Does anyone else find it concerning that a band called "Megadeath" is cancelling a performance in Israel due to the security situation?
We're too dangerous for MegaDeath. That can't be good.
*****
And in the latest "uhhh.... what?" media moment - CNN talking about why there have been "so many civilians" dying in Gaza.
Beyond the fact that it's a little weird that they say "so many" about what is - sadly - a very standard civilian death toll during wartime (by my unprofessional (but disturbingly thoroughly researched) estimate, about 25% - if all Hamas data are accurate, and not taking into account whether civilian deaths were caused by Israel or Hamas), it was really strange that they spent several paragraphs talking about the reason that Palestinian civilians might not leave their homes despite warnings. When the fact is that civilians did leave their homes after being warned.
Maybe there wasn't 100% evacuation, but from everything I've heard from people who were actually there, nearly everybody did leave. Most civilian deaths were in airstrikes, misfired Hamas rocket, etc - not from being anywhere near the scene when soldiers arrived.
A bit odd, then, to see the media explaining why it was that people stayed.
*****
Less "odd" and more "infuriating" to see what CNN had to say about the tunnels.
For one thing, because the bit about how the IDF destroys tunnels was complete and utter BS. Just - zero relationship between CNN's version of events and the truth.
"The main way to obliterate the tunnels is by airstrikes and artillery bombardment" - no, neither of those things work against the larger tunnels, which is why soldiers were there in the first place. Does CNN really think that Israel sent tens of thousands of soldiers in on foot to do something that could have been done from the air?
Do they not have interns who could check this stuff?
And then: "The tunnels have, for some time, also been used as vital supply lines to Gaza, through which food and other necessities have been transported."
The tunnels that Israel was busy destroying in central and northern Gaza? Those tunnels?
CNN. For real. You're a big news station, surely you can afford at least one intern whose job it can be to look at maps for you.
*****
Also funny that CNN feels the need to explain to its American audience why a difference in available technology might mean one side has more casualties than the other. How many American civilians died in the Iraq war, again? I mean, do we really think that Americans need that concept explained to them at this point?
"You see, guys, it turns out that it's safer to kill someone by bombing them from within a tank with its own missile defense system than it is to charge out blindly from a hole in the ground with a rifle. Who knew?"
Of course, the main reason for the uneven casualty rate* here - as in the Iraq war - is that the war is taking place on Hamas' turf, in Gaza, and not within Israel.
(* or if you're CNN, the "disproportionate" casualty rate. Not that I'm bitter, or anything.)
*****
I'm trying to avoid criticism on whether media is "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian." That's all controversial, and subjective, etc.
But this is just getting the facts wrong.
Years ago, I was somewhat disturbed to find myself working at a news station with little, if any, actual news experience.
Years ago, I focused on local activism because I didn't have the resources to get involved with problems overseas.
Now, I focus on local activism because I realize that I don't know what's really going on overseas. Every media report boils down to two things: what local parties with a strong interest in promoting their narrative have to say (the PLO says Hamas is a "political party"? You don't say!), and what a handful of reporters on the ground who can't afford to anger the powers-that-be feel safe saying.
*****
(For the record, the sense I get is that most reporters feel like they morally have to support Israel's right to self-defense, but morally can't support anything that kills innocent people. Which leaves them in an awkward position, given that there's never been a war in which innocent people haven't been killed.
In an ideal world, this would perhaps lead to a real debate on the morality of self-defense, or to an in-depth look at how Gaza turned into a hellhole stuffed full of bombs and ruled by would-be-genocidal fascists, and how the world can turn that whole situation around.
In our world, it leads to reporters bouncing back and forth between "rockets" "but dead children!" "rockets" "dead children!" like ping-pong balls in a game being played by two people on speed.
IOW - less "anti-Israel" or "anti-Hamas," and more just plain "uhh... guys... how can we present this decades-long conflict in a way that won't require anyone to think too hard?")
We're too dangerous for MegaDeath. That can't be good.
