http://musicalinfidels.blogspot.com/2007/11/middle-east-journalism-and-west- public.html
Middle <http://musicalinfidels.blogspot.com/2007/11/middle-east-journalism-and-west -public.html> East Journalism and the West "Public Secret": Staging the News <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/11/018992.php> The "public secret" of Middle East Journalism During my whirlwind tour of Israel this past summer I had the great good fortune of meeting Boston University Professor Richard Landes. Professor Landes has doggedly sought the exposure of fraudulent journalism out of the Middle East. He has pursued his quarry both at Second Draft (where he has specialized in Pallywood and the staged Al Dura affair) and at Augean Stables. Pajamas Media has now posted his excellent column summarizing the pervasive evidence of staging in the case of Al Dura and the reaction of France 2, the organ responsible for broadcasting the production. JOHN adds: I would urge our readers to read Landes's article with care, because it has implications far beyond the Al Dura case. First, Landes argues that western journalists are widely aware of the fact that much of the Palestinian video footage that comes to them is staged, but they prefer that their own consumers in the West not be in on the "secret." Second, Landes notes that the Islamic Mass Media Charter, which sets out a code of ethics for Muslim journalists, implicitly encourages false reporting by establishing, as principles of journalism, the twin obligations to "censor all materials" where necessary to protect the umma, and to "[t]o combat Zionism and its colonialist policy of creating settlements as well as its ruthless suppression of the Palestinian people." <http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/mideast_journalisms_public_sec.php> Al-Dura and the "Public Secret" of Middle East Journalism Source: Pagamas Media (excerpts) The evidence emerging from the ongoing Al Dura trial in France indicates that Western journalists are fully aware that some of the footage they use in their reports on the Mideast conflict is staged, charges Richard Landes. When confronted with the pervasive evidence of staging in the case of Al Dura, the reaction of France 2, which ran the story, has been essentially that everybody does it. by Richard Landes November 11, 2007 1:00 AM In the summer of 2006, Reuters News Agency, humiliated when bloggers caught them duped by obvious photographic manipulation, fired both the photographer and the chief of their photographic bureau. They then removed all the photographers photos from their news archive. In so doing, they acted decisively in punishing two of the cardinal sins of modern journalism: creating evidence and getting duped by created evidence. These principles i.e., the ethics of a free press go so deep, that Westerners apparently have difficulty imagining that others might not share our commitments. Thus few people believe claims that footage of Muhammad al Dura, the twelve year old boy allegedly gunned down by Israelis at Netzarim Junction on September 30, 2000, was staged. Charles Enderlin, the correspondent for France2 who presented the tale to the world, derisively and successfully dismisses such claims as a conspiracy theory as ludicrous as those about 9-11. How absurd: Palestinian journalists would not do such a thing; and if they did, the Western media would catch it. To this day, most journalists still ask, Who killed al Dura? not, Was he killed in the footage we see? [*****] Which brings us to a problem more complex than the fairly straightforward observation that Palestinian journalists play by a different set of rules in which this kind of manipulation of the truth is entirely legitimate. What do Western journalists do with these products of propaganda? Do they know these are fakes or are they fooled? Do they tell the cameramen working for them and using their equipment that filming such staged scenes is unethical and unacceptable? And if they do, why do cameramen who have worked for them for years Talal worked for Enderlin for over a decade when he took these rushes continue to film these scenes. And how often do our journalists run this staged footage as real news? Here the evidence provided by the Al Dura affair suggests that, in some sense, journalists are in on the public secret. When representatives of France2 were confronted with the pervasive evidence of staging in Talals footage, they both responded the same way. Oh, they always do that, its a cultural thing, said Enderlin to me in Jerusalem. Yes Monsieur, but, you know, its always like that, said Didier Eppelbaum to Denis Jeambar, Daniel Leconte, and Luc Rosenzweig in Paris. As an echo of this astonishing private complacency, Clément Weill-Raynal of France3 made a comment to a journalist that he meant as a criticism of Karsenty: Karsenty is so shocked that fake images were used and edited in Gaza, but this happens all the time everywhere on television and no TV journalist in the field or a film editor would be shocked. The implications of this remark undermine its very use in his argument: How can Karsenty defame Enderlin by accusing him of using staged footage when, as Clément Weill-Raynal here admits, everybody does it? Is it wrong to do this? And if so, why does Weill-Raynal criticize Karsenty for blowing the whistle? If not, wheres the defamation? We may have stumbled here onto the very nature of public secrets