±«Óătv

I'm afraid this rather misses the point. Are you saying that your correspondents were free to roam south lebanon, just so long as they didn't film live rocket fire? Isn't it more a case of self-censorship: that they knew that if they took footage of Hizballah soldiers or, for example, drove through the Dahiyah suburbs of Beirut without a Hizballah escort, then they would have their cameras taken away from them. Journalists seem to be great about avoiding censorship rules set by democratic governments that follow the rule of law, but rather less keen to do so when their lives may be threatened as a result. All that is fine - we don't expect ±«Óătv journalists to be harmed by Hizballah - but your attempt to pretend that there was *no* problem reporting on Hizballah is just plain wrong and no amount of ex-post justification can hide that.

I have to agree with Dave W because your reporting on the war in Lebanon appears to have been rather superficial. Your explanation rather than showing how censorship might have affected your correspondence only seems to excuse weak journalism.

I note that the Hezbollah representative claimed that by showing rocket firing sites, civilian lives would be endangered - proof from Hezbollah themselves that they were indeed using civilian populated areas as their bases, in an attempt to protect themselves from return fire and/or ensure that Israel were blamed for 'firing on civilians' when they returned fire.

this war was rather strange.no one knew the scale of hezbollah's army.very few hezbollah soldiers were shown if any,and only later it was reported that lebanon itself had an army.the clarity of the reports were inadequate to say the least.however one can say if the bbc was vague then itv's coverage was a complete and utter disaster.

Who do we believe? I found these two quotes after doing a cursory online search. A detailed search produces many more in the same vein.

From Nic Robertson, CNN: "When you hear their [Hezbollah’s] claims, they have to come with more than a grain of salt, that you have to put in some journalistic integrity. That you have to point out to the audience and let them know that this was a guided tour by Hezbollah press officials along with their security, that it was a very rushed affair."

From Elizabeth Palmer, CBS: "This morning, Hezbollah showed journalists around the ruins of its former stronghold, but Hezbollah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see."

How strange that Hezbollah should have such vastly differing standards for the ±«Óătv and the two services quoted.

The fact that Hezbollah claims showing rocket positions firing endangers human lives should be evidence enough for everyone that civilian casualties in Lebanon were the fault of Hezbollah by the fact they were firing rockets from civilian positions.

I also agree with the above comment posted here so it seems little point repeating that. One other note also is that this blog posting doesn't address the evidence that Hezbollah often "set up" scenes for photographers. Were any ±«Óătv reporters purposefully or inadvertently involved in reporting on a Hezbollah media setup? The most prominent example being the case where Hezbollah used the same woman in two seperate news reports to pretend she was distraught at her house being blown up when in fact she was just an actor pretending it was her house on two seperate occasions?

Actually I think it's a useful article. It simply shows that the ±«Óătv has a fairly adult attitude towards news-gathering and reporting in a situation which is potentially life-endangering for its reporters.
If the *actual* restrictions aren't actually there, why taint a report by prefacing it with a statement which suggests that the report was made under censored or restricted conditions?

Please be cautious while using terms like DEMOCRACY along with Israel. A nation which has no definite boundaries, still occupies sheba farms and Golan heights, continues to attack Gaza...etc. During war both the sides, for obvious reasons, would have restrictions for journalists, we should rather be able to analyse the situation more objectively.

there wasnt just one incident. On newsnight we saw footage of a journalist being roughed up for taking a photo in Tyre. The ±«Óătv reporter and camera man promptly left - but never told us why this other reporter was being roughed up. I presumed it was because he took a photo of something he shouldn't have.

Was this the case? And why dont you include this instance as one where, quite clearly the beeb didnt report the story because of threats?

Let's be honest shall we?

The censhorship enforced was by the ±«Óătv editorial team and there were only two questinos asked:

1. Will this make Hezbollah look like the oppressed freedom fighters forced from their innocent peaceful lives into a war they didn't want?

2. Will this make Israel look like a vicious ogre bent on the destruction of innocents?

So long as these criteria were in place the ±«Óătv was happy to publish.

If anything was likely to make the Hezbollah look like the murderous terrorists that they are or strengthen Israel's international standing it was excluded.

The ±«Óătv is a disgrace.

