spangler@kvue.UUCP (Lance Spangler) (04/17/85)
Rather than post responses to each reply which has
been posted to the net, I decided to hold off a
bit and answer several at once. Below is a
compilaton of the various postings which have
appeared on the net to date, as well as my replies:
Lance Spangler
I thought it interesting to note that Chedley
Aouriri's article was posted before mine was, but
apparently mine made it onto the net more quickly.
>From: aouriri@ittvax.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri)
>Message-ID: <1643@ittvax.UUCP>
>Date: 22 Mar 85 15:26:13 GMT
>Two CBS newsmen have been killed by an israeli tank,
>because they were filming the atrocities of the war in a
>village in South Lebanon, despite the orders of the Israeli
>Army's bureau of information censorship. This despiteful
>terrorist murder proves once again that in a war, there is
>no angels. All warriors, civilians or in uniform, do resort
>to barbaric actions, including those who derive their
>legitimity from the nazi holocaust of World-War-II. It also
>proves that all the democratic principles of free speech and
>opinion do not hold much weight in a war situation.
Chedley is correct in saying that there are no
angles in a war. But am I wrong in reading between
the lines that he may harbor some resentment of his
own against the Israelis, calling it a
..."despiteful terrorist murder..."
>From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
>Message-ID: <590@rlgvax.UUCP>
>Date: 25 Mar 85 18:06:47 GMT
>An interesting piece from someone of the media:
>> This past week, while conducting its "Iron Fist" policy
>> of withdrawal in Southern Lebanon, two freelance employees
>> of CBS News were killed by a shell fired from an Israeli
>> tank crew.
>> ...
>> Please understand that I am NOT supporting either the
>> Israelis or the other factions. A journalist can not
>> take sides when covering an issue or conflict.
>> ...
>> What I am looking for is someone who can possibly make me
>> understand what gives the IDF forces the right to take
>> the lives of two innocent, impartial journalists who are
>> simply doint their job.
>Their right comes from their primary duty to complete a
>military mission. What right do journalists have in
>wandering about--on enemy lines--and not expect a very low
>probability of survival?
The journalists have no right to cover wars, no commission
to be on the battlefield, and frankly no good reason for
risking thier necks other than some sense of duty or
obligation to let their viewers/readers know and see what
is happening at an event which is important to that viewer/
reader.
Mr. Plunkett, no journalist is in the business to get rich.
And fame can be a fleeting thing, here for a moment and gone
when new management or a weak rating book comes in. Sir,
*good* journalists are in this profession because of a sense
of obligation we feel; an obligation to keep you at home
informed about an event which you're unable to attend yourself.
>> I would hope that someone can supply these answers.
>> Because at this moment, I harbor some very hostile
>> feelings toward the Israeli government. They have killed
>> two co-workers of mine, brothers of the cloth so to
>> speak.
>I'm under the impression, given the nature of your article,
>not to mention the subject line accusation of MURDER, that
>you are not so much after answers as a confirmation of your
>hostility not only against the IDF (they did it
>deliberately, knowing they were meddling journalists), but
>also the Israeli Govt. (their whole Lebanese policy is
>immoral).
Mr Plunkett is correct on this point. I should
have used the word death in the subject line rather
than murder in caps. My only justification for the
subject line was that I was reacting emotionally when
I wrote the initial posting.
>This is a fair example of the bias which the net has argued
>about recently. One may well have passionate resentment
>against the particular commanding officer that directed the
>fatal shell fire, but to immediately extrapolate this to a
>broadside attack on the Israeli government hints at an
>unspoken bias.
Initial reports, which were the only ones available
when the original posting was authored indicated
to me that the Israeli government was not overly
concerned with the deaths of the two newsmen.
As I said in the original article, I do not harbor
any bias against the government of Israel. The
posting was a "gut" reaction.
>The allusion to a religious order, "brothers of the cloth,"
>is not well taken. It suggests an entirely inflated sense
>of importance, and some strange implication that
>journalists hold a sanctified status. It is ludicrous that
>military operations that can be lost in a matter of moments
>must somehow accomodate reporters dashing about along enemy
>lines.
Not well taken by whom. The ENTIRE quote was...
