240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

You know that things are being covered by both sides, right? There's a big controversy about a clip at CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html)

Here's there coverage now, some of it is from people in Gaza right now. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

Here's Huffpo:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gaza

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no coverage or that journalists are being kept completely out.

Here's an article on keeping the foreign press out including explanations:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/...nalists_banned

It may not be as easy as it usually is, but I suspect that has [ETC] somewhat more to do with not want to be held responsible for killing journalists than it really does with suppressing coverage. But even if it is solely about image control, I don't think Israel has an obligation to let the foreign press in right now. Depending on how long the ban goes on, I might change my mind.

Would you have thought the US obligated to allow foreign press to cover the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima? ETA: or maybe Dresden is a better example.

Interestingly, I guess, if the Israeli press is banned and the international press is banned, Israel is willing to accept the risk that the coverage by completely by people in Gaza, favorable to Hamas.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You know that things are being covered by both sides, right? There's a big controversy about a clip at CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html)

Here's there coverage now, some of it is from people in Gaza right now. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

Here's Huffpo:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gaza

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no coverage or that journalists are being kept completely out.

Here's an article on keeping the foreign press out including explanations:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/...nalists_banned

It may not be as easy as it usually is, but I suspect that has [ETC] somewhat more to do with not want to be held responsible for killing journalists than it really does with suppressing coverage. But even if it is solely about image control, I don't think Israel has an obligation to let the foreign press in right now. Depending on how long the ban goes on, I might change my mind.

Would you have thought the US obligated to allow foreign press to cover the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima? ETA: or maybe Dresden is a better example.

Interestingly, I guess, if the Israeli press is banned and the international press is banned, Israel is willing to accept the risk that the coverage by completely by people in Gaza, favorable to Hamas.

The article on the ban on foreign press pretty well covers what I mean when I say journalists are being kept out. So I'm sorry I didn't specify "foreign" earlier. I thought it was apparent that only foreign journalists would need permission to enter.

I wouldn't trust a resident's take on the events going on in Gaza anymore than I would trust an Israel resident's take on the events in Israel - I think it important that journalists from all over (meaning ideologically and geographically) have access. Israel knows that most people will take any Hamas/Gaza journalist's account with a grain of salt - so it's a brilliant way to undercut the credibility of any reports from there. Again, if Israel has nothing to hide the best way to prove it is to allow outside journalists in to report what is really going on in Gaza. The question of whether the CNN video is staged or not would not be such an issue if there were more press in Gaza, who would be in a position to act as a check on each other - it's tougher to stage an event if what is going on is actually being covered by a variety of media.


And yes, if journalists had wanted to go in after Hiroshima (and that was dangerous is a way that simply going into an area under fire is not) I'd say let 'em, as long as the journalists are fully briefed as to the risks.

[UGAalum94]

And I think winning your military objective trumps press coverage at the time if the press might distract from the success of the mission.

While I completely agree with your take that international press could present a more objective take, there are a lot of famous incidents when the international press reporting in the country are still taken in by one side. It's no guarantee. [ETA: this is really old, but I'm linking to show that even when international press are allowed in, the reporting can still end up accepting one side's view and lending it credence:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah ]

If the Gaza situation goes like it has in the last few weeks long enough, I'll come around to complete agreement with you, but in the short term, I think Israel's behavior is acceptable.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by starang21

that's because your mind is too feeble to comprehend them.

Hmm. Must be cuz I'm white.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Hmm. Must be cuz I'm white.

wow. are you saying that white people are naturally less intelligent? dang, i wouldn't have gone that far.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And I think winning your military objective trumps press coverage at the time if the press might distract from the success of the mission.

If the Gaza situation goes like it has in the last few weeks long enough, I'll come around to complete agreement with you, but in the short term, I think Israel's behavior is acceptable.

So, if you think it will help you militarily, excluding the press is okay? I'm thinking that most countries would probably just as soon not have the press covering them . . . look, if you are planning to violate the Geneva Conventions, or perhaps just engage in behavior which wouldn't play well on the international stage, just claim that you are not allowing the press in because it will interfer with your military objective. (It's a rhetorical question - you've basically already answered it, UGAalum.)

I am curious - what is it about lasting "long enough" (and what is "long enough"?) that would make you agree with me then, and not now?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

So, if you think it will help you militarily, excluding the press is okay? I'm thinking that most countries would probably just as soon not have the press covering them . . . look, if you are planning to violate the Geneva Conventions, or perhaps just engage in behavior which wouldn't play well on the international stage, just claim that you are not allowing the press in because it will interfer with your military objective. (It's a rhetorical question - you've basically already answered it, UGAalum.)

I am curious - what is it about lasting "long enough" (and what is "long enough"?) that would make you agree with me then, and not now?

I think violations of the Geneva Conventions are more often handled after the fact anyway. So, limiting press coverage short term isn't going to be an effective long term method of suppression, it wouldn't seem to me. Whatever objective evidence that could be preserved by an international press could still be captured by people in Gaza; whatever could be manipulated by local press can be manipulated by international press.

I have no definitive answer for the how long. It would depend on the circumstances. I would expect international press coverage to resume in Gaza within a month. They apparently halted it when the cease fire ran out in November but were pretty casual about preventing the press from entering until things ramped up in the last few weeks.

A couple more weeks? I'll let you know when it happens.

In other cases, it would depend on how long it took to conclude the mission and what information was available when it was over.

Independent documentation is excellent for us back home, but I don't think it has to be a priority of the party engaged in warfare.

ETA: You've got to remember that I always pretty much distrust the press period, so I'm less likely than most to see them functioning really well as international watchdogs. It's probably just a personality quirk.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think violations of the Geneva Conventions are more often handled after the fact anyway. So, limiting press coverage isn't going to be an effective long term method of suppression, it wouldn't seem to me. Whatever objective evidence that could be preserved by an international press could still be captured by people in Gaza; whatever could be manipulated by local press can be manipulated by international press.

My hope would be that the threat of coverage would mean that the violations wouldn't happen in the first place - I'd rather they not happen at all rather than worry about punishing them later. Also, when discussing how to handle the situation I think that the international community needs as much information as they can get - this is not just a problem for Gaza/Israel. It has ramifications for the Middle East, and ultimately the entire world. How can an effective cease-fire be brokered without a clear understanding of the situation?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My hope would be that the threat of coverage would mean that the violations wouldn't happen in the first place - I'd rather they not happen at all rather than worry about punishing them later. Also, when discussing how to handle the situation I think that the international community needs as much information as they can get - this is not just a problem for Gaza/Israel. It has ramifications for the Middle East, and ultimately the entire world. How can an effective cease-fire be brokered without a clear understanding of the situation?

Well, it's not that I'm pro-war crime. I think I just fundamentally doubt the presence of the international press is as effective in preventing it as you do.

What is it that you think the international press could bring to the table? So much of providing objective coverage involves being in the right place at the right time and being unwilling to use new events to advance preconceived agendas. I don't remember an abundance of that in the coverage of Hezbollah and Lebanon or in Gaza before the press ban.

EATA: the more I think about it, the more I can't think of a single "war crime" situation in recent memory where the presence of the international press seemed to have made any difference: Rwanda? Kosovo? Iraq, if you are going to go that route?

What am I missing?