When asked not to show rocket launchers located next to civilian infrastructure have your correspondents pointed out to Herzbollah that placing them so close is a serious breach of Geneva convention? If (as I hope) they did, what was the answer?

The ±«Óătv considerably aids Israeli propaganda by refusing to indicate the extent to which Hezbollah rockets were targeted at military sites. Only Hezbollah rocket damage to civilian sites was pictured. In addition, the persistent reporting of the number of Hezbollah rockets fired was never contrasted with reporting on the number of artillery shells, rockets, and bombs loosed by Israel. Nor is there ever a count nor accounting for the persistent targeting of Gaza by artillery before the recent overt outbreak of war. There has been little attention to the use of cluster munitions by Israel (essentially guaranteed to kill numerous civilians during and even after the war) documented by HRW among others, nor has there been attention to the use of mines.

The fact that ±«Óătvs news reporting on the war is significantly biased in favour of Israel has becomes clear when one compares reporting and photos from the independent news agencies & human rights organisations with the ±«Óătv's.

In additon, the mindless reporting of Israel's own inflated account of the costs of the war to their own country is meant to indicate that Israel suffered grievous damage during the conflict they undertook in nearly equal portion with what Lebanon has undergone. What a travesty of "fair" reporting.

There was a time when I respected the ±«Óătv for its international reporting--I was foolish, as I now understand.

Although the aim of this article is to address charges of bias in regard to the ±«Óătv coverage of the conflict in Lebanon it raises further questions. A key issue of the conflict was the loss of civilian life and therefore the firing of rockets from areas that endangered civilians (according to Hezbollah) should have been reported. In doing otherwise the ±«Óătv knowingly obstructed truth, and has discredited its impartiality.

I'd like clarification of Fran's point that the media 'are not allowed to report any Hezbollah hits on military bases'.
Does this mean that it can only report on Hezbollah hits on civilians in Israel? If so, surely this is giving a drastically different and biased picture of what's actually going on. If Hezbollah were actually hitting Israeli military targets more than they were civilians in Haifa for example, then I think this is an incredibly important point.

Fran, you write: "the theory being that Hezbollah may be watching ±«Óătv World or equivalent, and using our information to help them calibrate their rockets launchers".

The words "the theory being" imply some scepticism on your part. Please excuse me if this is not the case.

In fact, knowledge of where their rockets were landing would be very useful to Hezbollah. For your information, the effects of V-1 and V-2 rocket attacks on Britain towards the end of WWII were much reduced by a disinformation campaign. If I recollect correctly, the British Government allowed the reporting of those rockets that landed past their presumed targets, but not those landing close to or short of the target. This led the Germans to think their rockets were overshooting, and to (mistakenly) adjust their calibration to compensate for this. Many rockets then fell short of their intended targets. As Hezbollah were using similar technology, they would indeed be very interested in knowing precisely where their rockets were landing.

Being a regular reader of Jonathan Cook's take on the issue, I can't help but being disappointed by your poor objectivity in the conflict at hand.
First, you never mentionned the censorship rules when reporting Israeli civilians were hit by Hezbollah and the targets have been military facilities adjacent to their community.
It is clear that submitting a piece to the Israeli censor would not be feasible, as by the time it comes back, it wouldn't be news anymore. In that sense, you have no choice but to stick to what the Israelis want you to report. It's called the news business for a reason, and no amount of justification can conceal that.

"We were visited by Hezbollah representatives and told that by showing the exact location of firing we were endangering civilian lives, and that our equipment would be confiscated"

Hezbollah are using civilians as cover in their attacks and the ±«Óătv are accused of putting civilian lives at risk by filming it.
Frankly, it should be filmed and broadcast. It's a big deal and why aren't people, including the ±«Óătv, making a huge fuss about it? Or has the ±«Óătv lost any sense of morality in trying to be "even handed" in its reporting.
"Even handed" can be interpreted as:
1) it's good to criticize the Israelis when civilians are hurt or killed as a result of Israeli military attacks on Hezbollah locations, and
2) it's bad to criticize Hezbollah and hold them to account over using civilian shields for launching rocket attacks on Israel.
If ±«Óătv reporting is restricted then I'd say it is self imposed because of the dangers. Of couse it's dangerous, it's a war zone. But if you aren't going to report what's going on then why bother being there?

