3 ms·

What matters most from the journalists is their video reports, especially the live ones In the current situation I don't think Hamas can exert very much contro

by g-b-r 3y ago

What matters most from the journalists is their video reports, especially the live ones In the current situation I don't think Hamas can exert very much control on the population, anyhow. The handful of times that other journalists managed to enter, by the way, they confirmed what had been reported (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdIZmZr29L0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdIZmZr29L0)

nsguy 3y ago
I expect Hamas is still exerting plenty of control. I'm not sure what "confirmed what had been reported" really means here. The problem isn't that we're necessarily getting outright lies and fake news (I'm sure we're getting some), but that we're getting a very selective and emotional view into the horrors of war. There's zero doubt that the impact of the war on Gaza is immense and so there's zero doubt that journalists can get heart wrenching stories of death and destruction out of it. As they can from any war. Here are some thought experiments: - Is there a way Israel could have defeated Hamas in a way where the media wouldn't be able to show any death and destruction? I believe the answer is no. - Could the media have painted a very different picture of the war by changing focus? For sure. There's just no way you're not getting a biased view here. I can tell any story with the same "raw reality" by selecting things that promote my cause, whatever it is. Where the bias is vs. some "nominal" ground reality is hard to say. If you look e.g. at the Ukraine-Russian war it's clear most western media is 100% biased towards Ukraine.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think some of those arguments verge into the 'there is no truth, it's all a matter of how you paint it' territory, which is the argument of disinformation and propaganda (I'm saying it not to accuse the parent; I assume they don't want disinfo, etc.) Objectively, Israel has caused a very high rate of civilian deaths, destruction of property, and is causing a near-famine or famine. People argue that such outcomes are unavoidable, but they are happening. I think that the news media would be dishonest to paint a different picture than that.
  - nsguy 3y ago
    Sure, a large number of civilian deaths, and massive destruction of property. I have a problem though when the media just shows an endless stream of emotionally manipulative images and stories. I also have a problem with their selectivity, e.g. they don't chose to show us civilians being attacked in Donetsk or something. They also generally don't show us images of Israeli refugees from the north and the south or actually report on that at all. They totally ignore events like rockets being fired at Israeli cities (still happens though a lot less). The coverage of Hezbollah's attacks and massive scale property destruction in the north of Israel is also nonexistent. Even at the height of the Russia-Ukraine war we weren't being flooded by the same level of images/stories. Yes, we did get some stories out of Mariupol but not nearly as much as we get out of Gaza. Ukraine claims 25,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol (out of 500,000 people!). I think the destruction of Mariupol easily eclipses the destruction in Gaza. The Russians weren't facing anything similar to what Israel is facing in Gaza, they just blitzed the heck out of the city. Who is painted as more "evil" in western media, Russia or Israel? Arguably Israel. Ofcourse Russia invaded Ukraine and for most of us is clearly the "bad guy" here. EDIT: and by the way, if you consume Israel media, which is obviously very pro-Israeli. You'll still get the same facts about the conditions in Gaza. But if you consume anti-Israeli media you will get no other relevant facts. If you ask people in the west some very basic questions about the conflict you'll find total cluelessness which is a result of that. Ask a random American how far Tel-Aviv is from Gaza, or where is Palestine, or what is Hezbollah, or any number of basic knowledge questions about the conflict and see. Most know O(nothing), see images of suffering and destruction all day, and naturally will align themselves with the side they see suffering.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I feel like an assertion is missing here: What is your conclusion from all of that? Is it that Israel is treated unfairly by the news media and that's why they are criticized? That may be a factor, but it doesn't feel like a genuine discussion. Maybe Israel is doing some things wrong or there are legitimate concerns about that. The death and destruction are large scale relative to the war zone, and that should be a serious concern and attract exceptional attention no matter who you are. Blaming it all on bias, etc. is a weak response that doesn't address the merits; it also fits, intentionally or not, a very old rhetorical technique of redirection (as is the whataboutism). You seem knowledgeable and thoughtful; what do you really think about the real issues? Regarding some other issues: FWIW, in my particular news media bubble (mostly leading print journalism), that's not what I see at all. I read about all the issues you mention, about harm and fear and everything else on both sides. From what I read about my sources, they are biased toward Israel; IME: coverage of the war is pretty balanced. They all omit 99% of the Israeli violence and hate I see reported in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Given your perspective, do you actually read anti-Israeli media? Why? Americans have little knowledge of geography anywhere; it has nothing to do with Israel. What do you know about, for example, South Korea? Kashmir? Ecuadoran geography? Probably for the average Israeli, they know not much at all.

