Hacker News Reader

Comment by g-b-r | Hacker News Reader

Besides the statistics I advise anyone to also look at the reports of how the individual deaths happened, I've seen them very little discussed in western media.

There's often enough evidence to show an extremely likely deliberate killing (usually with weapons that Hamas doesn't have).

Journalists have been killed outside of the Gaza strip as well.

Just make your own informed opinion.

Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century

View on HN

War is nasty, it brings out the worst in people. Look at this, listen to their laughter while conducting their "work":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw (2007)

"The video shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad after they are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred."

(We may not have such detailed coverage for Gaza that we have for Baghdad, which is of course also caused by the lack of journalists, since who is dead can no longer report.)

It can have a very wide range of nastiness

It is hell. Every time. Many men who return with PTSD do so not because of what they saw, but because of what they did.

I don't know for soldiers, but for those on the other side there are clearly different levels of hell

It's also worth seeing if there's a historical pattern of behaviour:

"One Martyr Down: The Untold Story Of A Canadian Peacekeeper Killed At War" - https://legionmagazine.com/one-martyr-down-the-untold-story-...

A Canadian Army Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was assassinated after the IDF "accidentally" bombed a United Nations post that he was posted at - soon after he reported war crimes that he witnessed the IDF doing.

For context, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener emailed [1] days before saying that Hezbollah were using his positions and the IDF was being forced to fire on them out of "tactical necessity". This isn't as clear-cut as you're attempting to paint it.

1 - https://web.archive.org/web/20061010012455/http://www.canada...

From the same article:

A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.

"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."

---

This part states the area was being bombed prior to reports of Hezbollah activity in the area, so yes - the confusion will muddy it.

Nonetheless, he had recently reported IDF war crimes - and the IDF at minimum coincidentally was responsible for killing him; with this seemingly contradictory statement by a senior UN official.

*wasn't

It would be great if you could share some of this credible evidence. There are so many loose claims flying around ...

> Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century

Access to war zones has been limited commonly, IIRC, at least since the Iraq war. In Ukraine, journalists talk about government cooperation and, IIRC, approval.

If you are thinking about Vietnam, I think that has become more of the exception than the rule. (I think that in a free society, it should be the rule.)

>Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in the 21 century

I think the prohibition is wrong, but what do you think "real journalists" can offer people that isn't already being spread around? We are inundated with stories from this conflict; what is CNN going to add to the conversation? Most of these outlets are mouthpieces for their respective governments anyway, their point-of-view is predictable.

The Hamas may(?) have less leverage over foreign reporters. For local reporters there's a history of Hamas threatening and using violence against the reporters and their families to get the kind of reporting they want.

I agree with the observation that many of those outlets are mouthpieces for their respective government though.

Here are a few references to keep in mind when thinking about journalists working in Gaza (or you can think about Russia, Iran, North Korea, maybe China as being similar):

https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/gaza-hamas-must-end...

"The Gaza Strip is a particularly inhospitable territory for press freedom. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad harass and obstruct journalists suspected of collaborating with Israel," - https://rsf.org/en/country/palestine

"Gaza: Journalist facing prison term for exposing corruption in Hamas-controlled ministry" - https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/gaza-journali...

"The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza are arresting, abusing, and criminally charging journalists and activists who express peaceful criticism of the authorities. ... Both Palestinian governments, operating independently, have apparently arrived at similar methods of harassment, intimidation and physical abuse of anyone who dares criticize them. ... The media freedom group MADA documented 192 incidents in 2015 in which Palestinian authorities infringed on journalists’ right to free expression through summoning and interrogation, arrests, physical assault, detention, and, in Gaza, forbidding journalists from reporting on certain issues or stories. That was a 68 percent increase over 2014. The pattern of abuse that MADA reported, including beatings, torture, warnings to stop criticizing the government, and seizing passwords to search social media accounts, is consistent with the cases Human Rights Watch documented." - https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/30/palestine-crackdown-jour...

Isra Al-Mudalla, the head of foreign relations in Hamas’s Information Ministry said, "The security agencies would go and have a chat with these people. They would give them some time to change their message, one way or another." ... “Some of the journalists who entered the Gaza Strip were under security surveillance. Even under these difficult circumstances, we managed to reach them, and tell them that what they were doing was anything but professional journalism and that it was immoral.” - https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-intimidating-fore... https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-government-spokesperson-we-de...

What matters most from the journalists is their video reports, especially the live ones

In the current situation I don't think Hamas can exert very much control on the population, anyhow.

The handful of times that other journalists managed to enter, by the way, they confirmed what had been reported (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdIZmZr29L0)

I expect Hamas is still exerting plenty of control.

I'm not sure what "confirmed what had been reported" really means here. The problem isn't that we're necessarily getting outright lies and fake news (I'm sure we're getting some), but that we're getting a very selective and emotional view into the horrors of war.