THIS IS THE POINT.
YOU RELATE TO HIZBOOLA AS A LEGITIMATE GOVERMENT IN THE SOUTH.
WELL.... THIS IS YOUR MISTAKE.
THIS CONFLICT IS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND LEBANON NO METER HAW YOU LOOK AT THIS.
EVEN LEBANON RELISE THAT AND NOW COOPERATE BY FINELY SENDING THERE TROOPS TO THE SOUTH.

One can understand that reporters in war zones operate under restrictions, and can not recount all that they see or do. It is harder to understand why the ±«Óătv reports from Lebanon are partial and inaccurate - the example or Orla Guerin's report from Bint Jbeil (quoted above) is but one example.

The ±«Óătv has sadly lost its reputation for fair and unbiased reporting, at least as far as the Middle East is concerned. Recent criticism in the mainstream Canadian press has been damning.

Come on Fran, I know that when younger you dreamed of setting the world to rights and helping the oppressed.

Falling down the road of bad journalism and becoming a propogandist won't help you get there you know.

how come we saw hardly any pictures of hizbollah fighters during the conflict ?

were they not interesting to film ? were you allowed to film them carrying guns, or even firing rockets , without giving away their location ?

how come the bbc (on tv, on the internet) never gave numbers of hizbullah casualties ?

please do not answer , "we were not given those numbers" as you were quite happy to quote unconfirmed numbers from 'reliable sources' as to the number of dead at kana ("60 plus dozens more in the rubble", later revised down to 28) and houla (40 revised to 1)

your choice of statistics and footage once again shows your deep anti-israel bias

In response to Paul and Peter about the censorship of Hezbollah targeting Israeli military bases; I agree that release of this information would be preferable for complete objectivity. However, I can understand the reasons for the IDFs reluctance. Whatever the case, this does not legitimise downtown Haifa as a target for Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah were firing indiscriminately into Israeli civilian areas from, by their admission, civilian areas in south Lebanon.

It is always easy to be an armchair critic. I do not know what the ±«Óătv coverage was like, but it must have been better than the blatant pro-israel propaganda on certain French stations. The number of times that long distance shots of bombing in Lebanon, were followed by shots of "suffering" Israelis in empty, flag bestrewn camps, gave a totally misleading impression. Their proximity as shown on TV, in the name of "fairness", minimised the impact of the war. It helped the US and Israel stop any effective UN move to end the war quickly as it was simply a manipulative technique. More honesty here would have enabled an anti-war sentiment to manifest itself earlier

The Israeli PR network was extremely efficient. More so in the US than europe, but it wasn't from a lack of trying on their part. The Herzbollah used their own local station. But did anyone see photos taken by them?

I hope that the ±«Óătv did better this time, rather than the "embedded" coverage in Iraq, where the deaths of 150-250000 civilians were hidden from the public.

However, no reporter is going to sit under an incoming 5 ton bunker busting bomb for a good shot, and you can't expect them to.

The ±«Óătv claim that they were left alone by Hizbollah entirely contradicts the full acounts by high-profile CNN reporters Anderson Cooper and Nic Robertson, about how heavily Hizbollah controlled their reporting
(see
Additionally, Time magazine stringer Christopher Allbritton, wrote on his blog “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.”

Your correspondent writes:

“There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such - there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say, indeed very little interaction of any sort.”

I suggest that you take Mr Henry Wood’s criticism (above) to heart.

Having been alerted to the reports of strict Hezbollah censorship and posing from various other news agencies, this editorial remains journalistically inappropriate. Not addressing that discrepancy shows a lack of commitment on the ±«Óătv’s part to ensuring the neutrality of reporting. When you stand by your journalist’s statement without equivocation, you are implicitly saying CBS and CNN and footage of staged ambulance runs etc. are all lying. That’s a very serious allegation, ±«Óătv.

So by signing on to the form given by Israelis that you would not report Hezbollah hits on military bases, ±«Óătv reporters actually helped ensure that Hezbollah was cast as the villian targeting innocent Israeli civilians, who, by the way, were much better protected in their bunkers than the helpless Lebanese civilians being hit by Israel.
And if, as you say, you were able to collect all the information from other sources, and your channel is based in the UK, why did'nt you report Hezbollah hits on Israeli military bases, so that the impression desired by the Israelis could be negated. Good service to Israeli propaganda!

