When it comes to media bias, I'm a hard guy to surprise. That the Washington Post often sees the world in topsy-turvy terms, I take as a given. Nevertheless, the exchange between Howard Kurtz and Post reporter Tom Ricks, on yesterday's Reliable Sources, leaves me speechless:
Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?
THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?
RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.
And from Vital Perspective, the same report
From CAMERA:
In the course of a hostile interview on July 30 with Israeli spokesperson Miri Eisen, CNN International anchor Rosemary Church actually charged that Israel could shoot down the Hezbollah Katyusha rockets that have rained down on the country, but has chosen not to try:
1 comment:
Speechless, why stop there. For those in the know, what is really happening is that the Israelis are actually capturing the launchers and shooting the rockets into Israel themselves. They are better shots than the Hezbos and can do more damage for maximum effect. After all if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.
Post a Comment