"brothers of the cloth, so to speak". I was
drawing a "verbal picture" of the feelings members
of any profession feel for each other. No,
journalists as a whole don't have any inflated
sense of importance, and *grin* few members of my
profession will ever achieve a "sanctified status".
Reports issued on the 27th of March indicate the
Israeli tank crew was over 1000 yards away from
their target. At that distance, I agree that it is
difficult to accommodate reporters.
By calling the location of the shooting incident an
"enemy line" I detect some bias in favor of the
Israeli's. Am I correct?
>In summary: Your profession would be better served by
>giving a little less of the rage and more of admiration for
>these newsmen who in all likelihood understood what they
>were doing, knew what they had to do, but lost out.
>..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
Yes, I did use the net for venting my rage. But
that by no means indicates I don't admire the
journalists who gave their lives to cover a story.
Frankly, I believe that this discussion is a
tribute of sorts to the two men who gave their
lives so you could sit comfortably in your home and
see the conditions some people must live under
daily.
>From: dxa@bentley.UUCP (DR Anolick)
>Message-ID: <516@bentley.UUCP>
>Date: 27 Mar 85 19:04:34 GMT
>> This past week, while conducting its "Iron Fist" policy
>> of withdrawal in Southern Lebanon, two freelance
>> employees of CBS News were killed by a shell fired from
>> an Israeli tank crew. There have been conflicting
>> reports on whether the crew was (1) in the company of
>> armed terrorists/guerilla fighters, (2)
>> visable/recognizable to the tank crew, and (3) in a
>> location approved by the Israelis for TV news crews.
>> Please understand that I am NOT supporting either the
>> Israelis or the other factions. A journalist can not
>> take sides when covering an issue or conflict.
>> In an attempt to head off some flames, let me say that I am
>> working quite hard to prevent these personal feelings from
>> influencing my news judgement, and I believe I have done
>> just that since the murders occurred.
>You say that you are working to prevent your personal
>feelings from influencing your news judgement, yet you
>insist on calling the deaths of the newsmen MURDER. But as
>you say in your first paragraph, there are conflicting
>reports as to the facts behind their deaths, so calling it
>murder at this time is certainly a biased report.
I have responded to this above.
>I _DO NOT_ claim Israeli innocence in this affair. Since
>the facts are not all available, I cannot know what the real
>story is. But I do know from the recent history of the
>media, that when it comes to Israel there has been very
>biased reporting.
Can you cite any specific incidents of biased
reporting against the Israelis. I know that ABC
News maintains bureaus in Beirut and Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem. And the senior reporter for ABC in
Israel is Bob Zelnick, an experienced reporter with
several years on the international beat (including
the position of Moscow Bureau Chief).
I'm SURE that CBS, NBC and CNN also maintain
bureaus throughout the mideast staffed by
professionals. And the print media also maintains
multiple bureaus, staffed by professionals.
> Of course there have been deaths of
>civilians as well as soldiers. This happens in war. Why is
>ALL the blame Israel's? You mean to tell me that no one is
>shooting back at them?
I never said the IDF forces weren't under hostile
fire. I only questioned whether the newsmen were
in the vicinity of anyone shooting at the Israelis.
Press reports, both at the time of the incident and
in the days which followed, would indicate the news
crew was at least 500 yards, and probably much
farther away from any hostile forces.
>> These rules include telling the various news crews what
>> they may and may not shoot. Often the only thing they are
>> allowed to shoot are pictures of tanks withdrawing from an
>> area. They may not take pictures of the Israelis killing
>> "suspected" terrorists. They may not take pictures of the
>> weapons the Israelis say they take out of homes in Shiite
>> villages. They may not take pictures or report on the
>> interrogation of suspected terrorists.
>With the beginning of the 1982 war in Lebanon, the press in
>this country began showing reports labeled "Censored by the
>Israeli Military." These labels were often accompanied with
>statements like yours above. The impression that the public
>gets is that what they see in the reports is actually much
>more mild than what is really happening. So for example if
>the scene is children crying over a burnt out building, the
>public assumes that much more destruction has taken place.
What the viewing public perceives is often quite
different from what was presented. Research has
proven this.
If I might quote the Virginia Bill of Rights here:
"The freedom of the press is one of the bulwarks
of liberty and can never be restrained but by
despotic governments."