and the value of a good reputation: everyone can cheat so long as no one is caught. Its okay for the insiders to know, but the effectiveness of the (mis)information depends on the public not knowing. As Daniel Leconte reproached Eppelbaum: the media may know [about this staging], but the public doesnt. Indeed, the public must not know. CNN advertises itself as The Most Trusted Name in News, not because it struggles against the influences, like access journalism, that destroy trustworthiness, but because it knows how important trust is to their audience public consumers of news. Thus, even if Western journalists use staged footage regularly, they cannot admit it. And, if denial doesnt work, then, apparently, the next move is to say, its nothing; everyone does it. An incident at Ramallah, however, suggests that Western journalists have systematically submitted to Palestinian demands that they practice Palestinian journalism. On October 12, 2000, to cries of Revenge for the blood of Muhammad al Dura, Palestinian men tore to pieces the bodies of two Israeli reservists. Aware of the potential damage, Palestinians attacked any journalist taking pictures. And yet, one Italian crew working for a private news station, at great risk to their lives, smuggled out the footage. Eager to avoid being blamed, the representative of Italys official television station RAI wrote to the PA that his station would never do such a thing, because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine Just what are these journalistic procedures? Do they resemble the rules of the Jakarta charter, including the censorship of anything damaging to the Palestinian cause (no matter how true), and publication of anything damaging to the Israeli cause (no matter how inauthentic)? The PA, apparently unaware that this is not how journalism should be done in the West, published the letter. But on the side where modern journalism allegedly reigns, such revelations were profoundly embarrassing: even the normally timid Israeli government temporarily suspended the press card of Roberto Cristiano, and no one in the normally aggressive Western media objected. Cristiano had violated the basic rule of Western journalisms omerta, and openly admitted shameful practices. The public consumer of Mainstream Media (MSM) news needs to ask, How many journalists adhere to these Palestinian rules, and how much does that adherence distort, even invert, our understanding of what goes on in this interminable conflict? Can we afford this public secret? Nor can we expect the MSM to discuss this willingly. On the contrary, awareness of the importance of trust often enough leads journalists to hide their mistakes rather than admit and learn from them. [*****] Moreover, Enderlins failure, at this point, seven years later, implicates the larger MSM who, with their refusal to even allow the critique to air, protect him. This dilemma may partly explain why the MSM in France has scarcely mentioned this case; why they had nothing to say about the initial trial until Karsenty lost, at which point they leapt into print to reassure the public that the image choc of the Intifada was not staged. Enderlin, after all, is not some Palestinian hack, even if he trusts and therefore regularly channels the work of such journalists. He is perhaps the best known and most widely trusted European correspondent in the Middle East. Surely, as a Jew and an Israeli, he would not report false stories that blackened his own countrys name. They must be true. More ominously, just as Al Dura represents a higher truth for Muslims a justification for hatred, a call to revenge so does it carry symbolic freight with Europeans. Catherine Nay, a respected news anchor for Europe1, welcomed the image: The Death of Muhammad cancels out, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air from the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto. How ironic! The Europeans use an image produced by those who admire the Nazis and dream of genocidal victory over the Jews, to erase their own guilt over the Holocaust. In so doing, Europe has atoned for its sins against the Jews by empowering its Muslim extremists. So not to admit such mistakes, destroys the very fabric of the civil society that allows a free press. In the long history of blood libels, no people have benefited from embracing the twisted hatreds they evoked. At what point does self-protection become self-destruction, not only for the journalists who deny their errors no matter how costly, but for the public that believes them? As an Israeli journalist remarked: Every day I have to walk the fine line between loyalty to my sources and loyalty to my audience. How grievously have our journalists betrayed us, their audience, for the sake of finding favor in the eyes of their sources? Palestinian journalists, in their own ethical declarations, argue that their role is to defend their cause and weaken its enemies. Journalism for them is war by other means; the media, a theater of war. Honesty and fairness do not intrude on this ethical prescription, but merely present a requirement for versimilitude designed to deceive susceptible Western audiences and incite Muslim rage. In this clash of journalistic cultures, how often has the Western media played the useful idiots to Palestinian demands. How often have they presented Palestinian truths to us as news? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
