Soccer Dad

With us?

Undoubtedly one of the important institutions of a free society is a free presss. Unfortunately what we see of the press in America is too credulous when reporting about terrorists. Take for example "Acting with a clear conscience" by Karl Vick.
Vick profiles Daoud Salahuddin, formerly known as David Theodore Belfield, who, some 26 years ago, killed an associate of the Shah at the behest of his Iranian masters. He fled to Iran afterwards where he lives in freedom.
While I suppose that Vick could be forgiven for profiling Salahuddin, it's the beginning of the article that's particularly troubling. He starts by using Salahuddin's e-mail address as a platform to compare him to the fictional "Fugitive." It betrays a lack of seriousness. Rather than trying to understand his subject, it make Vick appear to be admiring him.

On a similar theme there's Many Arabs Laud Hezbollah

Hezbollah's fight with Israel, viewed widely here as a battle between the militia's David and the Jewish state's Goliath, has solidified support for the militant group and left U.S. credibility, already at an all-time low, in tatters. The conflict has highlighted how far apart the United States and the majority of Arabs stand on the most visceral conflict in the Middle East.

Arabs see the U.S. refusal to press Israel, its ally, for a cease-fire as a clear bias toward the Jewish state and against Arabs. They also believe that U.S. delivery of weapons to Israel makes the United States complicit in the deaths of civilians.

It isn't just what Israel does that matters. It matters that the Arab world views American support for Israel and that America has not credibility with the Arab world.

Of course Powerline noted something strange about yesterday's protests in Lebanon. There's a huge picture of Sec. Rice. The amount of time that it would have taken to produce that poster makes it clear that it wasn't just created spontaneously after the building collapsed in Qana.

So when a Washington Post reporter is interviewing Arabs who now hate Israel, you have to wonder, what would have happened if Israel hadn't struck back. If he'd gone to the same people after the soldiers were kidnapped and Hezbollah started launching Katyushas, would they have expressed their admiration for Israel? Or would they have been expressing their admiration for Hezbollah for fighting the Zionist enemy?

The feelings that the subjects of the article (and many like them) have for Israel and the United States precede the collapse of the building in Qana. As much as the press wishes to present Israel's "overreaction" to attacks on its citizens and the diplomatic cost that it exacts is this even a fair representation of the conflict.

Consider the NY Times and Washington Post articles on yesterday's events. Is there anything in these articles that supports Israel's position?

1) Is there a mention of the IDF's statement about the threat that was emanating from Qana? The IDF's weebsite shows that Qana was the source of missiles attacking 4 cities. Also at the website is a video of the rockets being launched and the launchers traveling into buildings.

2) Is there any mention that the building in Qana apparently collapsed 7 or 8 hours after the Israelis struck the building as YNet reported? Why weren't the people in the building evacuated? Did the building collapse because something else exploded?

3) Finally where's the mention of the photographs published in an Australian newspaper showing Hezbollah placing themselves in middle of civilian neighborhoods? (Especially the first photograph. Think the guy in the blue shirt looks a little scared?)

A discussion appears here.

Vital Perspectives reminds us of the international law that the presence of civilians does not confer immunity onto legitimate military targets?

There's a joke about lawyers that if they don't have the facts they should argue the law, if the law isn't on their side, they should argue the facts.

So it is with the media. It has its accepted story line. Anything that conforms to that story line is news; anything that doesn't isn't. So the storyline here is that the Israel overreacted and innocents are suffering.

Does it matter that this is the storyline that's approved by Hezbollah? Does it matter that Hezbollah is legally responsible for the destruction? (Remember how sacred international law is when it comes to "occupation"? Where's the international law now that it's on Israel's side?) Does it matter that it likely wasn't the Israeli bomb that destroyed the building?

Nope. What matters is building the perceptions that bolster the media's storyline. And in doing so the media are furthering the causes of terror and repression and working against the freedom they claim to be defending.

Technorati tags: Media Bias, Israel, Hezbollah.