence Forces. And yet nowhere did any reports mention what is the country's worst kept secret. Israel is a member of the nuclear mafia.

Context can be everything can’t it? As HR well knows.

And why does the article “concentrate solely on Israel”? Well, that would be because the story was about the reaction in Israel to the North Korea news.

While Woods' report is neither ground-breaking nor particularly controversial, HonestReporting finds it somewhat strange that Sky has attributed any moral relativism between North Korea and Israel.

If it’s not controversial why call the report “immoral”?
And “moral relativism”? North Korea and Israel operate their nuclear programs completely outside of the accepted international monitoring process, via the IAEA. That’s not ‘relativism’, just relevant.

The Sky News story does make some other pertinent observations,

But Israeli journalists are banned from discussing Israel's nuclear capability by government censors.
Israel has always tried to maintain an official ambiguity about its nuclear policy, neither confirming nor denying it has the bomb. It has never signed nor ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
One Israeli journalist with excellent military and political sources told me that some government officials believe the ambiguity may have to be replaced by more explicit threats.

HR talks about “Israel's purported nuclear capabilities”. The word “purported” is often used to suggest that a statement is false. Sounds like a phrase from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, rather than from an independent media monitor that strives for “accuracy”.

Oh sorry, I mean a purportedly independent media monitor.

“PHOTOGRAPHER EXPLAINS NYTIMES CAPTION ERROR”

Yes, I’m afraid it’s time to re-visit allegations of photo fraud, with our incompetent (or totally dishonest, you decide) guides at HonestReporting.

HR covered this one in it’s August 22 Media Critique, but it’s time to revisit it with an interview with the photographer . This is the photo in question, which was published in the New York Times newspaper.

The issue was the caption used by the NYT. The caption as supplied by photographer was this,

Israeli aircraft struck and destroyed two buildings in downtown Tyre, Lebanon Wednesday evening. As people searched through the burning remains, aircraft again could be heard overhead, panicking the people that a second strike was coming. This man fell and was injured in the panic to flee the scene. He is helped by another man, and carried to an ambulance.

The NYT used this caption in it’s print edition,

After an Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Tyre, Lebanon, yesterday, one man helped another who had fallen and was hurt.

And a few days later the photo appeared in a slide show on the NYT website with this,

The mayor of Tyre said that in the worst-hit areas, bodies were still buried under the rubble, and he appealed to the Israelis to allow government authorities time to pull them out.

This storm-in-a-tea-cup brewed up in early August with some bloggers referring to it as the “Hezbollah Photo Fraud”. It’s worth remembering at this stage that Israel was facing mounting international criticism for events like the Qana bombing, and both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had released reports in the previous week detailing Israeli breaches of International Humanitarian Law. Pro-Israel bloggers were trying hard trying to demonstrate that just about any anything that cast Israel in bad light was staged, faked, or a fraud/hoax/libel. Their issue was that the 2^nd NYT caption “implies” the injured man was actually pulled from the rubble. That’s it – what might have been implied from the caption. Talk about grasping at straws!

HR did add its own scintilla of originality to the story . HR told its herd that,

However, this same ‘victim’ is sometimes seen alive and posing for the cameras and sometimes pretending to be dead.

That he was “pretending to be dead” was HRs invention , with no factual basis for the claim. HR also appeared to be perplexed by ordinal sequences. The victim was earlier photographed “alive”, ie. up and walking, as he was helping search the rubble, then photographed again later (ie , occurring at a time after the initial shots) when he had fallen and was injured, hence his horizontal position. Hopefully I’ve clarified that for HR.

HRs update on this issue is the interview with the photographer explaining how the altered caption came about. The photographer puts the frenzy over the photos being a fraud/staged etc. into rational perspective,

one man fell from a considerable height onto his back and was seriously injured

So all the blather about the photo, that he was pretending to be injured, the lack of dust on his body or the position of his hat etc, were all just desperate attempts to fend off criticism, to protect Israel from the consequences of its actions

So is HR stupid, incompetent or manipulative? I vote for stupid and manipulative. Pure incompetence wouldn’t continually make such convenient ‘errors’. No, it’s a total lack of honesty and a complete disregard for the truth that allows HR to make the wildly inaccurate claims that fill its “Media Critiques”.