I deeply deplore the death of civilians. I am very upset about a military force which does not make utmost effort to avoid those.

In fact I am also upset by the death of people who are drawn into combat from peaceful pursuits, even if they fall with weapon in hand.

But how much can we trust ±«Óătv's journalistic professionalism and integrity? Shall we expect it to offer an explanation of the miracle of Qana. We are used to seeing reports of casualties in disasters climb up, as more are discovered. But is Qana, as previously in Jenin, with no explanation the numbers -horrendous as they are- go down, with no explanation:

±«Óătv, 31 July 2006: "Protests have flared across the Muslim world against Israel's air strike on Qana, Lebanon, which killed at least 54 people - including many children."

±«Óătv, 18 August 2006:
"In Qana village, where 28 people were killed in an Israeli air strike, relatives were gathering for a mass funeral."

Any comment on the discrepancy in these reports?

The Hezbollah representatives stated to the reporters "... that by showing the exact location of firing (Katusha rockets) we were endangering civilian lives...” This is a damning statement.

Perhaps if rockets and Hezbollah didn't operate from civilian areas this wouldn't be a factor.

To David #1

"they knew that if they took footage of Hizballah soldiers or, for example, drove through the Dahiyah suburbs of Beirut without a Hizballah escort, then they would have their cameras taken away from them.
...
seem to be great about avoiding censorship rules set by democratic governments that follow the rule of law, but rather less keen to do so when their lives may be threatened as a result."

I fail to see how taking someone's camera away could be a threat to their lives.

To Peter McGuillycuddy #15

Israel's military infrastructure is heavily integrated with its civillian population centres. For example, there is a large military training grounds in Haifa.

You would expect the media to cover this fact especially after Israeli politicians and generals were pointing out that Hezbollah's military infrastructure are integrated in souther Lebanese cities (which makes total sense since Hezbollah is a militia and not a regular army)

Is the ±«Óătv biased?

In one of his last speaches, Nasserallah asked the Muslims living in Haifa (in northern Israel) to leave their town, which he promised to hit heavily. (as he later did).

In the CNN, this part of the speech was in the headline.

In the ±«Óătv site, there was a detailed description of the speech with all its main points (making Lebanon a graveyard to Zionist forces etc.). But the part about calling the Muslims to flee was not reported.

I made a complaint to the ±«Óătv about that, they didn't reply.

Could you clarify the way Israeli military censorship works, using an example from London geography?

If someone were launching Hezbollah-style rocket attacks on Hyde Park Barracks, and some hit their target, killing and injuring soldiers, while others fell in Hyde Park and Knightsbridge, killing and injuring civilians, what would you be able to report under the Israeli rules? The civilian casualties in this residential and shopping area, certainly, but what about the proximity of the barracks and the fact that it was the target? If you didn't mention it, the report would, to my mind, give a very misleading impression.

Several years ago, Israel threatened the ±«Óătv with expulsion from the country if you didn't abide by the rules of the military censors.

Every story about the occupations of Palestine and Lebanon have to go through them. If not, they kick you out.

The ±«Óătv chose to cooperate with these draconian rules. As a result, your reporting has become as bad as CNN or Sky News.

Most of us go to blogs and internet sites to read of the horrors of Israeli occupation, because these sites have not been co-opted by censors from a country that is guilty of war crimes... Israel

±«Óătv reporting is quite flawed and biased

Not once did I see a ±«Óătv reporter indicate that they were restricted in filming by Hezbollah and that they were constantly being escorted by them, these escort you can clearly see in on the fringes of much of their video.

Why is it that other news agencies have reported the censorship and other reporters have blogged about threats against themselves for not obeying Hezbollah. I guess ±«Óătv wants to enjoy it’s “favoured status” and won’t do anything to annoy their hosts. I noticed that a number of news reports from Israel indicated what restriction were in place during the report.
As for aiding either side, Israel had control of the air and can photograph at will, so any ground video done by news crews is of only minor value. However Hezbollah has very limited ability to plot targets in Israel and must use any information they could get to adjust their aim, which is likely based on mathematical calculations. Likely their biggest source of targeting data is Google Earth coupled with the spies they have sent in previously.

As for the previous poster babbling about 5 ton bombs, try 500lb bombs, you are thinking of the bunker busters dropped by the British on occupied France, Holland and Germany in WWII.

