Freedom of the Press - who cares while we can sell ad-space?
There's plenty of discussion lately about removed reports and tweets lately when reporters have been under duress by militants. Some have questioned, at the very least, why editors have not added a disclaimer so that readership will know.
A couple examples:
Twice this week, Wall Street Journal reporters posted on Twitter statements and photos implicating Hamas — but then quickly deleted their tweets. - www.camera.org/index.asp?x_con…
A television reporter from Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat, the “Helsinki Dispatch,” spent the night reporting from Gaza’s Al Shifa Hospital, where she saw Hamas militants launching a rocket from the hospital’s parking lot, confirming a war crime that few journalists have dared report. - www.tlvfaces.com/finnish-tv-reporter-gazas-al-shifa-hospital-true-rockets-launched-gazan-side-israel-video/
And I couldn't find this story in a leading media outlet:
Hamas has been shooting Palestinians to quell unrest in the Gaza Strip. - www.worldtribune.com/2014/07/3…
Personally, I can understand why information is quelled. If you want safety while you film ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. you have to accomodate them, otherwise, you will not get the images you need -- a few sad/scared Israelis is no match for a blown up Mosque/rocket-cache in Gaza with children sitting on it crying. However, once you get out the images the militants wanted out, don't you have some obligation to explain the images and reports come from a source with a history of misleading information?
The only example I've seen of this being done was a questioning on Saeb Erekat (on CNN), claiming 90% of casualties are women and children. This is the same guy that in 2002 promised CNN "no less than 500 massacred [in Jenin]" and later, when confronted with his lies, argued Ariel Sharon did a coverup on the bodies.... why is he interviewed again??
To the point -- what do you think should/can be done to give the public more than just ratings, but also a more neutral and journalistic perspective on what is going on in battles where duress is applied on reporters who need to be there in order to get the images out?
A couple examples:
Twice this week, Wall Street Journal reporters posted on Twitter statements and photos implicating Hamas — but then quickly deleted their tweets. - www.camera.org/index.asp?x_con…
A television reporter from Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat, the “Helsinki Dispatch,” spent the night reporting from Gaza’s Al Shifa Hospital, where she saw Hamas militants launching a rocket from the hospital’s parking lot, confirming a war crime that few journalists have dared report. - www.tlvfaces.com/finnish-tv-reporter-gazas-al-shifa-hospital-true-rockets-launched-gazan-side-israel-video/
And I couldn't find this story in a leading media outlet:
Hamas has been shooting Palestinians to quell unrest in the Gaza Strip. - www.worldtribune.com/2014/07/3…
Personally, I can understand why information is quelled. If you want safety while you film ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. you have to accomodate them, otherwise, you will not get the images you need -- a few sad/scared Israelis is no match for a blown up Mosque/rocket-cache in Gaza with children sitting on it crying. However, once you get out the images the militants wanted out, don't you have some obligation to explain the images and reports come from a source with a history of misleading information?
The only example I've seen of this being done was a questioning on Saeb Erekat (on CNN), claiming 90% of casualties are women and children. This is the same guy that in 2002 promised CNN "no less than 500 massacred [in Jenin]" and later, when confronted with his lies, argued Ariel Sharon did a coverup on the bodies.... why is he interviewed again??
To the point -- what do you think should/can be done to give the public more than just ratings, but also a more neutral and journalistic perspective on what is going on in battles where duress is applied on reporters who need to be there in order to get the images out?
Comments16
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Because they're not journalists, they're news-pimps. Journalists would not have deleted their tweets, they would have resigned.
As to what can be done to combat this trend towards making editorial decisions based on profit instead of journalistic principles, not much. Education is key, imo. Making sure that people understand the value of democracy, and the importance of responsible journalism in sustaining democracy. Then they'll fight for those principles, instead of complaining that the news is "boring".
As to what can be done to combat this trend towards making editorial decisions based on profit instead of journalistic principles, not much. Education is key, imo. Making sure that people understand the value of democracy, and the importance of responsible journalism in sustaining democracy. Then they'll fight for those principles, instead of complaining that the news is "boring".
"Journalists would not have deleted their tweets, they would have resigned. "
This.
This.
