From CNN's Reliable Sources, an exchange between Howard Kurtz and reporter Richard Engel:
KURTZ: Richard Engel in Lebanon, let's talk a little bit about your efforts to cover Hezbollah. Have you had instances in which Hezbollah guerillas have tried to interfere with your reporting?ENGEL: Yes and no; and the reason I'm giving you that answer is that until now Hezbollah has been very difficult to cover. We've come into town several times and only found Hezbollah fighters. They don't want to be on film. They will talk to us off camera, but when the cameras come out they suddenly go quiet.
They've not tried to stop us filming other events while we're in the field, but they have, on several occasions, threatened reporters here in Tyre, south Lebanon. From the location where we're standing right now, we've been able to see, today and on other days, outgoing Katyusha rockets. And on more than one occasion people from Hezbollah have come and said, "Do not film the locations of these rockets when they're being launched."
At one time, when we were talking and having a conversation with this Hezbollah representative, he said, "Look, we're serious, we will kill you if you film these outgoing rockets." So it is a threat, but when we've been out in the field, we've not had situations where they told us to stop filming.
Huh?
Is it just me or does that not make any sense? First Engel says that a Hezbollah representative has threatened to kill him unless he stops filming, then Engel says that Hezbollah has never told them to stop filming. Later in the transcript Engel even praises Hezbollah for giving him "a lot of freedom" to cover the hostilities.
To me, I guess, death threats aren't equivalent to freedom.
On a related note, why do you suppose Hezbollah doesn't want their rocket positions being filmed during launches? If they were concerned about giving away their positions to Israelis they wouldn't ever allow their positions to be filmed, right?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Hezbollah doesn't want footage of their fighters launching rockets from areas crowded with civilians lest it weaken the propaganda impact of civilian death tolls caused by Israel's inevitable response to the rocket launches?
I think that's pretty likely.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
Nice try but Give it up Clark!
In this case, Hezbollah is the aggressor and Israel is the defender. The media has become,yet again, the psychological weapon of the Arab world. They aren't even attempting, in most cases, to be unbiased. When the press is responsible for spreading propoganda, LIKE al Jazeera did in Iraq, then they become a weapon of war, and therefore a target. A legitimate target.
European media has become more and more willing to placate the Arab world in vain attempt to help stave off Islamic militancy in Europe. Such cowardice will have the opposite effect. And it will serve Europe and its media right for their moral cowardice.
al Jazeera was presenting both sides of the conflict, actually. Remember last week, when Ben was praising al Jazeera for releasing a video of a woman who was condemning Hezbollah?
Of COURSE, the criminal BA didn't like what they said, specifically BECAUSE they presented both sides. They didn't want anyone to find out that they were bombing and killing journalists, innocent children, and critical infrastructure.
But, whether or not the BA or Hezbollah necessarily LIKES what the independent press has to report should HARDLY be the determining factor as to whether their journalists survive or not. What kind of free press is it if journalists who report the truth are murdered by the side that doesn't wish that truth to be known?
you need to lighten up and go watch some baseball or something, clark.
jesus.
~~
;p
jesus."
It was his comments that I disagreed with, not his avatar.
When Rob Port goes fully idiotic, he goes fully idiotic.
Let's suppose Hezbollah is threatening the reporter for the reason cited by Rob Port: that they're launching from kindergarten playgrounds.
Could not the reporter say as much? Couldn't he write it in an article? Why does he need film to convey that Hezbollah is firing from behind civilian cover?
Better thinking, please.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Why do you think Hezbollah makes available, and often, stages heart rending pictures of innocents who have been killed? Seeing a dead child has much more impact than reading about it. Similarly, seeing rockets launching from a kindergaten ahs much more impact that reading that "Israel charges Hezbollah with launching rockets from civilian areas" or even "Hezbollah has sometimes launced rockets from civilian areas"
I guess that's why Bush constantly finds photo ops in front of uniformed soldiers, even if it involves handing out a fake, plastic turkey at Thanksgiving. Probably also why the GOP can't help from using the dead bodies of 9/11 for their campaigns.
I sign their petitions now and then. Something about supporting American democracy and denouncing illegal, oppressive fascism sorta makes me weak, I guess.
Are you suggesting that the BA and the GOP has never used military personnel and the dead of 9/11 for photo ops? I can prove otherwise.
Illegal and oppressive fascism?
Did you swith topics to Hezbollah or the Iranian mullahs?
And the Bush regime also did its best to kill Italian reporter Giuliana Sgrena because she was too honest about the events at Abu Ghraib. If it hadn't been for her we may never have gotten the truth about Bush's crimes in that prison.
We have debunked this myth several times but, evidently, some deluded pundits still have not gotten the message. So here's a repeat =
Israel - Aggressor
Feelings replace facts.
Can you remember Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and demanding the release of captured terrorists who had been convicted of killing civilians?
That was a month ago!
Israel then began the retaliatory attack of Hezbollah.
Go back to the ballpark and have a few more beers.