« Don't thank me... | Main | If I were a rich man... »
Monday, February 02, 2009
Sometimes there aren't two sides to a story
I understand the media's knee-jerk inclination to want to present a wide range of viewpoints and reactions on any given story. But I'm honestly concerned about the trend of providing multiple points of view when only one is plausible... or possible.
Take for instance an incident that occurred at a checkpoint less than an hour after I had passed through it this morning:
Headline (from YNET): IDF kills Palestinian in South Mount Hebron
Lede: Army says soldiers fired back at gunman attempting to hurt them; residents say man was only trying to infiltrate Israel to look for work
So far so good. When lethal force is used, especially where soldiers kill a civilian, I'm all for the fourth estate trying to dig up as much relevant information as possible. But let's read a little further along and see if anyone's 'BS meter' starts flashing:
"According to the army, an IDF force was fired on from a moving car at around 9 am. The troops fired back at the vehicle and killed the gunman. There were no injuries among the soldiers... Sappers were dispatched to the area for fear that the car was booby-trapped. A Kalashnikov rifle was found near the man's body" [emphasis mine].
I'm thinking that if shots are fired from a moving car at IDF soldiers manning a checkpoint (something pretty simple to verify from bullet marks and video coverage), and the soldiers return fire, killing someone whose body ends up next to a Kalashnikov rifle... it's a bit of a stretch to waste ink on a version of events that suggests the guy was trying to sneak into Israel to find work. Unless, of course, the work he was seeking involved an AK-47 assault rifle.
You see where I'm going with this?
This particular checkpoint is in a breathtaking setting on the northern edge of the Yatir Forest (which is why I take the detour to go through it whenever I can). There are literally miles of security fence in the forest on either side of this checkpoint where someone can work unobserved to cut a hole and sneak into Israel to find a job, if that is their desire.
But showing up at this checkpoint and opening fire with an automatic weapon? Not the act of a job-seeker. And to give voice to the ludicrous suggestion that this guy was anything but a terrorist killed while trying to murder innocent security personnel, is just bad journalism.
I'm just saying.
Posted by David Bogner on February 2, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef0111683b734d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sometimes there aren't two sides to a story:
Comments
Ooh, ooh - I got it! He was looking volunteering to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. No?
Posted by: Ari | Feb 2, 2009 3:11:37 PM
I have an issue with putting the second opinion before the fact of the rifle, but not with including it. People who still read articles are generally able to assess information and judge what they read. Anyone with a brain can read "Man caught at border with assault rifle in his car. Friends say he was just looking for work" and realize that the friends are either lying, or he was an idiot. Anyone not smart enough to put that together is likely to see the article without the other side and immediately assume that the man is innocent and there's something the Media is hiding. I'd rather have them exposed as the obvious liars they are. Over time, it adds up.
Posted by: Michal | Feb 2, 2009 3:22:42 PM
The news is just reporting what residents said, not stating their ludicrous lie as fact.
Another issue, BTW, & part of a larger debate, is: The definition of terrorism is targeting innocent civilians. Does targeting IDF soldiers technically make this guy a terrorist? I think it's important to be intellectaully honest when using labels. I still think it's abhorrent and this guy was the enemy. But was he a terrorist?
Posted by: dys | Feb 2, 2009 5:25:58 PM
Ari... Yeah, as a target.
Michal... Agreed. Let's call this the 'oh, by the way' factor. In my opinion, the 'oh by the way' should have been the idiotic story about his motives (looking for a job). The AK47 should not have been a 'by the way.
dys... Terrorists are defined by their acts, not who they attack. If you want to make a case for IDF soldiers being legitimate military targets then you can't yell foul when the soldiers look at every Palestinian passing through or near a checkpoint as a potential combatant.
Posted by: David Bogner | Feb 2, 2009 5:37:45 PM
David, you're trying to put words in my mouth. First of all, I have no problem with profiling Palestinians. Unfortunately, many are potential combatants, so for safety's sake they need to be subject to thorough security. But your definition of a terrorist is inaccurate. Also, I don't view chayalim as "legitimate" military targets. Unprovoked violence is always wrong. But it's only terrorism when civilians are targeted. The rockets being shot at Sderot & other cities is terrorism. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were terrorism. Shooting at armed soldiers is not.
Posted by: dys | Feb 2, 2009 5:50:26 PM
Shooting at armed soldiers is not.
So what do you call it, an act of war.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 2, 2009 6:17:58 PM
What's inconsistent with "looking for work" and firing a Kalashnikov, he was looking for work as a PA policeman or Hamas Jihadist.
No contradiction.
Posted by: soccerdad | Feb 2, 2009 6:29:06 PM
"The bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were terrorism. "
No, they were not. They were acts of war, like all thje bombings of cities (Berlin, Tokyo, London, Dresden) in WW II.
We do have to be careful not to allow the meanings of words such as "terrorism", "genocide", or "holocaust" to be diluted.
Posted by: Don Cox | Feb 2, 2009 6:38:06 PM
I would have to agree with dys, if the target are soldiers then I'd not call them terrorists but unmarked combatants in a war (illegal no?). However, I'm pretty confident that he was just trying to get past the soldiers to get to the innocents beyond where he would then become a terrorist. Either way, shoot to kill I guess.
Posted by: Lynn | Feb 2, 2009 7:44:13 PM
" residents say man was only trying to infiltrate Israel to look for work" -- yeh, soccerdad; I'll wager there's a pretty nifty pricetag on the heads of IDF personnel and/or civilian Jews. Guy was just trying to put bread on his kids' table, Trep. Lighten up.
(Insert BIG ;o/ here)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorism in the same way that the stateless, cowering organisations practice terrorism. Countries which send forth uniformed combatants do not "rise below"* the level of terrorism. The USA (and other countries performing similar acts of war, including the Japanese) are at least willing to take their lumps in war. The Hamas-type terrorist is a coward and a dog-with-a-lawyer. Frankly, I don't blame them for yelping like kicked puppies whenever they are "infringed" upon; it is the fault of the so-called Civilized nations that they lend the terrorist any credibility whatsoever, instead of just -- burying them.
But that is why Civilization, as we know it, is on the brink. Israel is just the canary in the coal mine. Would G-d would intervene before chaos ensues. That's not a prayer to be made lightly, but I'm making it. Things are getting out-of-hand.
P.S. I am actually FOR the mainstream media's not wanting to call such individuals "terrorists," but I am upset that the MSM won't acknowledge or use my alternative label: "@ssholes." Sigh.
* "rise below" is a cherished Mel Brooksism
Posted by: Wry Mouth | Feb 3, 2009 1:00:40 AM
Its becoming common knowledge that the Arab gunman is always up-to no good, so why not give the incident a twist and sell a story.
Imagine what the headlines are like elsewhere:
- UN:Grass around gunman's stained with blood - unacceptable!
- Job seeker hunting Sangai near forest killed by IDF
- Hunting rifle or Kalashnikov, only the hunter knows
Posted by: Rami | Feb 3, 2009 8:35:29 AM
To paraphrase Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, "On the other hand, sometimes there is no other hand."
Sometimes you have to wonder what planet these reporters are living on.
Posted by: psachya | Feb 3, 2009 4:55:40 PM
I always carry a gun when I go looking for a job.
Seriously, I do.
But not a Kalashnikov.
I wish!
Posted by: DoubleTapper | Feb 3, 2009 8:54:14 PM
exactly.
(i find myself responding kacha to most of your posts)
rami, "Hunting rifle or Kalashnikov, only the hunter knows"--loved that one.
Posted by: the sabra | Feb 8, 2009 1:44:02 AM