This demonstrates an important feature of HonestReporting: when they’re not misrepresenting and fabricating the views of individuals like Ronnie Kasrils, they’re trawling old issues like this one, and contorting them to create the impression of “anti-Israel media bias”. And they have no choice but to misrepresent and fabricate, because real examples of the phenomenon are so rare. This is a routine HR tactic; to take minor stuff-ups, errors and cock-ups of the type that are all too common, and allege that they are the product of “bias” in the media. There are real examples of significant factual errors in the media, but they're not the kind HR has any interest in. For example, the mis-reporting (in the few instances it was reported at all) of the details of the killing of a Palestinian woman by the IDF. The refusal by the paper concrned to issue a correction gives an indication of where most of the real problems lie in reporting the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Finally HR tells us “that this incident serves as an example to newspaper editors to be more careful with their captions in the future.”

Any chance that this example will teach HR to be more careful with its’ accusations in the future? Of course not, HR isn’t subject to the constraints of “accuracy” and “fairness” that it demands of others.

September 19 Media Critique: "The Power of the Pen"

The latest ‘Media Critique’ would be much more accuratley titled ‘The Power of the Poison Pen’, and HonestReporting gets what it so richly deserves – a big black eye.

This is meant to be some kind of recognition of the effect that HonestReportings’ endlessly gullible subscribers have on journalists and media organisations, when they write abusive and inaccurate emails to them.

First it’s the "The Red Cross Amblance Libel" hoax. HR wants its’ readers to believe that the Zombietime story it was promoting retains some credibility. It doesn’t, as the response of journalists demonstrated. More embarrassing for the promoters of this hoax, is that one of bloggers who was first to question the missile attack on the Red Cross ambulances, soon came to the conclusion that Zombietime was wrong. What’s more, he reached this conclusion on the same day that HR joined the empty-headed gaggle desperately trying to discredit the story. Here’s the basic thrust of his comments,

The fact is ZombieTime's post does not do what it claims, proving the ambulance attack demonstrably false …………..It isn't my intention to offend or alienate any fellow bloggers, but frankly, when it comes to the Red Cross ambulance story, we all need to get a grip.

Second, the “Kasrils - Minister of ‘Intelligence’?” libel. HR gets its' ass handed to it in a paper bag, by the South African Mail& Guardian newspaper, after the latter received a torrent of spiteful emails prompted by HonestReportings' September 4th ‘Media Critique’. HR misrepresented and distorted the views of the South African Minister of Intelligence (detailed here) in an effort to provoke the bleating sheep that are HRs subscribers, to do exactly what they ended up doing – sending lots of stupid emails to try and close down free discussion of the ME conflict.

It’s heartening to read the whole M&G editorial to see that at least some media organisations have the balls to stand up to pro-Israel bullying. Here are a few highlights,

The real disgrace is the barrage of hysterical invective from the pro-Israel lobby across the world, of which we print a fraction on our letters pages this week.Most of it comes straight from the gut -- there is little evidence of engagement by the cerebral cortex. Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils is accused of lies and misinformation by people who, for the most part, offer no counter-arguments. He is accused of ignorance by some who clearly do not know he is Jewish and that he played a prominent role in South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle. One letter-writer thinks he is a journalist. Many letters are laced with anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice; others trash South Africa……

The recurrence of the same text in letter after letter -- with a photograph of Kasrils, as if lifted from a police file -- suggests rapid response networks primed for total onslaught immediately Israel is criticised anywhere. If so, it is a mistake. Israel’s cause is discredited by lobbyists who know nothing of South Africa or the Mail & Guardian, and who make their bigotry and anti-democratic instincts plain.For that is the most disgraceful aspect -- the persistent demand that Kasrils should be denied his democratic right to express his opinions, justified by the persistent canard that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism……..

The M&G will not be bullied by any of the world’s teeming enemies of intellectual diversity and free expression.

Yep, that is exactly what HR is, an “enemy of intellectual diversity and free expression”, appealing to the “bigotry and anti-democratic instincts” of its’ utterly credulous readership.


Most amusing this time around is the next section, “Remember To Write Right”. Why the need for this gentle reminder? Because of the storm of “bigotry”, specifically “anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice”, unleashed by HRs defamatory scribblings.
HR writes to its’ thoughtful fans, “state your argument in a rational manner”. You really have to laugh at this. After employing slurs and total fabrication to attack people such as Kasrils, HR wants its’ readers to be “rational” in their responses. Typically for HR, it fails to take any responsibility for its’ own role in the bigotry its’ spiteful and deliberately dishonest attacks have inspired.

