(Ab)Using the Media.

Manic Moran

As ever, the Blogosphere is analysing news left, right and centre, and generally trying to keep the politicians and media in line. As part of this, a bunch of people are analysing the media war that came out of the Lebanon/Israel disagreement, and it's self-evident that Hezbullah did a damned sight better job of manipulating the media than Israel.

Now, the concept of censorship in time of conflict is long-standing. "It is not in our interests to let you publish this information", and can be for either genuine military purposes ("We're not going to let you give away information that is of use to the enemy") or more craven political ones ("We will not let you publish photos of coffins returning from Iraq").

Less successfully or often done is using the media to deliberately mislead. "This photo shows HMS Invincible burning off the Falklands" or "There are no Americans in Baghdad. We are crushing them, their broken bodies lie on their burned tanks." Usually these are for domestic consumption. Nobody outside the country in question tends to believe them.

Of late, though, we now have apparently a bunch of excellently done fake stories designed not so much for the domestic demographic, but for outside sources. For example, you have the faking of an Israeli airstrike on ambulances, http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/, of an Israeli missile strike on Reuters vehicles http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015118.php and the various posed photos of placed artifacts or people, notably in Qana. (Where rescue workers photographed carrying children suddenly would be photographed unconscous in pain getting rescued themselves a few minutes later). http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/.
They really were very well done, and accepted without question.

We have two that come up from this. Firstly, given the assymetric nature of modern warfare, is this manipulation of the media considered acceptable, bearing in mind that third parties are basing their opinions on the media coverage, and the second is if we were hoodwinked because we were predisposed to believe that Israel would do such heinous travesties so they must automatically be true?

NTM

Nick_oliveri

I think they want to get the money shots with the carried children because they want to hit that spot with their viewers. Faking news stories is just completley wrong though.

Whatever was just posted doesn't detract from the fact that a lot of people died for all of the wrong reasons and political ends (on both sides).

Im not picking sides here (maybe elsewhere), because this specific war is all rubbish tbh. That photoshop clone tool image was funny, spotted that a mile away.

I like the news these days, the main headlines in 40 seconds, what more could one ask for? Sky news ticker, same shíte over and over and over.

Frederico

Hezbollah did very little really, Israel had the monopoly on media manipulation. Israel just hung themselves with too much rope I believe.

Israel can use all the cluster bombs, white phosphorus, civilian infrastructure bombing it wants.. nothing will ever be done. We have very little idea what happened to Iraqi civilians in the opening weeks of the two gulf wars, we know much more about Jonbenet, thats the power of Western media manipulation.

What you talk about is really a tiny tiny drop in the ocean of what really goes on. We just get the sanitised bitesize Western view of everything unfortunately. I mean how are we supposed to have an unbiased view of anything.. we've all seen a thousand action films/tv show where heroic Western types mow down waves of evil middle eastern types, etc, etc.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

For example, you have the faking of an Israeli airstrike on ambulances,

If it is referring to the picture in the right of that page then the strike did in fact happen and there are many more pictures in regards to this.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/, of an Israeli missile strike on Reuters vehicles

Again I don't see how this is a fake story Reuters actually documented being attacked. Now you can go on and claim its fake, doesn't change it.

What I am seeing in the media is a lot of sites trying to dismiss what is being reported thanks to our people at giyus.org .

and the various posed photos of placed artifacts or people, notably in Qana. (Where rescue workers photographed carrying children suddenly would be photographed unconscous in pain getting rescued themselves a few minutes later).

I strongly recommend reading BagNewsNote, especially the "Qana was not Staged" part -> http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2006/08/qana_was_not_st.html

It goes into why the dead are recorded in the media. It has more to do with the culture and less as a press oppertunity.

btw I don't see the bit where the rescue workers are pretending to be be injured in that link?

and the second is if we were hoodwinked because we were predisposed to believe that Israel would do such heinous travesties so they must automatically be true?

Or more a sense of disbelief that a country that claims to be Western style in nature would do something like this.