>However, most Israeli censoring is in terms of military
>information. Even the shots of tanks withdrawing are
>censored so that numbers are not revealed to Israel's
>enemies. As for the "weapons the Israelis say they take out
>of homes in Shi-ite villages" I assume you are implying
>that there are no such weapons. I heard similar claims in
>the summer of 1982, about the amount of weapons taken from
>the PLO at the start of the war in Lebanon. When in Israel,
>I saw some of those weapons taken, believe me, they were
>real.
I too have seen pictures of those weapons as well,
on display in Israel, taken by a friend who lived
there for several months. What I questioned was
the lack of video of the weapons as they were being
removed from the homes/storage buildings of the
terrorists. I am not implying that the weapon
displays are fabricated, I'm only questioning the
lack of photo ops a they are known in the industry.
>And of course, there is another type of censoring. The
>type which the media in this country does, but its never
>labeled as censored by ABC, NBC, or CBS news. I'm talking
>about selective reporting.
The people who make up the media aren't perfect.
But no one else is either. What the public
perceives as selective reporting is simply the
media coping with the limitations imposed by the
vehicle. You can only "fit" x-number of news
stories into a given time-slot, usually 30 minutes,
and the professional journalist, usually a producer,
must select what he or she believes is relevant and
important to the largest segment of the viewing
audience. Didn't someone once say, "You can't
please all the people all the time."
> Again
>back in 1982, at the start of the push into Lebanon the
>Israeli's bombed Sidon and Tyre. Before doing so, they
>first dropped leaflets telling the population to take cover
>at the beaches, since they will be bombing. This went
>unreported.
I beg to differ. There were broadcast reports
about the leaflets. They aired in Austin, Texas on
a newscast I produced.
> And for being part of a war zone, these two
>cities were relatively untouched. But the reports from
>these cities featured the destroyed sections. (and were of
>course labeled as censored) I'm sure that there were even
>reporters who took a deserted bombed out building, brought
>children in from another untouched area, and had them sit in
>the rubble and cry before they would film the destruction.
It offends me that people even think a professional
journalist would ever stoop that low. If I were in
a position to hire and fire my staff, I would
immediately fire any reporter, photographer, or
producer who participated in or knew of staging.
That's all part of being professional. That
applies to local broadcasts just as much as it
applies to a national broadcast. There is no gray
area as far as I'm concerned about staging.
>I do think that there is a current media bias in this
>country against Israel. But it is a sword that cuts both
>ways. Prior to the early 70's, the bias in this country was
>toward Israel, (and Israel took full advantage of it) now it
>is against (and Israels enemies are taking full advantage of
>it) I do know that I have lost almost all faith in the US
>media providing a fair and balanced account of ANY news, not
>just the mideast.
I'm sorry you have lost faith in the U.S. media.
But are you going to live in a vacuumn now? Where
will you obtain the information to base your
judgements on? Will you use the liberal French
newspaper Le Monde, or how about TASS? There
are some Japanese newspapers that devote tremendous
amounts of space to international coverage. Maybe
you could subscribe to one of them. I'll be
glad to send you a reference if you like.
>Look, Israel isn't perfect, any more than the U.S. is. I
>do feel that the entire war in Lebanon was a mistake. But
>they have been unilaterally withdrawing! Isn't that worth
>something! I mean we don't see Syria withdrawing, now do
>we? And during the pull-out, Israeli forces have been
>constantly attacked. But there has been relatively little
>reporting on the withdraw until this tragic accident.
Five days a week, I watch four and a half hours of
network news programing. The pullout has not been
ignored by the broadcast media. The lack of a
Syrian withdrawl has not been overlooked either.
Yes, the war was a mistake. It did accomplish one
of it's initial missions though; to break up a
power-base for the Palestinian Liberation
Organization. And for that, I believe peace loving
people across the world owe the Israelis
something. It hasn't stopped the PLO sponsored
terrorist attacks, but it has made it much more
difficult for the PLO from a logistics point of
view.
> Droyan David Roy Anolick
>ihnp4!bentley!droyan (or dxa) ^ ^^^ ^^
>P.S. In today's paper, there was a small article with the
>headline: "CBS Accepts Israeli Version of Crew Deaths."
>Was it on page one? Of course not. It was on page ten, and
>I almost skipped right over it.