Again some examples from the Mail&Guardian, so we can see exactly what kind of letter writing HRs’ dishonesty and lies inspire,

"neo-Nazi propaganda worthy of Goebbels. He clearly supports the fascists in the Middle East." - David Bornstein, Sydney, Australia

"Kasrils has no other way to channel his hatred for black people [than to] pick onJews." - N Greenger, California

"Anti-Semitic diatribes that would win Kasrils an editorial position in Der Stürmer" -Matt Topas

"There’s no point in attempting to debate with such a Nazi/Islamic pig. Do African Negroes believe he isn’t a former enforcer of apartheid?" – Nathan

"Apartheid only exists here in the minds of sick people like Kasrils. I do not see much difference between him and Hitler." - David Gershon, Israel Institute of Technology

And what is undoubtedly true, is that the blind and stupid sheep that read HR , mostly wouldn't have even heard of the Mail&Guardian before, let alone read it. And as their letters demonstrate, they don’t bother to read the original articles, they just take HRs mendacious ‘Media Critiques’ as gospel-truth.

And best of all, operating with a depth of cynicism one has to grudgingly admire for its audacity, HR warns that this is “a time when extremists are attempting to shut down debate by employing hostile language and threats of violence”.

Yes, they are, and HonestReporting is one of them, inciting its’ zombie-like followers to do likewise.

Sept 14 Special Report: “What's in the Palestinian Textbooks?”

Good question. The answer – another opportunity to distort and mislead.

This has been a long-standing favourite of the ‘supporters of Israel’. It began in earnest in the 1990’s and has been re-hashed on almost a yearly basis ever since.

Now HR does yet another re-hash in conjunction with TKP: Teach Kids Peace. TKP says it “is a project of Honest Reporting dedicated to highlighting the culture of hatred that is being taught to children in certain parts of the world.”. Its website is divided into 3 sections – Palestinian Areas, Israel and the World, listing articles related to the topic. All the stories in the Palestinian and World sections are negative stories on Palestinians, Arabs or Islam. The few Israeli stories, are, surprise surprise, accounts of how Israel strives for peace.

Given their obvious resources it’s surprising they couldn’t manage to find this report, Child Recruitment in Israel (PDF), on the militarization of education, and recruitment of children into militias, in Israel. Not to mention the practice of Israels' security service, Shin Bet, using threats and coercion to try and recruit Palestinian child collaborators.

Some of the first efforts on this old canard were by the Centre for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) which popularised the notion of “incitement” in Palestinian textbooks.

Nathan Brown, who was employed to review the new Palestinian curriculum, gave a summary of CMIPs interesting methods,

-The strong anti-Israel and anti-Semitic material in the curriculum comes from books that the Palestinians did not author and are replacing;
-Books that were written by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, 2000, and 2001 are free of such material;
-The CMIP’s method is overly prosecutorial and deeply flawed;
-The CMIP’s reports are seriously misleading.

However, to be fair, CMIP eventually turned its’ critical eye to Israeli textbooks as well, the following being typical of their robust critique,

There is no indoctrination against the Arabs as a nation, nor a negative presentation of Islam. Rather, Islam, the Arab culture and the Arabs' contribution to human civilization are presented in a positive light.

Which is rather different from the experiences of others. Nathan Brown lived in Israel while reviewing the new Palestinian education system. In a 2002 speech recounting the textbook controversy, he gave this interesting experience with the Israeli schooling system and its' treatment of Arabs,

my son’s class was taught a song about a watchman guarding the city; the song lauded the guard for beating an Arab and quoted him approvingly, ‘Get out of here, ‘Abd Allah. You should die, God willing, but just not in Tel Aviv.'

A 1999 report quoted other research into Israeli textbooks and childrens books,

Cohen points out that the authors of these children’s books effectively instill hatred toward Arabs by means of stripping them of their human nature and classifying them in another category. In a sampling of 86 books, Cohen counted the following descriptions used to dehumanize Arabs: Murderer was used 21 times; snake, 6 times; dirty, 9 times; vicious animal, 17 times; bloodthirsty, 21 times; warmonger, 17 times; killer, 13 times; believer in myths, 9 times; and a camel’s hump, 2 times.

It also noted that from around the mid-1990's Israeli school textbooks started to remove the overtly negative Arab stereotypes that populated its' textbooks.

The controversy stimulated a Report to the US Congress (PDF) in 2004,

While there are many areas for improvement in the Palestinian textbooks, it can be said that these new textbooks do not incite against Israel or against peace.
........the textbooks promote an environment of open-mindedness, rational thinking, modernization, critical reflection and dialogue........

The IHT also ran a story highlighting some critical context for the debate,

The biggest constraint, in the words of a Palestinian parent, is that Israeli tanks and soldiers are shooting in the streets outside while teachers are trying to promote peace in the classroom.