You can go on about how they aren't doing anything wrong, but I've seen loads of footage, I've even looked at the Sat photos and with that and the current Embargo Israel has on the country, breaking ceasefires, etc it has less to do with fighting Hezbollah and more pushing Lebanon back into a third world country.

Hobbes

This is also a good read, covers one of the reporters in Lebanon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-em_b_27304.html

Frederico

Wow is someone on the right admitting they are heinous travesties? Its all for the greater good, such as dropping a truckload of cluster bombs on the last few days of the conflict..

Akrasia

I love the way the 'right' takes the word of virtual warriers on the front line of the whacco blogsphere above the genuine reporting of some of the worlds most respected and experienced war correspondants who are actually on the ground and know what is actually going on in lebanon, palestine and Israel.

Zombietime is an expert at faking controversies by drawing conclusions from very little evidence and a lot of assumptions that don't bear critical analysis.

The so called evidence that the ambulance attack was faked is extremely flimsy.
For example, zombietime claims that because there is rust on the damaged roof, that this means the damage must have happened long ago, but basic science shows this to be completely false. Iron rusts almost immediately when it is burned, so the rust proves nothing.
The rest of his thesis is based on assumptions of how much damage a missile attack would actually cause to the ambulance, but the amount of damage would vary hugely depending on the kind of weapon, the place where it struck (it may not have been a direct hit).

There were witnesses to the attack and there was a man who had half his leg blown off, and all of those people testify to a missile attack.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

it's self-evident that Hezbullah did a damned sight better job of manipulating the media than Israel.

Is it?

It could alternately be the case that more effort was put into making the case that Hezbollah misled the press, or that ultimately Israel did a better job manipulating the press because they didn't get caught out.

Its also true that the issues of who misled whom for what purpose are entirely speculative, driven by everything except the evidence that there may probably was some active attempts to mislead.

RedPlanet

Bagnewsnotes?
Highly interesting Hobbes, thanks for posting.


Here's a recent example of the mainstream media in USA doing their bit to insure the Commander-in-Chimp appears "presidential".
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2948
Is it not also a fabrication? (lieing by omision)

Also, related to Israel/Lebanon in media:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2931

Frederico

One of two fake pictures and the rightwing brigade throw on their tinfoil hats. Unfortunately, unlike Fallujah, the Israelis couldn't keep the journalists out and some portion of the truth has emerged. It's war and nasty things happen but punishing the Lebanese people for supporting Hizbollah goes a bit beyond self defense, not to mention giving the Palestinians a kicking when the world attention was on Lebanon.

uberpixie

Manic Moran wrote:

We have two that come up from this. Firstly, given the assymetric nature of modern warfare, is this manipulation of the media considered acceptable, bearing in mind that third parties are basing their opinions on the media coverage, and the second is if we were hoodwinked because we were predisposed to believe that Israel would do such heinous travesties so they must automatically be true?
NTM

The old saying rings true: "the first casualty of war is truth."

Media manipualtion has always and will always be a feature of war.

As regards Israel: when you start to look critically at the war crimes they have commited in the past and continue to do today, it's not hard to believe the bad press.

Really if the press was fair, it would criticise both sides euqually and try to explain why exactly all this happend: not just with a goldfish's 3 second memory view(it's because the kidnapped soldiers!).

But a proper critcal view of the attorcities and injustices handed out by both sides down through the years.

Intead of this "Israel are saints and are just defending themsleves from dirty mad Arabs who only understand violence, you just cannot make peace with them".

The reality of the political games both parties stake the lives on innocents on all sides should be examined, and the broader view of this being a proxy war between the US and Iran should be examined propperly in the mainstream media.

Hobbes

I had a look at the Zombie site.. Aiiyaa! Where to begin with how much is wrong with the crap posted there.

Just taking some random examples.
The guardian showing the 1% of city damaged. First up the sat photos that where grayed out where from another company while the colour one was from google earth (I know I checked into it). However if you go to the ESA-SAT photos and look around the rest of the place you can clearly see a lot of damage. The most obvious being the main public Airport which Israel bombed all the runways (how that stopped Hezbollah is beyond me).