I can't account for your newspapers editorial
judgement. I'm also unable tell you where the
Austin American-Statesman inserted the article.
But the news report did receive coverage on both
ABC's Good Morning America and on CNN Headline
News.
>From: dxa@bentley.UUCP (DR Anolick)
>Message-ID: <517@bentley.UUCP>
>Date: 27 Mar 85 19:05:50 GMT
>I just posted a 90 line article to net.politics in response
>to the title article which was posted in net.tv as well as
>net politics. This discussion has little to do with the
>type of discussion which takes place in net.tv. It belongs
>in net.politics. I hope that other people who follow up
>this article will keep this in mind.
> Droyan David Roy Anolick
I posted the original to net.tv AND net.politics
because I felt it belonged in both subject groups.
While no one has responded from the net.tv side of
things, I felt since it obviously had a lot to do
with something that interests the net.tv folks...
television...they would be interested in the
discussion.
I appreciate David Roy Anolick giving the net.tv
readers the pointer to net.politics where they (I
hope) have been following this discussion.
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) in message <554@whuxl.UUCP> (27 Mar 85)
> What right does any government have to go about killing people, whether it
> is an American soldier trying to get intelligence information or a CBS
> newsman? What right does any government have to indiscriminately kill
> civilians, to bomb their homes, to disrupt their families?
> Is it "bias" to so say that such actions are *wrong* no matter what
> government engages in them?
>
> There is a very good reason to blame the Israeli government for the deaths
> of the two newsmen and of many more deaths. These deaths came about as
> a result of Israel's calculated policy of vengeance against the Shi-ites
> and the general population of Southern Lebanon. The fact that it happened
> to be two newsmen killed in this particular instance only brought more
> public attention to what has happened to many other Lebanese civilians due
> to Israel's "Iron Fist" policy. That policy of vengeance and indiscriminate
> murder and destruction is *wrong*! It is just as *wrong* as the actions of
> the PLO in massacring Israeli athletes in the Olympics at Munich, and
> the PLO's other terrorist activities. It is *not* a question of bias-
> it is a question of consistent opposition to immoral violence whether
> practiced by enemies or friends.
>
> I ask you, which is truly the bias: the condemnation of enemies for
> terrorist acts while praising friends for similar acts OR
> the condemnation of terrorist acts of violence by whomever commits them?
>
> When talking about "bias" it is all too easy for "our side" to say
> the other side is wrong (but we're "not so bad" even if we feel a little
> uneasy defending the very actions we condemn by others), while the other side
> goes on to say "our side" is wrong (while their own infractions are ignored)
>
> *This* is the true bias in our current nationalistic system of war and
> senseless murder.
> tim sevener whuxl!orb
From Alexis de Tocqueville, an interesting quote that might
might put this discussion into some sort of perspective:
"In order to enjoy the inestimable benefits
that the liberty of the press ensures, it
is necessary to submit to the inevitable
eviles (sic) that it creates."
The following people responded to my initial posting by e-mail.
carl @ ncr-tp on 3/31/85
naz @ hou5e on 3/30/85
tlh @ akgua on 3/28/85
In each case, I responded thanking the person for taking the time
to send a personal reply. In many cases, I addressed some of the
points they raised in their individual letters. In *every* case,
I asked for permission to use their comments in this "mass reply".
But I guess our mailer isn't working [*smile here* :-)] since none
of the respondents gave me permission to post thier private
correspondence to the net. I do appreciate their replies though.
>From wanttaja@ssc-vax came the following reply to my first (and only) posting:
> Have you watch the subsequent CBS coverage of this tragedy? CBS now says
> that the Israeli tank was "hundreds" of meters away (based upon reports
> of other reporters on the scene). The car the men were driving was clearly
> marked as a media representative, all right... a white card, 5 by 8 inches
> laying on the dash of the car. How readable would that have been, 500 feet
> away? Could it have been recognizable AS A MEDIA ID? IF it was even seen,
> could it have been mistaken for a road map (lying on the dash, after all),
> a handkerchief, a first aid kit?
Have you ever seen a broadcast quality portable television camera?