And Ha’aretz noted research that moved beyond the CMIP framework and compared the Israeli and Palestinian textbooks with each other to see how they treated contentious issues,

Surprisingly, the two researchers found an almost absolute parallel between the books in three areas: Both sides ignore periods of relative calm and coexistence between the nations - for instance in 1921-1929 - or mention them as a misleading interval in a prolonged conflict, the two sides do not reveal any tendency to tell the pupil the story of the conflict from the enemy's point of view, both skip over details of the human suffering of the other side, and each side gives a reckoning of its victims alone.

All in all, the disinterested academic research confirms that the curriculum designed by the PA was quite reasonable, not without flaws, but comparable to Israels. Certainly not indoctrinating a "culture of hate" as HR alledges.

Having set up its' distortion, HR then invites its' gullible subscribers to act on this disinformation by signing a petition to "stand up for the rights and future of Palestinian children". Perhaps this would be more convincing if HR asked its' readers to stand up for the rights of Palestinian children not to be killed by the IDF so that they might have a future in the first place, or to even get to school .

All this is in service of one huge deception that ‘supporters of Israel’ wish to promote; that the conflict is perpetuated purely by Palestinian hatred, passed down from father to son and aided by the education system. In this propaganda fantasy, 40 years of Israeli occupation, land theft, home demolitions, discrimination, torture, imprisonment and brutal repression have absolutely no consequences. The issue is only Palestinian antipathy to Jews.

This is a monstrous fabrication, one that HonestReporting is keen to encourage. Its' latest effort to dehumanise and vilify Palestinians is conducted, with supreme cynicism and hypocrisy, under the guise of concern over the promotion of hatred.

One from the Archives

This particular HonestReporting story ("Israeli Aid, Unreported", 28/12/04) has always struck me as the nadir of HonestReportings often mendacious, always strained, "Media Critiques" on alleged anti-Israel media bias.

Remember the asian tsumani of December 2004? Hundreds of thousands killed, millions affected. It was one of the worst natural disasters of modern times.

Not for HonestReporting. Quite incredibly, and tastelessly, for HR this was just another opportunity to push their anti-Israel media bias bandwagon. The problem this time being that the major media outlets weren't lauding Israels' humanitarian contribution.

It’s almost ghoulish in its’ focus on allegations of media bias at such a time. This is what HR found the time to worry about,

Yet, with the exception of UPI (as of this writing - Tues. 4pm EST), none of the major news outlets have dedicated an article to this remarkable Israeli humanitarian effort. This, despite the fact that the IDF sent all Israel-based journalists a press release Monday evening (Dec. 27), inviting them to the airport to cover the departure of one IDF group.

And why was HR so keen to have media organisations report this story?

The lack of media interest in this Israeli humanitarian effort means that Israeli benevolence toward other peoples is not fairly conveyed to the western world. Perhaps if it were conveyed, observers would come to understand something else ― that Israel's response to Palestinian violence is also motivated by the highest ethical concern for all human life….

That’s right, HR thought it was missing a great propaganda opportunity - to use the media coverage of the tsunami disaster to cast a better light on Israels’ treatment of the Palestinians.

Sept 4 Media Critique: "Kasrils - Minister of 'Intelligence'?"

Slow news week at HonestReporting.

The bulk of this ‘Media Critique’ is about the views of the South African Minister for Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, who has views that HonestReporting doesn’t much like. A particular problem is that Kasrils quotes the Norwegian writer, Joostein Gaarder, who also raised the ire of Zionists by criticising Israeli actions and drawing parallels with Apartheid.

Referring to the recent Lebanon conflict, Kasrils uses a clever sleight of hand to sum up his own feelings by quoting Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder:

HRs effort to portray Kasrils as using "sleight of hand" is purely to lend a sinister air, as the first line states that “Kasrils is well-known for his anti-Zionist views”.

In an attempt to discredit by association (falsely, as I show below) HR then claims that,

Kasrils allows himself the license to project his own distorted view of Israel without taking responsibility, while failing to mention that Gaarder actually sought to distance himself from his original article

Not quite. In the same Ha’aretz article where HR asserts Gaardner is distancing himself from his claims, it says “However, Gaarder refused to retract publicly his main theme.”

But what are these perfidious "anti-Zionist views" that Kasrils has? HR doesn’t elaborate, but let me.

I am Jewish born. Since Israel purports to speak and act in the name of Jews everywhere... we are saying: No, not in my name. Never.