by g-b-r 3y ago

nsguy 3y ago

I expect Hamas is still exerting plenty of control. I'm not sure what "confirmed what had been reported" really means here. The problem isn't that we're necessarily getting outright lies and fake news (I'm sure we're getting some), but that we're getting a very selective and emotional view into the horrors of war. There's zero doubt that the impact of the war on Gaza is immense and so there's zero doubt that journalists can get heart wrenching stories of death and destruction out of it. As they can from any war. Here are some thought experiments: - Is there a way Israel could have defeated Hamas in a way where the media wouldn't be able to show any death and destruction? I believe the answer is no. - Could the media have painted a very different picture of the war by changing focus? For sure. There's just no way you're not getting a biased view here. I can tell any story with the same "raw reality" by selecting things that promote my cause, whatever it is. Where the bias is vs. some "nominal" ground reality is hard to say. If you look e.g. at the Ukraine-Russian war it's clear most western media is 100% biased towards Ukraine.

wolverine876 3y ago
I think some of those arguments verge into the 'there is no truth, it's all a matter of how you paint it' territory, which is the argument of disinformation and propaganda (I'm saying it not to accuse the parent; I assume they don't want disinfo, etc.) Objectively, Israel has caused a very high rate of civilian deaths, destruction of property, and is causing a near-famine or famine. People argue that such outcomes are unavoidable, but they are happening. I think that the news media would be dishonest to paint a different picture than that.
- nsguy 3y ago
  Sure, a large number of civilian deaths, and massive destruction of property. I have a problem though when the media just shows an endless stream of emotionally manipulative images and stories. I also have a problem with their selectivity, e.g. they don't chose to show us civilians being attacked in Donetsk or something. They also generally don't show us images of Israeli refugees from the north and the south or actually report on that at all. They totally ignore events like rockets being fired at Israeli cities (still happens though a lot less). The coverage of Hezbollah's attacks and massive scale property destruction in the north of Israel is also nonexistent. Even at the height of the Russia-Ukraine war we weren't being flooded by the same level of images/stories. Yes, we did get some stories out of Mariupol but not nearly as much as we get out of Gaza. Ukraine claims 25,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol (out of 500,000 people!). I think the destruction of Mariupol easily eclipses the destruction in Gaza. The Russians weren't facing anything similar to what Israel is facing in Gaza, they just blitzed the heck out of the city. Who is painted as more "evil" in western media, Russia or Israel? Arguably Israel. Ofcourse Russia invaded Ukraine and for most of us is clearly the "bad guy" here. EDIT: and by the way, if you consume Israel media, which is obviously very pro-Israeli. You'll still get the same facts about the conditions in Gaza. But if you consume anti-Israeli media you will get no other relevant facts. If you ask people in the west some very basic questions about the conflict you'll find total cluelessness which is a result of that. Ask a random American how far Tel-Aviv is from Gaza, or where is Palestine, or what is Hezbollah, or any number of basic knowledge questions about the conflict and see. Most know O(nothing), see images of suffering and destruction all day, and naturally will align themselves with the side they see suffering.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I feel like an assertion is missing here: What is your conclusion from all of that? Is it that Israel is treated unfairly by the news media and that's why they are criticized? That may be a factor, but it doesn't feel like a genuine discussion. Maybe Israel is doing some things wrong or there are legitimate concerns about that. The death and destruction are large scale relative to the war zone, and that should be a serious concern and attract exceptional attention no matter who you are. Blaming it all on bias, etc. is a weak response that doesn't address the merits; it also fits, intentionally or not, a very old rhetorical technique of redirection (as is the whataboutism). You seem knowledgeable and thoughtful; what do you really think about the real issues? Regarding some other issues: FWIW, in my particular news media bubble (mostly leading print journalism), that's not what I see at all. I read about all the issues you mention, about harm and fear and everything else on both sides. From what I read about my sources, they are biased toward Israel; IME: coverage of the war is pretty balanced. They all omit 99% of the Israeli violence and hate I see reported in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Given your perspective, do you actually read anti-Israeli media? Why? Americans have little knowledge of geography anywhere; it has nothing to do with Israel. What do you know about, for example, South Korea? Kashmir? Ecuadoran geography? Probably for the average Israeli, they know not much at all.