On CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday, CNN's senior international correspondent Nic Robertson added all of the caveats and disclaimers that he should have included in his story last week that amounted to his giving an uncritical forum for the terrorist group Hezbollah to spout unverifiable anti-Israeli propaganda.Back on July 18, Hezbollah took Robertson and his crew on a tour of a heavily damaged south Beirut neighborhood. The Hezbollah "press officer" even instructed the CNN camera: "Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?"
In his original story, Robertson had no complaints about the journalistic limitations of a story put together under such tight controls, and Robertson himself at one point seemed to agree with the Hezbollah propaganda claim that Israeli jets had targeted a civilian area: "As we run past the rubble, we see much that points to civilian life, no evidence apparent of military equipment."
Challenged by Reliable Sources host (and Washington Post media writer) Howard Kurtz on Sunday, Robertson suggested Hezbollah has "very, very sophisticated and slick media operations," that the terrorist group "had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath," and he even contradicted Hezbollah's self-serving spin: "There's no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities."
But the closest Robertson came to making any of these points in the taped package that aired last week was admitting that "we [he and his CNN crew] didn't go burrowing into all the houses," after pointing out (for the second time) that "we didn't see any military type of equipment" in the area Hezbollah chose to let them tour.
Read the whole thing.
The media's double standards never cease to amaze me.
When covering the Bush administration and stories like, say, the NSA "domestic wiretapping" situation the media is quick to point out that their role to hold the government accountable and to be skeptical of claims made by politicians. When it is pointed out that perhaps it is not a good idea for reporters to expose classified national security information against the wishes of our elected leaders these reporters defend themselves by painting self-serving pictures of brave journalists asking the tough questions and going to any length to bring Americans the truth.
Which is all well and good, I suppose, objections to the public disclosure of sensitive national security information aside. But why then don't our reporters bring that same sense of incredulity to their coverage America's enemies or, in this instance, the enemies of both America and America's allies?
Can you imagine any reporter in the White House press corps allowing Tony Snow to hand-hold them through a story like Hezbollah did Robertson as described above? Of course not. And even if the reporter did allow it you can be sure that Snow and the Bush administration would be blasted for the condescension to the fourth estate. Yet for whatever reason Hezbollah isn't held to that same standard.
This isn't an isolated incident either. In 2005 CNN news executive Eason Jordan resigned his position after it came to light that he had suppressed reporting of some of the worst atrocities comitted during Saddam Hussein's reign in Iraq. More recently claims of abuse from detainees at a U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay have been reported widely and without skepticism (the worst case of this being Newsweek's reporting about Korans allegedly being flushed down toilets, something that sparked riots across the middle east despite the fact that the allegations were patently false) despite the fact that many of the details of the alleged abuse come only from the detainees themselves or their lawyers.
Detainees, I'd add, who have been trained to make false accusations of abuse as part of a strategy for manipulating media coverage to their advantage.
I make no secret about my opinions regarding liberal media bias. I think it exists and that it is pervasive, but regardless of whether I'm right or wrong on that subject I think we should all agree that the media should be consistent when it comes to skepticism for the sources of their stories.
The overall quality of media coverage in this country would greatly improve if reporters applied to everything they cover the same level of skepticism and adversity they apply daily to their coverage of everything the Bush administration does.
Unfortunately, I just don't think that's going to happen any time soon.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 4
It would seem that the poster believes that a reporter has the ability to report everything they see. I was under the impression the material that does filter through to the American public is chosen, or pushed depending on your view, not by reporters but rather by the corporations that ultimately decide what news pieces will be the most interesting, the most sensational and the most profitable.
Would the American public fed on a steady diet of disdain for banana republics and despotic brown nations be in the least bit shocked if torture was discovered in a second or third world country? How about forced conscription of minors? Rape camps? How about genocide? There is a constant supply of these things that are ignored or at best noticed in passing, made into a Frontline episode or if we are lucky a movie. But if Americans are involved? Well that is a different story.
I was under the impression that the actions of the United States should be held at some sort of higher standard than those of terrorist groups. Shouldn't we pay more attention to the actions of our own?
About lessons learnd from the holocaust, as Chris Anton has written, one would hope that jews should have a right to defend themselves against the tunnel digging terrorists groups that have nothing to do with human rights..
the problem is that thanks to the extreme Moslem influence the more moderate Arab voices are drowned , as for lumping all israelis togther, thanks to reading one book which you don't even mention by name, i would not be able to address this comment seriously at all..except that you seem to join in the ball game of lets put down israel and feel bad for hizballah..
sure, it is a very ugly fight when it means digging in civilan villages but any attempts to compare this to WW2 are simply ignoring the fact that the jews were peaceful people living in europe whose only sin was being a bit successful every now and then in business ...while in Lebanon the Hizballah, very professional and well armed terrorsits that have only destruction of israel on their agenda have gotten the green light from Lebanon to set base and target israel from close range..
what is being done has to be done in order to prevent the destruction of israel, simple as that! over reacting when someone sends you rockets for months, you know they mean business but what helped hitler come to power helps the world spread their crocodile tears , sure war is hell but feeling sorry for the hizballah who set up camp among civilians on purpose is absurd of our so called modern times..the media is a circus as this article shows and the CNN is one big tent full of acrobates and clowns playing games of illusion, but where is the truth? no where , since it is all about entertainment not informing, and playing up to the audience's sentiments
He said no journalists in Lebanon are without Hezbollah guides in combat , or bombed areas. You can only film what they show you, and no poking around. Hezbollah controls all news coming from Lebanon.
Chris- If you wanted to keep Hezbollah from getting new weapons in, and top guys from fleeing, what would you do? Blockade the ports, shut down the airports, close the roads. Communications are also important in combat, if you want to keep Hezbollah from co-ordinating forces, talking to each other on planning, etc., you shut down phones, TV, and all. It's all normal tactics that we use too.