His comparisons of people being the same is sketchy at best and the "Washed out trunks" photo to show them faking a dead person is laughable. Barely looks like the guy but even so hes too clean to be dead, more likely fainted and the guy is helping him. I mean it's not as if they don't have enough dead bodies around to parade that they have to fake one.

But to say that showing bodies = "Milking it" is just beyond callous.

Manic Moran

Again I don't see how this is a fake story Reuters actually documented being attacked. Now you can go on and claim its fake, doesn't change it.

There is no reason to believe that the Reuters vehicles didn't suffer damage from exploding Israeli munitions. My guess is a nearby explosion from an artillery round or naval shell. To claim that they were the targets of an airstrike is another matter entirely. Granted, reporters in general don't have the best reputation for telling a tank from a jeep in military matters, but it's a pretty major distinction from 'an unguided artillery round hit neaby' to 'we were deliberately attacked by aircraft'

btw I don't see the bit where the rescue workers are pretending to be be injured in that link?

Towards the bottom of the page, if I recall. I didn't spend too much time on that particular page, I'd seen similar analysis before elsewhere but didn't think much of it as it seemed a one-off to me at the time. Again, this is not to deny that the strike on Qana happened, or that people incl children were killed, the question in this case is over how much artistic license photographers can use. The BBC news website weighed in on this moral debate about a week ago, I'm trying to find the link now, their search/archive function sucks.

Zombietime is an expert at faking controversies by drawing conclusions from very little evidence and a lot of assumptions that don't bear critical analysis

I make no statements as to zombietime's past record as I've never heard of it before. If what you say is true, this is probably a case of one of the two times a day that a broken clock is right.

The rest of his thesis is based on assumptions of how much damage a missile attack would actually cause to the ambulance, but the amount of damage would vary hugely depending on the kind of weapon, the place where it struck (it may not have been a direct hit).

Please find me any weapon, air-delivered or otherwise, that combines the fragmentation effects of what appears to be a small device detonated above the vehicle with sufficient kinetic effects to punch the air vent down through the ambulance roof, but having no visible effect on the floor. You'll be looking for a while. I will accept near misses from any munition, air delivered or otherwise in this proposition.

There were witnesses to the attack and there was a man who had half his leg blown off, and all of those people testify to a missile attack.

Weren't there lots of witnesses who said that De Menezes ran from cops and jumped the turnstile?

Is it not also a fabrication? (lieing by omision)

I mentioned lying by omission/censorship in the OP. The question is if there is a difference between saying nothing, and forcing other people to prove that something happened, and saying something, and forcing other people to prove that it didn't. Bear in mind that if you're taken to court on charges, one of these philosophies is considered valid, and the other is not.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

To claim that they were the targets of an airstrike is another matter entirely.

Well considering Israel have said that anyone driving a car is obviously a terrorist and a free target what would classify it as?

TBH all this turns into is a game of who can best word an excuse.

The simple fact is Israel are killing civilians without any disregard. They may of eased up since Qana but it is happening. I mean the IDF show footage of how they took out a lorry in a convoy without seriously damaging anything else.

Yet at the same token we are to believe there are so many "accidental misses" or that taking out bridges, roads, oil tankers in the ports, the ports, the airport, etc is somehow helping fight Hezbollah.

It isn't.

Please find me any weapon, air-delivered or otherwise, that combines the fragmentation effects of what appears to be a small device detonated above the vehicle with sufficient kinetic effects to punch the air vent down through the ambulance roof, but having no visible effect on the floor.

Pretty sure a compression wave would have no problem punching a plastic fan into a car. It would account for the denting in the roof as well. If it was cluster munition would also explain for the stripping effects. Certainly not a direct hit.

Weren't there lots of witnesses who said that De Menezes ran from cops and jumped the turnstile?