There's zero doubt that the impact of the war on Gaza is immense and so there's zero doubt that journalists can get heart wrenching stories of death and destruction out of it. As they can from any war.

Here are some thought experiments:

- Is there a way Israel could have defeated Hamas in a way where the media wouldn't be able to show any death and destruction? I believe the answer is no.

- Could the media have painted a very different picture of the war by changing focus? For sure.

There's just no way you're not getting a biased view here. I can tell any story with the same "raw reality" by selecting things that promote my cause, whatever it is. Where the bias is vs. some "nominal" ground reality is hard to say. If you look e.g. at the Ukraine-Russian war it's clear most western media is 100% biased towards Ukraine.

I think some of those arguments verge into the 'there is no truth, it's all a matter of how you paint it' territory, which is the argument of disinformation and propaganda (I'm saying it not to accuse the parent; I assume they don't want disinfo, etc.)

Objectively, Israel has caused a very high rate of civilian deaths, destruction of property, and is causing a near-famine or famine.

People argue that such outcomes are unavoidable, but they are happening. I think that the news media would be dishonest to paint a different picture than that.

Sure, a large number of civilian deaths, and massive destruction of property.

I have a problem though when the media just shows an endless stream of emotionally manipulative images and stories. I also have a problem with their selectivity, e.g. they don't chose to show us civilians being attacked in Donetsk or something. They also generally don't show us images of Israeli refugees from the north and the south or actually report on that at all. They totally ignore events like rockets being fired at Israeli cities (still happens though a lot less). The coverage of Hezbollah's attacks and massive scale property destruction in the north of Israel is also nonexistent.

Even at the height of the Russia-Ukraine war we weren't being flooded by the same level of images/stories. Yes, we did get some stories out of Mariupol but not nearly as much as we get out of Gaza. Ukraine claims 25,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol (out of 500,000 people!). I think the destruction of Mariupol easily eclipses the destruction in Gaza. The Russians weren't facing anything similar to what Israel is facing in Gaza, they just blitzed the heck out of the city. Who is painted as more "evil" in western media, Russia or Israel? Arguably Israel. Ofcourse Russia invaded Ukraine and for most of us is clearly the "bad guy" here.

EDIT: and by the way, if you consume Israel media, which is obviously very pro-Israeli. You'll still get the same facts about the conditions in Gaza. But if you consume anti-Israeli media you will get no other relevant facts. If you ask people in the west some very basic questions about the conflict you'll find total cluelessness which is a result of that. Ask a random American how far Tel-Aviv is from Gaza, or where is Palestine, or what is Hezbollah, or any number of basic knowledge questions about the conflict and see. Most know O(nothing), see images of suffering and destruction all day, and naturally will align themselves with the side they see suffering.

I feel like an assertion is missing here: What is your conclusion from all of that? Is it that Israel is treated unfairly by the news media and that's why they are criticized?

That may be a factor, but it doesn't feel like a genuine discussion. Maybe Israel is doing some things wrong or there are legitimate concerns about that. The death and destruction are large scale relative to the war zone, and that should be a serious concern and attract exceptional attention no matter who you are. Blaming it all on bias, etc. is a weak response that doesn't address the merits; it also fits, intentionally or not, a very old rhetorical technique of redirection (as is the whataboutism). You seem knowledgeable and thoughtful; what do you really think about the real issues?

Regarding some other issues:

FWIW, in my particular news media bubble (mostly leading print journalism), that's not what I see at all. I read about all the issues you mention, about harm and fear and everything else on both sides. From what I read about my sources, they are biased toward Israel; IME: coverage of the war is pretty balanced. They all omit 99% of the Israeli violence and hate I see reported in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Given your perspective, do you actually read anti-Israeli media? Why?

Americans have little knowledge of geography anywhere; it has nothing to do with Israel. What do you know about, for example, South Korea? Kashmir? Ecuadoran geography? Probably for the average Israeli, they know not much at all.

To your last question I think I know a fair bit. But it's true the average Israeli does not. The average Israeli also doesn't go around telling South Korea what to do or campaigning for the North Koreans or making judgments on which side of Korea is "occupied" by whom or saying that North Korea is a prison and pressuring their local politicians about the plight of the North Koreans.

I think what's going on is partly "Jews Are News". In other words antisemitism. You have to be willingly blind not to see that the coverage of Israel and public outcry is disproportionate to other conflicts and that the focus inevitably seems to be on Israel in a bad way. Maybe another factor is influence in terms of money and effort by those seeking to weaken the west. Internal politics in various countries also have an impact.

