Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
My point is more that they currently have higher priorities, like fighting a war, than convincing us that everything they are doing is great. They don't need to ask our permission to defend themselves.
And I also suspect that based on what's happened previously, they have no expectation of getting fair coverage in international reporting.
ETA: I agree with you generally that if you don't have anything to hide, then it makes sense to let the world know what you are doing. But if you know an area is completely unsafe, should you really let journalist in? I don't know, but I don't think the problem with Israel generally is suppression of the press, and if they have strategic military goals to achieve right now, I understand why that's a greater priority. Sure, Israel does get a lot of US support, but that doesn't mean we should expect to exercise prior restraint.
(And I wouldn't be surprised if the US state department had a little better information than you and I are getting. In the short term, I think that's okay.)
|
It's not a question of Israel's priorities - letting journalists in requires absolutely nothing from Israel other then them getting out of the way. The idea that it is appropriate for one side of an armed conflict to decide what should and should not be covered is just . . . dangerous. Journalists should decide whether or not they want to take the risks that war correspondents routinely take - that's their JOB. If journalists only went where there was no danger there is a great deal of information we would never have.
I would HOPE the State Department has better information, but I don't share your confidence. After 9/11, it's a little harder to put your trust in government oversight of security information. Let the journalists in - the more you let in, the more likely you are to get a full picture of what is actually happening. "Fair" would mean both sides getting covered, and that's not what is happening now. Let the journalists in, and while you might have some biased towards one side or the other, with the full coverage that would emerge from it you would have much more in the way of information with which to judge both sides' actions.
It seems to me that those who don't want any more information must have already decided who is right and who is wrong. In that case, sure, why bother letting journalists in?
Threaded Mode