I recall on the BBC when a Palestinian doctor was complaining why the Israelis were bombing near their hospital. But as the interview went on we hear the sound of outgoing rocket launches very close by. The doctor back pedaled.
For some reason this report never seem to get mentioned again.
For some reason this report never seem to get mentioned again.
I recall a film called "The Road to Jenin" where some of the blatant falsifications regarding the Battle of Jenin were exposed.
It is what happens when 90% of the press are Liberal democrats who support the president and Hamas. Elect Liberals and this is the behavior to expect. Sorry world, especially Israel.
It is unclear how liberals can make such horrible excuses and consider the worst kinds of statements as "oh, they don't really mean that" when all evidence suggests they most definately mean what they say and they do everything they can to squelch on anything liberals hold dear.
They do refuse to learn. It is baffling and disappointing. If terrorists take over, the 1st ones they would kill are the Liberals who supported them. Truly odd.
I have a family member who's recently come around on understanding what we're really dealing with.
There's still hope. People CAN change.
There's still hope. People CAN change.
That is good news. It is a shame things have to get so bad before some see the light. Better late than never but much of this could have been avoided by a tough stand and no appeasement ever.
I think reporters and news networks are scared of cucu muslims. After all in the past when they dared to criticize Islam, crazy muslims all over the world got blood thirsty and murdered innocent people. Islam is a threat to freedom of speech.
Also some governments don't want to deal with these idiots. So they prefer to hide information not to hurt the feelings of these mentally retarded people. After all when dealing with mentally sick fanatics, you have to be careful and smarter than them
This documentary talks about some of the crimes muslims have done around the world when criticized.. youtu.be/6oZQFoUG77E
Also some governments don't want to deal with these idiots. So they prefer to hide information not to hurt the feelings of these mentally retarded people. After all when dealing with mentally sick fanatics, you have to be careful and smarter than them
This documentary talks about some of the crimes muslims have done around the world when criticized.. youtu.be/6oZQFoUG77E
To the point -- what do you think should/can be done to give the public more than just ratings, but also a more neutral and journalistic perspective on what is going on in battles where duress is applied on reporters who need to be there in order to get the images out?
Nothing.
Journalistic integrity is itself nothing more than an ad. That is, a news outlet values the truth only because the reputation of telling the truth sells the news.
If sensationalism, omission, and outright lies sell more, then even better (from their viewpoint).
Reading the link you have provided, yeah, I have to agree with the editorial censor. They _were_ speculative, not factual. And it may be possible they did it to protect the reporters, rather than malicious manipulation to serve as propaganda.
Nothing.
Journalistic integrity is itself nothing more than an ad. That is, a news outlet values the truth only because the reputation of telling the truth sells the news.
If sensationalism, omission, and outright lies sell more, then even better (from their viewpoint).
Reading the link you have provided, yeah, I have to agree with the editorial censor. They _were_ speculative, not factual. And it may be possible they did it to protect the reporters, rather than malicious manipulation to serve as propaganda.
I think what it represents is not so much the desire to sell ads or get ratings, but a conflict of interest. What that conflict of interest is, I couldn't tell you, but the implication is the companies that own the media outlets have something to do with the wars, battles, etc., themselves.
Why? Because if they really wanted to sell ads and get ratings, they WOULD be posting the controversial images and reports. Americans LOVE controversy, they eat that shit up, so why not give it to them, instead of the sterile and often irrelevant dreck that they get now? The easiest way to make money and get attention is to do something shocking and controversial.
Why? Because if they really wanted to sell ads and get ratings, they WOULD be posting the controversial images and reports. Americans LOVE controversy, they eat that shit up, so why not give it to them, instead of the sterile and often irrelevant dreck that they get now? The easiest way to make money and get attention is to do something shocking and controversial.
Once you post a picture Hamas doesn't like, you can't report from Gaza anymore and you lose the ability to fight the other news outlets who can still show pictures of destruction.
Sample: Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”
www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/30/…
Sample: Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”
www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/30/…
Freedom of the press includes printing what they want to, and not printing what they don't want to.
I'm not sure I follow you. Because, clearly, they wanted to report on the reality they observe: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu54aS…