tell me where i’ve gotten this wrong. yes, i’m of 2 minds (historically) on israel and gaza (and the west bank). israel needs security. the rest of palestine needs self-determination and hope. but…
when i turn on msnbc, it’s the palestine news channel. they seem to have entirely forgotten october 7th. cnn is slightly more even-handed but still palestine-leaning. the oped pages of the major newspapers are also pro-palestine (asking israel to stop prosecuting its war on hamas is, by definition, pro-palestine). what i don’t hear are the armchair generals answering the question, “then what?” if hamas is going to embed with civilians, then the idf is supposed to do what? what’s the proper strategy if you’re israel and you feel (justifiably, i think) that hamas needs to be cleared from gaza?
nobody thinks it’s good when civilians are killed and injured in a war. but: 1. where are the interviews of palestinians mad at hamas for launching this? 2. where are the journalists investigating the culpability of hamas, rather than israel, for palestinian casualties? 3. where are the news anchors who’re outlining the strategy israel should be taking, rather than hating on israel for the strategy it is prosecuting? i’m interested in hearing what it is i’m missing. and please don’t tell me i should be watching faux news, because i might disagree with the msm on approach, but at least they and i live in a world where fact and truth underpin the conversation.
, but at least they and i live in a world where fact and truth underpin the conversation.
Isn’t the rest of your post disputing that point?
i don’t think so. i don’t sense that a CNN anchor or a NYT columnist is dealing with a separate set of facts. i suspect we all would agree on all the salient facts. the departure comes when you consider strategy. action. priorities. they see the suffering in gaza right now and understandably want it to stop right now. i get that. what i don’t see is any wrestling with how israel solves its problem.
The NYTimes has been my go-to for front line news, but they seem to have lost their minds on this coverage and on the Presidential campaign. Current on-line front page headlines and articles:
“After an air campaign that killed thousands of Palestinians, Israel has begun a ground assault. It has deliberately made it hard to tell what is happening.”
“Conditions Worsen in Gaza as Israeli Troops Advance” Next up: water is wet.
“Posters of kidnapped Israelis alongside U.S. sidewalks have ignited a firestorm” Newsflash: it’s the tearing down of the posters that has ignited a firestorm.
“Deadly attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli settlers have surged.” Have rocket attacks from Gaza stopped? No idea.
The evolution of their reporting on the hospital explosion was interesting to watch. At least they changed from their original “Israel did it” reporting to something closer to the truth (which, as orgs like bellingcat have pretty much demonstrated were from a misfired rocket originated in Gaza).
If you want to criticize NPR or BBC, go ahead. But I don’t bother at all with msnbc. CNN? Maybe. Definitely not msnbc. Yuck.
it’s not just cnn and msnbc. show me the 1 person, TV or print, or NPR, BBC, PBS, anywyere, who is calling for a cessation of israel’s advance in gaza while wrestling in good faith with israel’s security issue in gaza.
The only MSNBC that I have watched on this topic is Alex Wagner, and on the whole it has been fairly balanced. Early on, it was excruciating — but justified —coverage of the attack by Hamas. Then it was lots of stuff about hostages, including interviews with members of their families. Lately it has been more about the horrible suffering in Gaza, but that’s where much of the story has been. Last night there was a deep discussion of how Bibi’s government messed up in its pre-attack defense. Richard Engel (sp?) seems like a reasonable journalist.
As for solutions, perhaps there are no good ones, since we can’t go back in time. But, I strongly suspect that Israel’s response will backfire. They had a brief moment when they had a lot of sympathy. Soon, many of their would-be supporters will turn against them. Perhaps the war will even expand on several fronts. Is this all because Bibi let his domestic political ambitions override the nation’s long-run interests? No, but that is a legitimate angle.
There are no easy solutions to a decades-old, very complex situation. Yes, what Hamas did on 7 October was abhorrent. What is the appropriate response? What was the appropriate response to 9/11? Did the Israeli government enable Hamas in recent months? Certainly Netanyahu’s efforts at Judicial Reform was a distraction.
I think much of western media is focusing on the wider problem and Israel’s cutting off supplies to Gaza, along with bombs and missiles hitting apartment buildings, are creating a dire humanitarian crisis.