Do you realize how large most are? Quite frankly, I believe they are
easily recognized for what they are. The crew was out of the car with
the camera "shoulder mounted" when the first round was fired. In
private correspondence, someone mentioned that the camera could have
been a portable rocket launcher. I've checked with several friends
in the military and each has said it would be difficult to mistake a
portable television camera for a weapon, whether it is shoulder mounted,
being carried with a shoulder strap, or under the arm. These same
people tell me that nearly every tank in the world comes with
binoculars or some sort of long range viewing device.
> I have news for you...all nations do not *worship* media reps. Your
> implied comments about media privleges reminds me of hundreds of
> Americans in foreign jails, saying dazedly, "But I'm an
> American citizen!!!" It doesn't wash. "Freedom of the Press", as
> guarranteed by the Constitution, ends when you leave US territory.
Yes, as guaranteed by the constitution, it does end when you leave
United States territory. But I believe nearly every civilized nation
in the world has some sort of guarantee for it's press. If you'll
forgive me, another quote. This one from Albert Camus:
"A free press can of course be good or
bad, but, most certainly, without freedom
it will never be anything but bad."
> Sir, you scare me. Your deliberate attempts to sound "fair" as you
> slip in every dig at the Israelis is not an unknown tactic, but it
> frightens me to the bone to read it from media representative.
Sir, you offend me. I never intended to, quoting you...
sir, "slip in every dig". And frankly, I take offense when you so
much as accuse me of, quoting again, "attempting to sound 'fair'". I
believe journalism is a profession, and as a professional I have certain
ethical rules which I follow. One of those is to ALWAYS be fair with
my viewers, readers, peers, and employers. Sir, I don't pull punches.
> What are your newscasts like? Does your station use it's power to fairly
> report the news, ensure justice, and protect it's viewers, or is it
> twisted in a way to win viewers to your own private politics? Feel
> free to present you politics openly, identified as an editorial, but
> did your newscast on this event start... "Israeli storm troopers
> executed two unarmed CBS reporters today..." Great power is a massive
> responsibility, are you using it for good or evil?
>
> ***FLAME OFF***
I realize you are flaming. But this is net.politics. Would you like a
your very own personal copy of the script from the newscast on that day?
I'll be glad to retrieve it from our script files and mail you one.
What are my newscasts like? Well, should you ever travel to Austin,
you have a personal invitation to sit not only thru a newscast but
thru the entire 10 hour process that goes into the production of a news
broadcast. Once again sir, you have personally offended me with your
public charges that I may twist a days news to win viewers over to my
own personal politics.
I am aware of the power of the media and of the great responsibility
such power carries with it. And should we ever meet face to face,
I'll be quite happy to show you I *only* use such power with great
care and *only* for good!
> As a suggestion, you may want to remove the site identification from
> your path and .signature. Should your station ever be sued by someone,
> you postings could be used as evidence in court as offical statments,
> and I'm not sure that a standard disclaimer would help, as the courts
> are interested in the "mental processes" of reporters.
The lawyers I have spoken to, who by the way make it their business
to keep up with media law, tell me that the "mental process" rulings are
still in a limbo of sorts since they have yet to be backed up by several
"case specific" rulings. Thank you for your legal advice, but I'll keep
my site on my signature since I have nothing to hide.
> "Bias" is a word that applies
> here, but it applies to those who seize this opportunity to grind
> their axes without waiting for all the details to unfold, and to
> those who take single isolated incidents out of context, ignoring
> the long history of conflict that had led to the Israelis feeling
> they had to invade Lebanon in the first place.
>
> Mark Modig
> ihnp4!sftri!mom
As I pointed out earlier, I was reacting to the incident. It was a
gut reaction, much like you might feel if your next door neighbor were
gunned down by a mugger who jumped from a dimly lit alleyway late at
night.
In closing, another quote or two. First from one of this nations
founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson.
"...These principles [including freedom of the press] form the bright
constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age
of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our
heroes haave been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of
our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which
we try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in
moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps an to regain
the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."
And one last quote if I may, from Walter Lippman
"The theory of a free press is that the truth will emerge from free
reporting an free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and
instantly in any one account. A free press is not a privilege, but an organic
necessity in a great society."
If you're read this far, thank you.
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-sally!kvue!spangler Lance Spangler
Telco: 512-459-1433 (Pvt. biz line) Senior Producer
Telco: 512-346-4447 (Home / evenings) KVUE Television
Austin, Texas
((P. O. Box 9927))
zip------> 78766