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

[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?

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

They're not there to "make a difference" per say. They are there to report what is going on the ground. If there was no international reporters, we would have never herd about Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. Because they reported, the world acted on it.

Reporting can shame a government into stopping their actions, forcing people to negotiate due to internal politics, etc. The story or the reporter will not and is not meant to change the world. It's just there to tell the story.

By the way, I'm going to split the Israel-Palestine conflict from this thread.

Ok, nevermind, way too lazy to go through pages of posts to seperate them. Carry on.