The questions you want them to ask are valid ones, but it seems to me Gaza’s population is most interested in basic survival right now. The level of hatred and animosity between the two sides is also only growing. Another generation of Palestinians who are now children (nearly half of the 2.2m population of Gaza are children) may now grow up vowing to destroy Israel because of what is happening now. That’s not to say Israel shouldn’t respond to 7 October, but what they are doing is arguably going to make the situation worse. And while there are Palestinians in Gaza who are angry at Hamas, there are also a lot of Israelis that are angry at the Netanyahu government.
nobody thinks it’s good when civilians are killed and injured in a war. but:
Kinda undermining the first part by adding “butâ€.
where are the interviews of palestinians mad at hamas for launching this?
Literally an onion headline:
And, it should go without saying, but if you are in Gaza, maybe upsetting the violent terrorists in charge may have some consequences. Especially when Israel has given Hamas control of basically everything needed for living in Gaza. Because you seem unclear on this, Hamas are bad people.
where are the journalists investigating the culpability of hamas, rather than israel, for palestinian casualties?
Because Hamas is bad, should obviously not mean that Israel is good. So you are saying there is not enough reporting on Hamas being bad? Really, you are not seeing enough reporting on that?
Maybe there should be focus on civilians is valuable. Just throwing it out there.
where are the news anchors who’re outlining the strategy israel should be taking, rather than hating on israel for the strategy it is prosecuting?
Do you think Israel is going to take strategy advice from msnbc? Because they don’t appear to be taking their reasonable advice right now of “stop killing hundreds of civiliansâ€. I don’t know why they are going to listen to other advice. Seriously msnbc’s responsibility is not planning anti terrorism operations. Do you think they should be?
where are the journalists investigating the culpability of hamas, rather than israel, for palestinian casualties?
Because Hamas is bad, should obviously not mean that Israel is good. So you are saying there is not enough reporting on Hamas being bad? Really, you are not seeing enough reporting on that?
Maybe there should be focus on civilians is valuable. Just throwing it out there.
where are the news anchors who’re outlining the strategy israel should be taking, rather than hating on israel for the strategy it is prosecuting?
Do you think Israel is going to take strategy advice from msnbc? Because they don’t appear to be taking their reasonable advice right now of “stop killing hundreds of civiliansâ€. I don’t know why they are going to listen to other advice. Seriously msnbc’s responsibility is not planning anti terrorism operations. Do you think they should be?
i’m not asking reporters to ignore palestinian suffering. i’m asking reporters to bear in mind (and report accordingly) what started the current suffering.
what i’m asking opinion writers and anchors to do, if it’s going to be 24/7 decrying of palestinian suffering and peril, is to wrestle with the dilemma. the test of your mettle, as a politician, a military leader, a journalist or just an average person in his or her own life, is how you deal with a problem when there are only bad options. the easy way is to take a side and ignore the ramifications that flow from taking the side you took. the grown-ups in the room must straddle reality. i’m not seeing much straddling going on.
who is calling for a cessation of israel’s advance in gaza while wrestling in good faith with israel’s security issue in gaza.
I think the NYT editorial board has struck a good balance. The op-eds, The Attack on Israel Demands Unity and Resolve, and Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values seem good. They’ve also published numerous articles and op-eds from the Israeli POV. (With those Israelis themselves display a pretty wide range of opintions on the subject.).
This may not meet your criteria, though, because I’m not aware that the NYT has called for total cessation of Israel’s advance.
The evolution of their reporting on the hospital explosion was interesting to watch. At least they changed from their original “Israel did it” reporting to something closer to the truth (which, as orgs like bellingcat have pretty much demonstrated were from a misfired rocket originated in Gaza).
In fact the founder of bellingcat keeps posting about the analysis(done by NYT and others) showing the evidence that Israel is providing is not showing the missile that actually hit the hospital (which brings up if it is incompetence or on purpose).
The purveyors of infotainment need a strong narrative.
Every story needs a good guy and a bad guy.
Right-wing:
This conflict works out great for the purveyors of right wing infotainment.
The “good guys” - Israeli military, Israeli religious right, Israeli fascists, American religious right, American fascists.
The bad guys- Hamas, Iran
(Following this narrative, any one who opposes “the good guys” can be classified as supporters of Hamas and Iran).
Moderate/ left-leaning:
This conflict does NOT have a compelling storyline for purveyors of moderate or left-leaning infotainment.
Palestinian and Israeli civilians are merely victims.