*****
And in the latest "uhhh.... what?" media moment - CNN talking about why there have been "so many civilians" dying in Gaza.
Beyond the fact that it's a little weird that they say "so many" about what is - sadly - a very standard civilian death toll during wartime (by my unprofessional (but disturbingly thoroughly researched) estimate, about 25% - if all Hamas data are accurate, and not taking into account whether civilian deaths were caused by Israel or Hamas), it was really strange that they spent several paragraphs talking about the reason that Palestinian civilians might not leave their homes despite warnings. When the fact is that civilians did leave their homes after being warned.
Maybe there wasn't 100% evacuation, but from everything I've heard from people who were actually there, nearly everybody did leave. Most civilian deaths were in airstrikes, misfired Hamas rocket, etc - not from being anywhere near the scene when soldiers arrived.
A bit odd, then, to see the media explaining why it was that people stayed.
*****
Less "odd" and more "infuriating" to see what CNN had to say about the tunnels.
For one thing, because the bit about how the IDF destroys tunnels was complete and utter BS. Just - zero relationship between CNN's version of events and the truth.
"The main way to obliterate the tunnels is by airstrikes and artillery bombardment" - no, neither of those things work against the larger tunnels, which is why soldiers were there in the first place. Does CNN really think that Israel sent tens of thousands of soldiers in on foot to do something that could have been done from the air?
Do they not have interns who could check this stuff?
And then: "The tunnels have, for some time, also been used as vital supply lines to Gaza, through which food and other necessities have been transported."
The tunnels that Israel was busy destroying in central and northern Gaza? Those tunnels?
CNN. For real. You're a big news station, surely you can afford at least one intern whose job it can be to look at maps for you.
*****
Also funny that CNN feels the need to explain to its American audience why a difference in available technology might mean one side has more casualties than the other. How many American civilians died in the Iraq war, again? I mean, do we really think that Americans need that concept explained to them at this point?
"You see, guys, it turns out that it's safer to kill someone by bombing them from within a tank with its own missile defense system than it is to charge out blindly from a hole in the ground with a rifle. Who knew?"
Of course, the main reason for the uneven casualty rate* here - as in the Iraq war - is that the war is taking place on Hamas' turf, in Gaza, and not within Israel.
(* or if you're CNN, the "disproportionate" casualty rate. Not that I'm bitter, or anything.)
*****
I'm trying to avoid criticism on whether media is "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian." That's all controversial, and subjective, etc.
But this is just getting the facts wrong.
Years ago, I was somewhat disturbed to find myself working at a news station with little, if any, actual news experience.
Later, I was highly disturbed to realize that the largely amateur, openly politically oriented news outlet I worked for was at least as professional as most of the "big name" media outlets. At least we had actual first-hand sources, and didn't claim to be reporting from sites we had no access to.
Now, I focus on local activism because I realize that I don't know what's really going on overseas. Every media report boils down to two things: what local parties with a strong interest in promoting their narrative have to say (the PLO says Hamas is a "political party"? You don't say!), and what a handful of reporters on the ground who can't afford to anger the powers-that-be feel safe saying.
*****
(For the record, the sense I get is that most reporters feel like they morally have to support Israel's right to self-defense, but morally can't support anything that kills innocent people. Which leaves them in an awkward position, given that there's never been a war in which innocent people haven't been killed.
In an ideal world, this would perhaps lead to a real debate on the morality of self-defense, or to an in-depth look at how Gaza turned into a hellhole stuffed full of bombs and ruled by would-be-genocidal fascists, and how the world can turn that whole situation around.
In our world, it leads to reporters bouncing back and forth between "rockets" "but dead children!" "rockets" "dead children!" like ping-pong balls in a game being played by two people on speed.
IOW - less "anti-Israel" or "anti-Hamas," and more just plain "uhh... guys... how can we present this decades-long conflict in a way that won't require anyone to think too hard?")
No comments:
Post a Comment