And in 2004 Kasrils visited the West Bank, leading him to make the following remark,

This is much worse than apartheid. The Israeli measures, the brutality, make apartheid look like a picnic. We never had jets attacking our townships. We never had sieges that lasted month after month. We never had tanks destroying houses. We had armoured vehicles and police using small arms to shoot people but not on this scale.

It is this particular claim, that Israels policies towards the Palestinians are similar to Apartheid, that HonestReporting is especially keen to counter by labelling Kasrils as that all-purpose derogatory adjective turned-noun, “extreme”.

Is this view extreme?

Hardly, and Kasrils is far from alone in this view. In a 2002 article, famous anti-Apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu, said much the same,

Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about today's life in the Occupied Territories.

Other ANC veterans have similar views. And one in particular has an especially interesting opinion. Arthur Goldreich fought in the Palmach in 1948, returning to his native SA in the 1950s to fight with the ANC against the Apartheid regime. He returned to Israel after escaping prison, and said this about Israels approach to the West Bank,

bantustanism…….through a policy of occupation and separation

And Nelson Mandela has backed an anti-Apartheid style boycott campaign against Israel.

Let’s be clear about this, Kasrils is “extreme” regarding Israel, in precisely the same way he was extreme regarding Apartheid South Africa. That is, he stood for justice and human rights against a repressive state. That HR attacks him for this, tells you all you need to know about HR.


HR continues,

In keeping with Kasrils' non-recognition of Israel's right to exist, he questions Jewish rights to their homeland while….

In keeping with HRs non-recognition of truth, Kasrils does not say anywhere that he doesn't recognise Israels’ "right to exist", but HR tries to credit Kasrils with what it claims is Gaarders' view, because he quoted Gaarder.
Doubly dishonest, as HR actually invents the view that it attributes to Gaarder. Gaarder wrote “We no longer recognize the state of Israel”, not ‘we no longer recognise the state of Israels' right to exist’.
Tripely dishonest, Gaarder wrote this in the context of the South African Apartheid regime; "We no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the apartheid regime".
Gaarder was saying that, just as he refused to recongise the South African government while it enacted illegitimate policies, so too, he would not recognise the Israel government until it changed its’ policies. Instead, HR attempts to play the ‘pushing the Jews into the sea’ gambit, implying a threat against the existence of the state of Israel, where there is none.

Appallingly dishonest and manipulative, but quite normal for HonestReporting.

This, despite all the evidence to the contrary, including Israel's 1 million Arab citizens currently living in the state with equal rights under the law to Israel's Jewish population

As inaccurate as ever, is HR. Israels' Arab citizens do not have equal rights under the law. For instance, they are prevented from working in a wide range of professions within Israel. They are prevented from leasing state owned land, which is freely accessible to Jewish Israelis. Just a few examples of the long list of discriminations that Arab-Israelis are subject too.

Bizarrely, Kasrils also claims that ‘Lebanon, too, has been a part of Zionist annexation plans. Israel long regarded the Litani river to its north as its natural border...’

The only thing bizarre abou this is that HR thinks it’s bizarre. Kasrils has a far better understanding of Israels' view on southern Lebanon than does HR.These were some of the comments from a member of the Israeli Govt after Israels’ 1982 invasion of Lebanon,

the nearby region[Lebanon] which, geographically and historically, is an integral part of Ertez Yisrael.....
an agreement on border rectification….Israel could integrate the strip south of the Lintani…

According to HonestReporting, the problem with Kasrils’ view is that he has a “one-sided and distorted hatred for Israel”. There is another possibility, which HR studiously avoids in preference to its’ one-sided and distorted views, and that is that Kasrils’ “hatred” is of unjust and repressive government, whether it be South African or Israeli. And as Kasril says, he won’t allow injustice to be perpetrated in his name. I suspect what has really riled HR is that Kasrils is a prominent Jewish-South African, and in the world according to HR and other strident ‘supporters of Israel’, Jews should either support Israel or shut up.



"Storm in a Tea Cup"
Kasrils is not the only target.

AP and the BBC are also under the microscope for their choice of headlines in a story on a Palestinian who sought political asylum in the UK by entering the British Embassy in Tel Aviv and threatening to kill himself.

The headlines are HRs beef; “Israeli Police Storm British Embassy” (AP) and “Commandos storm Tel Aviv embassy” (BBC).

Though in thoroughly typical HR style they misrepresent the facts. The BBC headline was actually “Raid ends Tel Aviv embassy siege”. But that doesn’t make the case for HRs claim of a “subtle yet insidious form of media bias” anywhere near as well, so they chose part of the sub-headline while falsely claiming that it was the headline.

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.