Monday, June 04, 2018

Greenslade's Slide into Non-Truth

In an opinion piece criticizing a proposed legislative move regarding media coverage, Roy Greenslade opens so:

On the day the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers opened fire on unarmed Palestinian protesters who gathered at the border fence on the Gaza Strip.

Sorry. That requires a rewrite to reflect “the truth” as promulgated by the Israeli government.

On the day the US moved its embassy to Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers opened fire to prevent an invasion of their country by Arabs living in the Gaza Strip.

This is a typical instance of the divergence in reporting that has become a hallmark of recording the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

Whatever the merits of the law or those of Greenslade's critique, that example is exactly what causes legislators to lose a bit of calmness.

His mocking of what was indeed the reality, attempts by terrorists, using the cover of demonstrators who were not all peaceful: trying to rip the fence down so they could invade, and several, symbolically, did do that, not to mention infiltrations and the terror tunnels,; flying incendiary kites over to burn down fields; shooting and planting of IDEs; burning of tires to pollute the atmosphere and environment; exploit civilians as human shields; and more.

If the press did its job professionally, neutrally and ethically, we would not be witnessing such initiatives.

^

3 comments:

Roy Greenslade said...

Wrong. The first should be read as a pro-Palestinian sentence and the second as a pro-Israeli sentence. I did not take sides. I did not choose between the "truth" of either. I did not mock. Your response proves my point about the impossibility of writing even one sentence which doesn't arouse antagonism!

Joe in Australia said...

Roy, I appreciate you engaging with your readers. I disagree with you, but I'm very glad that you're responding.

I don't think that the question of being "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israeli" ought to have anything to do with what gets published, although it obviously does.I presume Yisrael Medad objects to the framing, which implies it's a) what the Israeli government has actually said; and b) that of course the Israeli government would be lying.

My own criticism of your article is that cameras and videos are notoriously used in the service of propaganda and always have been; if anything, they're more deceptive because more effective than the written word. Like you, I don't think video reports should be banned, mind.

YMedad said...

You really did not take sides?

Not even by using "promulgated" which, I would maintain, is pejorative?

Your response proves my point about the impossibility of you writing even one sentence which doesn't arouse antagonism!