Fox News Negotiates With Hezbollah?
Wow, this is some story. After reporting on the locations of Hezbollah Katushya launches, Fox News was issued a directive from Hezbollah to cease and desist from such actions, as they were apparently giving the Israelis more information than Hezbollah wanted them to have. Fox News complied. Here's the video:
In Gawker's words:
In Gawker's words:
Does this mean Fox negotiates with terrorists? More importantly, does this mean Hezbollah views Fox's intelligence-gathering as superior to Israel's?I also find it weird that with all the technology the Israeli army has at their disposal, Hezbollah actually found Fox's coverage to be worrisome.
posted by orthomom at 8:18 PM
15 Comments:
As long as Fox is honest about it, I don't think it falls into the same category as CNN in Iraq, let's say. CNN and other news stations have announced the same inability to report with Hizbollah in the past few days (if you really want, I could try and dig up the link). CNN also was taken on a guided tour of Hizbollah areas, and at first reported it without critical mention of this, only admitting after a few days that this was misleading. CNN's Anderson Cooper, however, had a great piece that's on a number of blogs about this censorship.
As much as I hate Hizbollah, I don't find their demands all that different from the demands of the Israeli military censor about reporting on live rocket hits. Sometimes you pick up little things on a close-by camera that you can't otherwise, and you can sometimes find people more easily if you can figure out their location by a camera view.
I hear, but still find the whole this strange. The footage is filmed in Israel. I find it difficult to believe that Israel couldn't set up a camera from the very same spot, and pick up much of the same information easily. So what is Hezbollah doing here, aside from acting the tough guy?
Omigosh. Can you imagine American reporters during WWII saying, "The Germans have advised us not to give any more descriptions of what we are seeing, saying we might be giving the British too much information."
I'm gobsmacked. Have we lost every little bit of sense of right and wrong behaviour that our reporters are willing to acquiesce to terrorist *requests*? Are we so hungry for the almighty dollar that we don't want to offend Hezbullah because we might lose that "in"? I truly despair.
"As much as I hate Hizbollah, I don't find their demands all that different from the demands of the Israeli military censor about reporting on live rocket hits."
This is a ridiculous thing to say. The obvious difference is that Israel is a democratic, sovereign state fighting an enemy that operates beyond the Geneva Convention and is arbitrarily shooting missiles into unarmed, civilian territories. On the other hand, Hezbollah is a terroristic paramilitary group that has usurped the authority to wage war of its "host" country .
There is no parity and Hezbollah shouldn't be given the luxury of people who assume there is.
It's nuts. It's as if Al Qaeda had asked CNN to stop showing footage of the locations of their training camps, becasue it might lead US troops there, and CNN complying. Then again, why would we expect any better from FOX than we would from the UN, who have been proven protectors of Hizbollah in the past?
As much as I hate Hizbollah, I don't find their demands all that different from the demands of the Israeli military censor about reporting on live rocket hits. Sometimes you pick up little things on a close-by camera that you can't otherwise, and you can sometimes find people more easily if you can figure out their location by a camera view.
9:01 PM
AGREE
But as Om mentioned, if the camera angle was so great, then israel could just set a camera up there.
OM - The footage is filmed in Israel.
Doesn't seem like it. They said they can't show "outgoing Kaytusha missiles" and the very last line is "from this side of the border", meaning the Lebanese side. These reporters are fearing their own safety, and I don't blame them for that. That alone is telling: In Israel, they'd get put in jail at worst, get warned more likely; in Lebanon, they'd get killed.
I find it difficult to believe that Israel couldn't set up a camera from the very same spot, and pick up much of the same information easily.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I doubt they could get anywhere near there. If they could, they already have cameras there.
Projgen - I'm gobsmacked. Have we lost every little bit of sense of right and wrong behaviour that our reporters are willing to acquiesce to terrorist *requests*? Are we so hungry for the almighty dollar that we don't want to offend Hezbullah because we might lose that "in"? I truly despair.
