Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú in the news, Thursday
| 11:32 UK time, Thursday, 24 August 2006
Press Gazette: Channel Four News reporter Alex Thomson supports the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's Orla Guerin in her reporting of Bint Jbail. "What Orla said about the town centre is absolutely 100 per cent true. Orla is an extremely experienced and professional correspondent," he says. ()
Guardian: Obituary of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú producer Iris Furlong. ().
Daily Mail: Letters on George Alagiah's comments on multiculturalism. (no link available)
Comments
Why is there no link related to George Alagayhas Multi Cultural Comments ?
Having read the Daily Mail summary of his book "Home from Home" I believe he has identified the key elements of the problem in England. We must have genuine integration not the segregation which has been encouraged by well meaning local councils and some Government initiatives.
George is inteligent, fair and erudite in his analysis.
Ralph. St. Annes ,Lancs
What Orla said about the town CENTRE may be true, however, what she actually said was "This town, has really been wiped out". Not the centre, the whole town. This was proved to be false by C4 news who provided a panning shot showing much of the town untoutched. For a full breakdown that shows just how biased the report was look here
Did Guerin only refer to the centre of Bint Jbail in her report (could one of the editors let us know)? If she didn't, then the criticisms of her report as biased and partial also remain 100% true.
The Daily Mail doesn't appear to put the letters from its print edition online. Shame, they're often quite funny.
It's awfully nice of Thomson to try to help out a fellow hack, but it's the next part of that Press Gazette article which is significant:
"However Thomson said that 'because a lot of journalists are lazy' much of the British public hold the inaccurate perception that Lebanon had been completely destroyed."
He said that from the parts of Southern Lebanon he had seen, 25 to 30 per cent of the buildings had been destroyed or damaged.
He said that journalists had to genuinely say what they were seeing, which often did not fit with the cliché of 'nasty, bullyboy Israel/United States smashing the downtrodden Arabs and Muslims'."
Guerin's report is a perfect example of the inaccurate portrayal of Lebanon's destruction to fit with the cliché of "nasty, bullyboy Israel":
"I haven’t seen a single building that isn't damaged… This town has really been wiped out… The international community may well ask how Israel can explain all this in the name of fighting Hezbollah."
Thomson is being far too kind to Guerin. In his report from Bint Jbeil he pointed out that much of the town has "intact". Guerin, reporting from the same street, said it had been wiped out, and then went on to demonise Israel.
I made the original claims against Guerin. Thomson's gallant attempts to defend her have merely confirmed to me that I was right.
DFH wrote: ...Thomson is being far too kind to Guerin. In his report from Bint Jbeil he pointed out that much of the town has "intact". Guerin, reporting from the same street, said it had been wiped out, and then went on to demonise Israel. ...I made the original claims against Guerin. Thomson's gallant attempts to defend her have merely confirmed to me that I was right.
Having followed the link to your Blog and seen the insistent, anti-Muslim, anti-Iran, anti-Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, anti-Guerin strands there, I have to simply dismiss you, DFH, as a knee-jerk propagandist with a vindictive streak.
You are trying to take advantage of the confusion between a town centre, known by one name, which was totally damaged, and suburbs which are known by other names, and were not damaged. Like, on a different scale and closer to home, as if you would complain if someone reported that London had been flattened when the City and West-end had, but Wembley wasn't. The economic heart of the district, and source of supplies and civilian support was destroyed. That's bad enough, and a legitimate report.
The Press Gazette report is really worth reading, despite a couple of confusing quotes from people still in the midst of the destruction. I found the credit given to a strengthened role for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Middle-East editor significant. It would explain a lot.
In almost every "war" propaganda and misinformation is used. It is some of the cheapest weaponry, using people often little use in the other modes of conflict. In Israel's attack on Lebenon (as far as I can see an undeclared "war") we have the very unusual incidence of one side using just everything and the other country simply refusing to fight, relying on international justice. What would seem an ethical decision consistent with having no weapons to speak of.
This has really exposed Israel's excesses, including of propaganda. But it has also exposed even the best journalists - including Guerin - to huge pressures from that propaganda machine as it copes, badly, with having no formal opposition.
The journalists have found themselves with the task of standing their ground in a one-sided gale of professional propaganda whilst the physical evidence around them is totally contrary. Fortunately they had the pictures. No doubt if the bombardment starts again, or in future Israeli attacks on its neighbours, television uplinks and the remaining communications links out of Lebanon (bombing having already cut several fibre-optic lines, many television towers, and power supplies) will be Israeli targets.
I hope journalists have found, and will continue to find the support and encouragement of the millions of saddened independent citizens around the world of some help in their work.
The Jerusalem Post has accused the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú of being anti-Israel. But The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be accountable for reports made by its correspondents. There is an editorial board that works to broadcast balanced news and views. The fact that Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is allowed to work both in Israel and Lebanon, carrying interviews from the makers and the shakers of the events taking place there shows well it has credibility on both sides.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has a history of ups and downs with Israel. An example of that was its documentary some years ago on Ariel Sharon’s implication in the massacre of Sabra and Shatila.
Let’s not forget its having been banned from Zimbabwe just because of reporting the truth and its being British. Reason enough for Zimbabwe government to expel it because Britain worked to expel it from the Commonwealth, following its farming policy.
As Israel has sophisticated weapons to wage war in Lebanon, it should use sophisticated media to wage media war for its account.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is an independent organisation. It is financed by the British government but not controlled by. It has many times stood up to its attempt to censor it. Two examples, its documentary about the IRA more than twenty years ago and its documentary about Iraq alleged possession of mass destructive weapons about two years ago.
"What Orla said about the town centre is absolutely 100 per cent true."
What obvious obfuscation.
What the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú said about the destruction in the Haret Hreyk neighborhood (Hezbollah's stronghold) is also 100 percent true. But by omitting any mention of the fact that about 99 percent of Beirut was left untouched, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú (and most other news organizations) failed to provide essential context, and thereby swept 99 percent of the truth under the rug.