Friday, August 18
A shot in the dark?
MEDIA, CENSORSHIP
Quick post today, just on something I've picked up in a seemingly innocuous article by the BBC that comes under their 'how we take care to avoid bias (honest!)' effort. The basic premise of the article is that the BBC has been almost entirely free to report in Israel and Lebanon, except where reporting would directly endanger lives by conveying secret information. But one phrase did strike me: "we are not allowed to report any Hezbollah hits on military bases". This can't because Hezbollah might be "using our information to help them calibrate their rockets [sic] launchers" - that's dealt with as a completely different issue. The information doesn't seem to be classified only until the censors decide it's no longer sensitive. It's just not broadcast. Why is this important? Well, if Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli military positions are censored, then only attacks on the civilian population will be broadcast. The only possible picture of Hezbollah that passes through Israel's censors will be a critical one. Now, let's look at the numbers. We are told, with great alarm, that Hezbollah were firing hundreds of missiles into Israel every day. We here reports of them "wounding some civilians", "killing three civilians" another. The usual explanation for this is that the missiles are wildly erratic - but if this is the case, then the evidence that Hezbollah deliberately and consistently attacked civilians falls apart - the most tha't can be said is that Hezbollah's shelling has been indiscriminate. Damning, but not exactly on par with targeting civilians fleeing a warzone per instructions. On the other hand, if we claim that the missiles are, by and large, accurate, then we must assume that the majority of the hundreds of missiles per day that weren't aimed at civilians and don't get covered in the media were falling on or near military targets. Which version do we believe? On the one hand, we have the talk on the street, which may have once been expert opinion, that Hezbollah's weapons are very inaccurate. On the other hand, we have Israel anxious not to give Hezbollah any "information to help them calibrate their rockets [sic] launchers" - which suggests that the information would actually be useful to Hezbollah, and that therefore they're using weapons with a reasonable chance of hitting if properly aimed.
Of course, I refer you to my previous disclaimer: I'm an amateur commentator, and my opinion is mere speculation. But it's worth asking why there's confusion in the first place; it's certainly not me who's trying to keep events shrouded in secrecy.
MEDIA, CENSORSHIP
Quick post today, just on something I've picked up in a seemingly innocuous article by the BBC that comes under their 'how we take care to avoid bias (honest!)' effort. The basic premise of the article is that the BBC has been almost entirely free to report in Israel and Lebanon, except where reporting would directly endanger lives by conveying secret information. But one phrase did strike me: "we are not allowed to report any Hezbollah hits on military bases". This can't because Hezbollah might be "using our information to help them calibrate their rockets [sic] launchers" - that's dealt with as a completely different issue. The information doesn't seem to be classified only until the censors decide it's no longer sensitive. It's just not broadcast. Why is this important? Well, if Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli military positions are censored, then only attacks on the civilian population will be broadcast. The only possible picture of Hezbollah that passes through Israel's censors will be a critical one. Now, let's look at the numbers. We are told, with great alarm, that Hezbollah were firing hundreds of missiles into Israel every day. We here reports of them "wounding some civilians", "killing three civilians" another. The usual explanation for this is that the missiles are wildly erratic - but if this is the case, then the evidence that Hezbollah deliberately and consistently attacked civilians falls apart - the most tha't can be said is that Hezbollah's shelling has been indiscriminate. Damning, but not exactly on par with targeting civilians fleeing a warzone per instructions. On the other hand, if we claim that the missiles are, by and large, accurate, then we must assume that the majority of the hundreds of missiles per day that weren't aimed at civilians and don't get covered in the media were falling on or near military targets. Which version do we believe? On the one hand, we have the talk on the street, which may have once been expert opinion, that Hezbollah's weapons are very inaccurate. On the other hand, we have Israel anxious not to give Hezbollah any "information to help them calibrate their rockets [sic] launchers" - which suggests that the information would actually be useful to Hezbollah, and that therefore they're using weapons with a reasonable chance of hitting if properly aimed.
Of course, I refer you to my previous disclaimer: I'm an amateur commentator, and my opinion is mere speculation. But it's worth asking why there's confusion in the first place; it's certainly not me who's trying to keep events shrouded in secrecy.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 14:57 