That's a better question, and is more fair to ask CNN, who claimed to be reporting without controls in Iraq for a decade when in fact they were not - just for that "in". Here, FOX and the others are stating that they cannot for fear of their lives.
Still Wonderin' - This is a ridiculous thing to say. The obvious difference is that Israel is a democratic, sovereign state fighting an enemy that operates beyond the Geneva Convention and is arbitrarily shooting missiles into unarmed, civilian territories. On the other hand, Hezbollah is a terroristic paramilitary group that has usurped the authority to wage war of its "host" country .
There is no parity and Hezbollah shouldn't be given the luxury of people who assume there is.
I don't think you understood my comment: I was simply saying that this specific demand was no different from a fighter's point of view. I'm hoping that FOX is getting that imagery anyway and passing it along, though, so Israel can bomb the hell out of them.
Does this mean Fox negotiates with terrorists?
No.
Does Fox News have mortars and AK-47s? No? Then it's probably better to listen to the people who are armed, if they want to live.
OK...let me explain in very simplistic language for all you people who don't get it...I'll speak sloooowly.
FOX is a what is known as "News Network". They report the News and...by doing so...hope to attract viewers. They then go to companies and, based on the amount of people that they are viewing, charge these companies MONEY to advertise on their network.
They are not a state, they do not have loyalties or even responsibilities...their JOB is to give people what they want to see. And, people (Including most of the readers of this blog) want to see what's going on on BOTH sides of the conflict. No matter which side the viewer is on, most want to get a perspective of what the "other" side is doing and what it looks like.
Well, let's review...so far we've established that FOX (and CNN for that matter) is a "for profit" business whose job is to give viewers what they want to see and that this involves getting people as close as possible to both sides of the action.
Now, Hezbollah doesn't mind reporters running around showing footage because they (correctly) figure that images of Israeli induced carnage and destruction will touch off people's emotions and help rally their cause...so they allow these reporters in and guarantee their safety...as long as they behave. However, IF they ascertain that some of the reporting, even if it's only a slim chance, may actually give their enemy an advantage, they will clamp down and/or "remove" the reporter from his/her post.
Complying with Hezbollah requests, in Hezbollah territory, is HARDLY "Negotiating with terrorists". It is simply giving the viewership less to see in exchange for the right to remain in a particular area safely.
"Complying with Hezbollah requests, in Hezbollah territory, is HARDLY "Negotiating with terrorists". It is simply giving the viewership less to see in exchange for the right to remain in a particular area safely."
Exactly. Just as reporters in Israel agree to censorship to be allowed to report whatever is permitted to be reported. "You don't agree? We'll drive you to the airport"
I see no problem
'business whose job is to give viewers what they want to see '
But what limits?
The New York Daily News, owned by the same company as Fox, has twice within the past few months featured color photgraphs of naked people on its front page in suggestive positions, and also on one or two other occasions featured bikini-clad women on the front page. I guess they think that is what people want to see, literally. Both the NYDN and Fox are conservative; that may be why there is such little outcry. (The NY Times got into trouble with RW blogs for black and white underwear ads buried in the middle of the paper, and imagine what would have happened if it had been CNN rather than Fox who had listened to Hezbollah.)
Charlie - No offense, but CNN and others DID listen to Hizbollah, and I haven't heard a word from any RW blogs about this. FOX at least reported that this is what happened; CNN, OTOH, failed to note the same on a guided tour by Hizbollah while reporting on the "carnage" in Beirut being all "civilian" targets - until admitting it three days later.
And I don't know what RW blogs complained about the NYT ads - the only mention I saw was on DovBear complaining about one J-blogger. Whoopie.
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! » »
Excellent, love it! cheap international calling plan Bike rack and bicycle car rack thule roof racks roof bars ski bike roof racks for sale on ebay Noise canceling handsfree headset Pdr ultracet Volvo s-80 review Antek bodybuilding Cheats for world tour soccer 2006 for ps2 Small+business+insurance+quote Burlington airport rental car
Post a Comment
<< Home