Picking a totally different situation and applying it to now makes no sense. Its like saying there are a lot of people who believe in UFOs so obviously we must believe what Israel says? See? wookies on endor.

If it was just the media examples (not many) only then yea I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but its not. Far from it.

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote:

Firstly, given the assymetric nature of modern warfare, is this manipulation of the media considered acceptable

It is bad, but it is predictable. Another of the evils of war I suppose.

Govt.'s have always manipulated the media as much as they can get away with for their benefit and it goes into total overdrive when countries are at war. Democracies and dictatorships both.
The warring parties try to control the information output completely.

Now with the internet, cameras on every mobile phone [if it happens anywhere in the world where's there's a human it'll probably be videoed or photographed...] the information is never completely controllable by the govt's at war. The blistering faster-than-you-can-digest-it reaction speed of the 24hr news mill cranking out new stories and "info" of varying reliability faster than it can be analysed also reduces the ability to control the message. You can still distort, and put over your side of things through state media say - but not fully control.

At the same time, the changes above mean that those with less power [Hezbollah in this conflict say] can also get over their preferred version of events or try to distort things.

In effect, there is a bit of a levelling of the playing field so that poorer countries and groups with less resources can probably now better match the efforts big rich countries + massive companies when it comes to propagandising and distorting the truth.

Manic Moran wrote:

we were predisposed to believe that Israel would do such heinous travesties so they must automatically be true?

Probably. Anyway, even if the facts surrounding that incident are doubted, the whole war was a "henious travesty" IMO. Hezbollah or others can try to showcase the death and destruction but they didn't create it. The lives of Arab civilians seem to me to be almost worthless to Israel. Always worth much less than their given military objective.

What the world (and especially the US) may think of them afterwards is probably the only thing staying Israels' hand as much as it is.

Victor

Everybody does it. Thats how press releases work.

sovtek

Israel are the ones with the mammoth PR machine in place. It's laughable that Hezbollah are a bunch of PR gurus.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gebauer08022006.html

Manic Moran

sovtek wrote:

Israel are the ones with the mammoth PR machine in place. It's laughable that Hezbollah are a bunch of PR gurus.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gebauer08022006.html

Oh, there's no disputing that the Israeli system is slick, but there's a difference between 'We want you to look at these true stories, but please ignore those true stories' and 'these aren't entirely true, but we want you to report them anyway'.

Basically, the question is if over the issue of 'creating' propoganda, as oppose to cleverly using that which already exists. Let's say Ethiopia and Eritrea go at it again. Ethiopia burns a town to the ground, but there's no footage of it. If Eritrea make a recreation of the burned town somewhere more accessible, and advertise it as the real deal for public consumption, is this acceptable? What happens later when it's discovered that there was a -second- town burned to the ground? Why did Reuters blacklist the photographer who added two extra flares to the photo of the Israeli jet dropping one flare? One flare or three has zero tangible effect on anyone, but the perception that 'what was portrayed as truth was in fact not so' was evidently deemed serious enough to impinge on Reuters' reputation.

I view it as analagous to a rigged election: If unrigged, let's say person A would have won by 5%. But he rigs it to provide a result of a 25% gap. The end result is the same as he wins either way, but should it be allowed to happen?

We are reliant on the media reporting to form our opinions. We already know to take statements from any one side as biased in their favour, but I don't think we're to the level of treating all information with suspicion as if it's fabricated.

NTM

RedPlanet

Yes i think it sucks.
However you haven't provided very good evidence that Hezb'Allah are doing so.
I think we can be more certain that the Americans are however.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-la-woiraq1130,0,5645587.story


Lots more of it discussed here:
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp

fly_agaric

Manic Moran wrote:

Oh, there's no disputing that the Israeli system is slick, but there's a difference between 'We want you to look at these true stories, but please ignore those true stories' and 'these aren't entirely true, but we want you to report them anyway'.