(Individually they are of course “good guys,” “bad guys” and neutral.
But as a group they lack obvious “good guys” credentials.)
where are the journalists investigating the culpability of hamas, rather than israel, for palestinian casualties?
Because Hamas is bad, should obviously not mean that Israel is good. So you are saying there is not enough reporting on Hamas being bad? Really, you are not seeing enough reporting on that?
Maybe there should be focus on civilians is valuable. Just throwing it out there.
where are the news anchors who’re outlining the strategy israel should be taking, rather than hating on israel for the strategy it is prosecuting?
Do you think Israel is going to take strategy advice from msnbc? Because they don’t appear to be taking their reasonable advice right now of “stop killing hundreds of civiliansâ€. I don’t know why they are going to listen to other advice. Seriously msnbc’s responsibility is not planning anti terrorism operations. Do you think they should be?
i’m not asking reporters to ignore palestinian suffering. i’m asking reporters to bear in mind (and report accordingly) what started the current suffering.
what i’m asking opinion writers and anchors to do, if it’s going to be 24/7 decrying of palestinian suffering and peril, is to wrestle with the dilemma. the test of your mettle, as a politician, a military leader, a journalist or just an average person in his or her own life, is how you deal with a problem when there are only bad options. the easy way is to take a side and ignore the ramifications that flow from taking the side you took. the grown-ups in the room must straddle reality. i’m not seeing much straddling going on.
i’m not asking reporters to ignore palestinian suffering. i’m asking reporters to bear in mind (and report accordingly) what started the current suffering.
Where in time do you want to claim “started the current suffering� Because you can literally thousands of years to choose from and I don’t think that is a great path to go down. Because at any point you can point to one side starting it. Or should we just be blaming the British for doing their favorite past time of deciding borders and countries with absolutely no understanding or input from those that would live under those borders.
What point should the media decide is actually the start. Because you believe there is one.
what i’m asking opinion writers and anchors to do, if it’s going to be 24/7 decrying of palestinian suffering and peril, is to wrestle with the dilemma. the test of your mettle, as a politician, a military leader, a journalist or just an average person in his or her own life, is how you deal with a problem when there are only bad options. the easy way is to take a side and ignore the ramifications that flow from taking the side you took. the grown-ups in the room must straddle reality. i’m not seeing much straddling going on.
Ok let’s do this then.
The IDF says their “emphasis is on damage, not accuracyâ€. I would say their emphasis, when bombing a dense urban areas filled with civilians, should be on accuracy.
Or am I not being enough of a “grown up†for you?
Not to mention, when has a military operation like this ever solved a terrorism problem? When hasn’t it made things worse? Like seriously, are we just supposed to ignore history here?
Not to mention, when has a military operation like this ever solved a terrorism problem? When hasn’t it made things worse? Like seriously, are we just supposed to ignore history here?
I haven’t seen a bunch of ISIS beheadings in the news lately, have you?
who is calling for a cessation of israel’s advance in gaza while wrestling in good faith with israel’s security issue in gaza.
I think the NYT editorial board has struck a good balance. The op-eds, The Attack on Israel Demands Unity and Resolve, and Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values seem good. They’ve also published numerous articles and op-eds from the Israeli POV. (With those Israelis themselves display a pretty wide range of opintions on the subject.).
This may not meet your criteria, though, because I’m not aware that the NYT has called for total cessation of Israel’s advance.
Are Op-Eds and editorial board articles to be considered “media coverage?” I don’t read either any more. If the NYTimes is calling for one action or another, doesn’t that necessarily indict their objectivity on the coverage of the subject?
Where in time do you want to claim “started the current suffering�
on october 7th. prior to that good faith arguments could be made on both and all sides, with good faith arguments made as to how the dispute in the levant should be settled fairly. so, unless you’re saying what hamas did on oct 7th was justified and righteous (and many do believe this) then that’s the date.
Ok let’s do this then.
The IDF says their “emphasis is on damage, not accuracyâ€. I would say their emphasis, when bombing a dense urban areas filled with civilians, should be on accuracy.
Or am I not being enough of a “grown up†for you?
Not to mention, when has a military operation like this ever solved a terrorism problem? When hasn’t it made things worse? Like seriously, are we just supposed to ignore history here?
not grown up enough yet. when you cease with the snark that demonstrates maturity. i’ll reevaluate when i see that.