Should we then take the position that Israel is above criticism, can do whatever it wants, and face no repercussion? No. Part of my difficulty, as a pro-Israeli, is that there's no doubt that Israel has been drifting in a bad direction. The current government is a disgrace in my opinion. There are many things Israel is doing that are not ok. If you look e.g. at what the Biden administration is saying they are trying to strike this balance of saying "Israel has the right to self defense", "Israel is justified in trying to eliminate Hamas" but at the same time saying things like "Settlements in the west bank are illegal", "Settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank won't be tolerated", "Even though you were dehumanized on Oct 7th you can't dehumanize the other side", "You need to think about the longer term solution". This to me is a measured approach given the existing focus on Israel (if there was no focus then we wouldn't even be talking about these topics).

In terms of being critical I would say what matters is your motivation. If it's coming from a place of genuinely caring about the well being of all people involved, and ideally if you know the facts/history/cultures/geography etc., have at it. The road to hell can still be paved with good intentions but it's much harder to argue with people with good intentions. My problem is with the people that knowingly or not are wanting to see harm come to Israelis (or Jews). Some are outright calling for it (e.g. supporting Oct 7th and general use of indiscriminate violence against random Israelis) and some don't realize that's a consequence of what they're saying (from the river to the sea or stuff like that).

As to the reliability of some more reputable news sources, anyhow... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-...

Interesting since in my book CNN is very anti-Israeli. Maybe not as anti-Israeli as The Guardian. The "funny" thing is that if some consider you pro-Israeli and some consider you anti-Israeli that doesn't mean you're neutral. It all depends on your viewpoint.

I feel that will take a long time to be able to actually look at the current events with perspective when we have more facts and less emotions. Right now we're seeing an information war and attempts to recruit media and control the narratives.

The thing I find most frustrating is media pretending to be neutral and unbiased where they are in fact always taking sides. To look at another conflict, western media takes the side of Ukraine while still pretending to just be covering the war (and we're mostly ok with that because nobody in the west is taking Russia's side anyways). I think the media should disclose their position and report facts. Instead they often repeat misinformation (and both sides here have similar claims), don't give good context, and take sides without disclosing that.

> Interesting since in my book CNN is very anti-Israeli.

CNN is openly requiring a pro-Israeli bias in reporting for this war, and apparently before that.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-...

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/cnn-christiane-amanpour-...

CNN is openly and explicitly pro-israel.

Can you provide any examples for your claims otherwise?

It's my personal experience.

Whenever I navigate to CNN's web site it mostly features the plight of Palestinians in manipulative and repetitive ways. Stories showing Israel in a bad light will persist for days on the front page. It shows nothing about the plight of Israelis. When I see CNN reporters like Wolf Blitzer interview Israelis they are openly hostile. Christiane Amanpour interviewed Ehud Barak the other day and her tone was quite hostile. Their referral to Israeli data often uses language like "Israel says" or "Israel alleges" even when reporting on matters that are known to be factual. E.g. their reporter will enter a tunnel that obviously goes under a hospital they just saw outside and will report as if that's still a matter of speculation. Often referral to Hamas data is presented as fact.

CNN leans towards the Democrats in the US (obviously) and we're seeing the Democrats overall take a fairly critical stance towards Israel. So it's not a surprise to me that the left leaning media follows that lead. Though CNN has a history of anti-Israeli bias.

Just Googling now it does seem that it's somewhat of meme in certain circles how CNN is Pro-Israeli. That's understandable. To certain circles using the word "Israel" and not "The Occupation" and the word "terrorism" instead of "resistance", or mentioning evils like the two state solution, interviewing any Israelis etc., is Pro-Israeli. Seriously though, it's ridiculous to consider CNN Pro-Israeli when their focus is mostly on making Israel look bad. It makes perfect sense for the enemies of Israel to attack CNN as being Pro-Israeli because they are trying to use any leverage they can to shift US public opinion because Israel relies on US support. No tactic is beneath them to accomplish their goal of the elimination of Israel. The Palestinians have for decades now pursued these sorts of tactics.

Also check this out (pre-Oct 7th):

https://www.camera.org/article/tracking-cnns-bias-cnns-obses...

I understand that the fact CNN isn't reporting on Israel like Al-Jazeera (Qatar's propaganda arm) does paint them as Pro-Israeli to a certain crowd. It is true they are not Al-Jazeera but they're certainly not Pro-Israeli. Their anti-Israeli bias goes way back.

> We are inundated with stories from this conflict; what is CNN going to add to the conversation

For example it could add informing a much wider span of the population and so influencing the governments?

I guarantee you that not everyone is inundated with stories from the conflict.

> evidence to show an extremely likely deliberate killing

Do you have examples?

https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... is a good independent source to get started

there appears to be no effort by cpj to determine if the journalists were killed by palestinians or israelis. is that accurate?

All the examples I looked at say killed by Israeli airstrike or Israeli sniper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com