Yes, there is - but "this is not entirely true but please report it as we call it" has also been done by Israel in this war [Israel "capturing" villages (but still fighting in or near them a few days later), make sure you count every ball-bearing in every rocket falling on N. Israel to inflate the damage statistics, maximise numbers of dead Hezbollah - minimise numbers of civilians (while the other side interprets the figures in a different way!)].
And by the US in the 2 Gulf Wars (the miracle of the patriot missiles in Gulf War I, the saga of Pte. Jessica Lynch etc).

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Israel are the ones with the mammoth PR machine in place. It's laughable that Hezbollah are a bunch of PR gurus.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gebauer08022006.html

I think its pretty much accepted that Israel has a system in place for trying to control the media within Israel and during any of the conflicts. Thats' pretty much a given, since its applicable to most governments, that they have set procedures in place for dealing with the Media.

But I can't see why you believe its laughable that hezbollah are not prepared to control the media themselves. I've seen a fair number of reports that spoke of Hezbollah controlling where Journalists went, what they filmed, and threats of revoking their passports/presence if they did anything other than what they were told.

http://www.nbc6.net/ikesinsights/9646351/detail.html?taf=ami
"Hezbollah has a very sophisticated and slick media operation in suburban Beirut," says CNN’s Nic Robertson, one of the few seasoned TV reporters out there. "They deny journalists access." He adds that the terrorist group, "designated the places that we went to and we certainly didn't have time to go into houses or lift up the rubble to see what is underneath. They realize this is a good way for them to get their message out." So what you see back home is precisely what Hezbollah dictates."

I'm not suggesting that Israel doesn't try to do the same, however I'd suggest that we'd hear more complaints about freedom of the Press if they did, than equally with hezbollah.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

I think its pretty much accepted that Israel has a system in place for trying to control the media within Israel and during any of the conflicts. Thats' pretty much a given, since its applicable to most governments, that they have set procedures in place for dealing with the Media.

But I can't see why you believe its laughable that hezbollah are not prepared to control the media themselves. I've seen a fair number of reports that spoke of Hezbollah controlling where Journalists went, what they filmed, and threats of revoking their passports/presence if they did anything other than what they were told.

http://www.nbc6.net/ikesinsights/9646351/detail.html?taf=ami
"Hezbollah has a very sophisticated and slick media operation in suburban Beirut," says CNN’s Nic Robertson, one of the few seasoned TV reporters out there. "They deny journalists access." He adds that the terrorist group, "designated the places that we went to and we certainly didn't have time to go into houses or lift up the rubble to see what is underneath. They realize this is a good way for them to get their message out." So what you see back home is precisely what Hezbollah dictates."

I'm not suggesting that Israel doesn't try to do the same, however I'd suggest that we'd hear more complaints about freedom of the Press if they did, than equally with hezbollah.

And Israel will arrest anyone that reports on military installations. Of course a militant group isn't going to allow reporters to just walk around where ever they want.
This sounds like the same tripe I've been hearing for years in the American media. How the Palestinians are great at PR, Saddam Hussein...*place latest official Arab enemy here". I vaguely remember supposed Al-Qaeda media guru's air brushing pictures of Fallujah. What a joke!

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

And Israel will arrest anyone that reports on military installations.

I doubt there's any military out there that wouldn't arrest reporters that enter a secure area without authorisation.

But I'm not pointing out that Hezbollah blocked reporters from entering their training camps or weapons arsenals. Or that they blocked reporters from being around during their combat operations. Rather, I'm refering to examples in some journalists reports of them blocking reporters from either entering parts of the cities, or deviating from their guided tours.

Of course a militant group isn't going to allow reporters to just walk around where ever they want.

Why not? You make it out like Hezbollah have nothing to hide. If Israel hides their militaries activities away from the media, its seen that they're doing something wrong, whereas Hezbollah aren't.

But even that aside, Hezbollah have encouraged the media to report the damage done by Israeli forces. Why would they restrict movement of the press from entering areas bombed from Israeli planes, unless they had their own reasons for secrecy?

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

I doubt there's any military out there that wouldn't arrest reporters that enter a secure area without authorisation.