±«Óătv has begun the long swirl around the credibility drain and have absolutely no trust in the quality of their reporting any longer. They can’t even mount a credible defense and the blogs will rip apart their pathetic attempts to manipulate the news. I am not surprised, it seems the UK society as a whole is suffering a meltdown.

To Fran Unsworth,

Have you read the above comments? If so do you not consider it necessary to reflect on the yawning chasm between your and Jim Muir's perception of the ±«Óătv's reporting on this war and the perception of most of those who have taken the trouble to write in?

If your reporters were really not restricted by Hezbollah, while those from other media were, this is surely indicative of the ±«Óătv's relationship of mutual trust with a terrorist group driven by religious mania and committed to the destruction of Israel.

Don't you find that in the least disturbing?

On TV1 Belgian television we have a real good reporter who went to Libanion itself. From the first days on he said it was of the worst civilian destructions he has ever seen.

Why didn't we see it on other television stations as well?

Or is your job a abstract of articles you recieved from who knows who?

To David #34

"In one of his last speaches, Nasserallah asked the Muslims living in Haifa (in northern Israel) to leave their town, which he promised to hit heavily.

...

In the ±«Óătv site, there was a detailed description of the speech with all its main points (making Lebanon a graveyard to Zionist forces etc.). But the part about calling the Muslims to flee was not reported."

This was reported by the ±«Óătv. That is where I found out about it.

Ahhhh, the from the WUJS has returned to wreck havoc on all balanced reporting on the Middle East. These professional agitators actually want us to believe that CNN and FOX are "fair and balanced" and that any source that deviates from their scripted party line needs to be browbeaten and squelched. Well, pay no heed. Their swarming tactics may make it appear that they represent the majority opinion when, in fact, they represent only a tiny, but vocal and organized, minority.

This post paints Israeli censorship & Hezbollah censorship as being "roughly the same". This is complete & utter garbage & amounts to a blatant lie.

±«Óătv, you're full of it & we all know it.

To Poyan #40:

You're both right. The report 'Defiant Nasrallah rallies support' at
doesn't include the warning.

However, it links to 'Text: Hezbollah leader defiant'
which does.

Julian wrote: Ahhhh, the from the WUJS has returned to wreck havoc on all balanced reporting on the Middle East.

Thank you for that very interesting link, as far back as 28th July, and in a Murdoch paper too. I wonder if Fox News have reported on that band of media warriors?

It was obvious, here on the ±«Óătv Editors Blog and elsewhere that an organised mass response was frequently in action. Often it was totally ill-judged and inappropriate, as when they voted on the quality of an article on a small-town American newspaper's website written by a local woman married to a Lebanese man describing how it felt to be unable to visit their family there and how afraid they were. Despite being heartfelt and well written it was voted down by hundreds. I have referred to such posters as "spinning". Some may just have been foolish and over-enthusiastic students, but it is clear they are fed lines of "reasoning" by professionals. The frequently repeated call to report on Darfur instead of Lebanon being an example; hypocritical in the extreme whilst Israel's actions were paralysing the UN and preoccupying the aid agencies. The new one here that bodies of women and children were transported to sites of bombings for propaganda purposes - which would be offensive anyhwere, but especially so in middle-eastern cultures where very rapid burial is the reuired by religion - bears the mark of professionals.

I think it still is in action, judging from the wildly different number of responses to topics where Israel is mentioned. This might reflect the fact that some in Israel (such as the leader of the parliamentary opposition) have said that this ceasefire is merely a lull in the military action and that the "job" is uncompleted.

Sites like the ±«Óătv's, where blogs and forums are seemingly regarded as places for feedback, need to take great care to weigh the validity of the comments, not the numbers, in such circumstances. And should perhaps indeed comment on where such offensive action seems to be used. The monitoring software available to site owners would often provide the evidence necessary.

The use of such "arms-length" propagandists by official agencies would be something that reputaable news organisations would presumably wish to clarify and expose.

