Here's something I can almost guarantee you haven't read in the US media: military-related news stories "are subject to review by Israel's chief military censor, who has -- in her own words -- 'extraordinary power.' She can silence a broadcaster, block information and put journalists in jail."

Controlling the message is a prime goal of any politician or government. Savvy readers (or listeners) check stories for the ratio of quoted government spokesmen to official opposition -- as well as the ratio of official spokesmen to non-aligned experts.

In the case of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, the nod seems to be going to Israel. In fact, Israeli officials are "bragging" about their "propaganda" success. In addition, allegations of discriminatory acts towards Shiite media and of inaccurate translations by Israeli media create a legitimate concern about the accuracy of the narrative.

Censorship Details
Over the weekend, the censor issued new reporting prohibitions, providing "special emphasis" of a ban on reporting the Israeli "use of unique kinds of ammunition and weaponry." This long list is in addition to last week's list.

Like other news organizations, AP has agreed "to abide by the rules of the censor, which is a condition for receiving permission to operate as a media organization in Israel."

Governments Want To Control Message
Restricting reporter access to information is standard government procedure during armed conflict. Controversies arise, however, over how much and what kinds of information are off-limits or subject to censorship. From the AP article:

Bob Steele, Nelson Scholar for Journalism Values at the Poynter Institute, a media studies organization, says editors should bear the responsibility for decisions to publish or not.

"These are decisions that the news organizations and journalists should make with the input of government and military officials," he said. "They should not be decisions that are made by default."

"We should always push back on censorship," Steele adds, "even if it's a losing fight. "

Having the Vietnam conflict beamed into living rooms around the country is at least partially credited with bringing that chapter of American history to a close. So a desire to control the message is understandable, even though it may not be the best thing for democracy.

US Involvement
The US government is reportedly involved in decisions about Lebanese media.

There are a plethora of media outlets in Lebanon -- it seems to be the mark of a successful religious sect. Hezbollah is primarily Shiite. In fact, "Shiites account for about 90 percent of Iran's population, more than 60 percent of Iraq's, and some 50 percent of the people living in the arc of territory from Lebanon to India."

The Bush Administration reportedly designated Lebanon's Shiite-oriented media -- Al Manar TV, Al Noor Radio, Al Ahed & Al Intiqad Newspapers and their parent company, the Lebanese Media Group -- as "terrorist entities," which puts them in the same category as al Qaeda.

Reportedly, Bush agreed to block Al Manar TV satellite transmissions into the US, at the request of Israel, and has frozen Al Manar's financial assets. And "[o]n July 13, the Israeli Defense Forces tried to blow Al Manar up. Three employees were injured, but broadcasting goes on. IDF also bombed Al Noor Radio."

Complaints About Reporting
So it should come as no surprise that some inside Israel are chaffing at the way this "war" is being reported in the western press.

Jonathan Cook notes that Israel has a firm grip on the shape of the story in western media, pointing out errors in BBC news reports. He also notes that Israel has placed military installations next to Arab communities, "possibly in the hope that by locating them there Arab regimes will be deterred from attacking Israel’s enormous armoury. In other words, the inhabitants of several of Israel’s Arab towns and villages have been turned into collective human shields -- protection for Israel’s war machine."

Ehud Olmert’s media adviser, Assif Shariv, told the [Jerusalem] Post that the international media were interviewing Israeli spokespeople four times as much as spokespeople for the Palestinians and Lebanese. Another government adviser, Gideon Meir, boasted: "We have never had it so good. The hasbara [propaganda] effort is a well-oiled machine." ...

To remind you, I, like other residents of northern Israel, am under martial law. As are the foreign journalists -- and in addition they are required to submit their copy to the military censor. So all I can tell you, without breaking the law, is that you are not hearing the entire picture of what has been happening here in the Galilee.

Cook also speaks of the banishment of Al-Jazeera. Reporters Without Borders has protested Israeli arrest of Al-Jazeera bureau chief Walid Al-Omari. Another Al-Jazeera team was "detained while covering developments in Haifa." And Israel held an Al-Jazeera Palestinian journalist for six months before freeing him in May "for lack of evidence."

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, Cook also provides a contrast in reporting:

Watching al-Jazeera has been a revelation: it has dedicated a substantial portion of its coverage to events inside Israel as well as in Lebanon, in stark contrast to Israeli broadcasters who rarely use any of the footage from Lebanon.

Similarly, al-Jazeera faithfully translated Ehud Olmert’s speech word for word into Arabic, and then included a lengthy analysis from a local correspondent for its viewers. Israeli broadcasters, on the other hand, repeatedly mistranslated the televised words of Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah into Hebrew and English, removing context and his calls for negotiation.

How media are reporting the pronouncements of leaders turns stereotypes on their heads. (Or it should.) Israel is a democracy, a US ally; we want their leaders and media to take the high road, not misrepresent the other side. This report of media action stands in sharp contrast to the characterization of Al-Jazeera in much of the US press: "the relentlessly anti-American, anti-Israel, jihad-boosting "news" network." [I strongly suggest everyone rent The Control Room, if you haven't already seen it.]

This twisting of expectation reminds me of a passage in Thomas Friedman's classic, From Beirut To Jerusalem. He details time and again, through anecdotes, the honor exhibited by Beirut residents in the early '80s -- specifically, he documents repeated examples of passing up opportunities to steal or cheat. Then he talks about his first cab ride in Jerusalem (p48):

[T]he Israeli taxi driver tried to cheat us by not turning on his meter and then asking an exorbitant fare.

We told him we would give him 25 percent of that, and when he refused this offer and started screaming at us, we just put the money on the seat and walked away.

Again, expectation is turned on its head.

Journalists Critical Of Israel
Poynter, an American institution, isn't the only media group critical of what's happening in Israel. Earlier this month, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) "condemn[ed] the Israeli attack on the Lebanese broadcaster Al-Manar, which was described as being 'linked to Hezbollah.'"

"The bombing of Al-Manar is a clear demonstration that Israel has a policy of using violence to silence media it does not agree with. This action means media can become routine targets in every conflict. It is a strategy that spells catastrophe for press freedom and should never be endorsed by a government that calls itself democratic."

Despite the Israeli chapter withdrawing from the federation, the IFJ has continued its criticism.

"The bombarding of media facilities is a deplorable assault on the democratic infrastructure of Lebanon," said White. "It was inevitable that media staff will become the victims when this policy comes into effect."

The IFJ has protested vigorously over targeting of media in conflict zones since the 1999 NATO strike on Radio Television Serbia in Belgrade when 16 media staff were killed. It has since condemned strikes against media in Palestine, Indonesia, Iraq and Pakistan where combatants have made strikes against media houses reporting from one side in a conflict.

In Closing
The issues in the Middle East are not black-and-white. There seem to be no clean hands here. Not Israel, not Hezbollah. Certainly not France, which cobbled together the state of Lebanon without clearly marking borders. Not Syria, which refuses to acknowledge Lebanon's legitimacy and yet helps arm Hezbollah. Not Iran, which also reportedly provides arms. And not the US, which has condoned Israel's attacks on Beirut, Lebanese infrastructure and civilians .... for ... what, exactly?

The region has been troubled for thousands of years. Can those who live there and those of us who watch, or move armies like they were chess pieces, ever be able to put the past behind us and move forward? Can brotherhood -- which is a tenet of all three relgions descended from Abraham -- trump "my god is better than your god and he gave this land to us"? Or was Newt Gingrich correct, and we have embarked on WWIII?

See also Why Israeli journalists are wrong to quit the IFJ

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Middle East , Politics
gada.be tags: Middle East, Politics