But I'm not pointing out that Hezbollah blocked reporters from entering their training camps or weapons arsenals. Or that they blocked reporters from being around during their combat operations. Rather, I'm refering to examples in some journalists reports of them blocking reporters from either entering parts of the cities, or deviating from their guided tours.

I'm not talking about entering secure areas either but reporters saying that they cannot tell you that the missle hit very close to a military installation in Haifa.
I'm not going to speculate on what, if anything, Hezbollah are/were hiding. It's irrelavant to my point.
It's from one guy (from CNN) claiming that Hezbollah has this slick bunch of PR guys. It's laughable. PR is a very western phenomenom and isn't very widely received by Arab militant types nor dictators.

Its not just one guy from CNN talking about this though. There's plenty of comments about Hezbollah doing this, so I can't see why you feel that Hezbollah have no PR or media control. Hezbollah control the media in their area's, and Israel controls the media in their own area's.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Its not just one guy from CNN talking about this though. There's plenty of comments about Hezbollah doing this, so I can't see why you feel that Hezbollah have no PR or media control. Hezbollah control the media in their area's, and Israel controls the media in their own area's.

There's a fair bit of difference between what Hezbollah does and what Israel does re. PR.
I'll say it again. Soldiers or militants in a conflict telling reporters they can't go
somewhere is not a "slick" PR machine. It's also not telling them what they can write...unlike Israel.
Having whole departments in your military devoted to PR that give whole stories to the world press is what I'd call "slick".
Thats more than "controlling" the media in your area.
I remember there being plenty of comments back around 1991 about how "slick" Saddam was...and it was a complete joke...just as now.

There's a fair bit of difference between what Hezbollah does and what Israel does re. PR.
I'll say it again. Soldiers or militants in a conflict telling reporters they can't go
somewhere is not a "slick" PR machine.
Having whole departments in your military devoted to PR is.

And yet Hezbollah are also a political entity within the Lebanese government, with the funds to keep a media department to deal with reporters, and to release their own viewpoints. It publishes a monthly magazine called Qubth Ut Alla, (The Fist of God) and runs television network Al-Manar (The Lighthouse) and radio station al-Nour (The Light). Hardly lacking in media representation, are they? :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

And yet Hezbollah are also a political entity within the Lebanese government, with the funds to keep a media department to deal with reporters, and to release their own viewpoints. It publishes a monthly magazine called Qubth Ut Alla, (The Fist of God) and runs television network Al-Manar (The Lighthouse) and radio station al-Nour (The Light). Hardly lacking in media representation, are they? :rolleyes:

well, how many Qubth Ut Alla articles have you read? how many tv reports from the Al Manar network have you seen? (before it was bombed)

freddyfreeload

All parties abuse/use the media to their advantage in war. But I suspect the more developed military complexes have the most sophisticated propaganda machines. It would be a bit naive to assume otherwise.

ff

Hobbes

freddyfreeload wrote:

All parties abuse/use the media to their advantage in war. But I suspect the more developed military complexes have the most sophisticated propaganda machines. It would be a bit naive to assume otherwise.

ff

Indeed some of the PSYOPs material for example is available [rul=http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/]online[/url] and is quite incredible in some of the stuff they planned.

There is also a breakdown of the PSYOPs stuff in this conflict here.
http://www.psywar.org/israellebanon.php

Apprantly the leaflet bombs where made in the USA too.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

well, how many Qubth Ut Alla articles have you read? how many tv reports from the Al Manar network have you seen? (before it was bombed)

None, but that doesn't really matter. sovtek was trying to suggest that Hezbollah doesn't have an organisation that deals with the media.

Israel are the ones with the mammoth PR machine in place. It's laughable that Hezbollah are a bunch of PR gurus.

It stands to reason that Israel would have a PR group since its a nation in itself. I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, just as Sovtek believes its laughable that Hezbollah are a bunch of PR gurus, I find its laughable to believe that Hezbollah doesn't control the media in quite a similiar manner as that of Israel.