I always find it interesting to see journalist protesting their innocence of any bias in reporting about anything regarding Israel. For instance the recent and, because of the wide spread use, apparently scripted reference to the “Disproportional Force” that every main stream news agency was so incensed about. To the lopsided and continual mantra about the “Right of Return” that is only mentioned regarding a group that is now a 60 year old and called the “Refugees”. Even though the Jews pleaded for the all the Arabs that were in the area that was to become Israel to stay and help form a nation, but the Arab Leaders called upon to leave because they were going to destroy the starting nation. And I never hear about the almost equal number of Jews that were force to leave their homes in the Arab countries and came penniless to Israel and have since created so much.
It seems to me that maybe the bias that most of the posters see in your reporting and have mentioned so far is more a case of institutional laziness to study history. Possibly a search of Arab opinion pieces in Egypt from the 50’s would show that at least back then the blame was directed at the Arab leaders, who caused the problem, rather than after the Palestinian’s excellent propaganda campaign had taken root.

Julian writes, "Ahhhh, the Brigade of 5000 from the WUJS has returned to wreck havoc on all balanced reporting on the Middle East."

Sorry to disappoint you Julian but I'm way past student age and though Jewish I'm not party to any "swarming tactics." In fact, I don't know any of the other contributors here.

Open your eyes and you'll notice that it's not only Jews who are appalled by ±«Óătv "coverage" of the war in Lebanon.

It took the ±«Óătv a week before it woke up to the realisation that it would completely lose credibility if it made no mention at all of Hezbollah casualties but kept on telling us about "civilian" casualties, once via the triumphant headline "Israel kills Lebanese Civilians" - which was quickly and stealthily edited to something more moderate. The ±«Óătv then made a real effort - on the World Service - to question Hezbollah about its death toll, got the ridiculous answer of "about 14" and subsequently made little or no further effort to investigate the issue.

Anyone who has been half awake during this conflict knows that it is Hezbollah policy to censor information on the deaths in its ranks. I didn't hear the ±«Óătv mention that policy or query it.

Other sources, including the IDF - who would be in the best position to know - put the death toll at 500-600.

That would indicate that Hezbollah fatalities represent about half of all fatalities in the conflict. Not a bad result at all for the IDF when one considers the despicable Hezbollah tactic of using civilians as human shields.

That's a war crime. But Jeremy Bowen, ±«Óătv Middle East Editor, was pointing the "war crime" finger exclusively at Israel only a few days into the conflict.

±«Óătv, you once stood for principles of fairness and accuracy in reporting but you are steadily becoming indistinguishable from the average state-controlled media in an Arab dictatorship. It's becoming almost unbearable to watch your decline.

I see I've come a bit late to this discussion. Neverthless I think that the addition of five extra words in her last paragraph is required to make an honest woman of Fran Unsworth:

'..... On the Israeli side, we agreed to refer to the censorship rules when it prevented us from reporting anything THAT WE CHOSE TO REPORT.' In practice, it never did, so we did not see the need to mention it.'
Quite.

In discussions of supposed ±«Óătv bias in reporting the Middle East, we might, I think, do well to remember the words of Walter Bagehot, who, of course, founded The Economist:

'The purchaser [of a newspaper] desires an article which he can appreciate at sight; which he can lay down and say, "An excellent article, very excellent; exactly my own sentiments"'.

still no reply re Orla Guerin vs Alex Thomson reporting from Bint Jbeil...

Wonder why? Actually, I would really like a reply to this.

The host's post (number 10) links to another article that supposedly addresses th issue of the ±«Óătv's use of faked photos. However this is a cop-out equal to the main article here. It even uses the ridiculous "one man’s colour balancing is another's grounds for dismissal" to try and compare the widespread faking of photographs (I know of at least 6 series that were in some way compromised) to the colour changes on a single image that did nothing to change it's meaning.

The so-called "fauxtography" issue is important. The ±«Óătv is caught up in it, having used staged or altered images. They have yet to address it!

The ±«Óătv is a disgrace, and it has for years covered the middle-east in a partial way that has gone as far as out-and-out lies.

"In the context of the latest war....we are not allowed to report any Hezbollah hits on military bases" writes Fran. In reality, the ±«Óătv reported from the scene on the rocket strike at the base outside Kiryat Shmona, where 11 soldiers were killed.

There is conclusive evidence of Hezbollah restrictions, and the ±«Óătv shouldn't try to defend the indefensible. What is far more interesting is the ±«Óătv's self-imposed restrictions which, through disinformation, assist the terrorist cause.

Two tactics are frequently encountered in ±«Óătv reporting in this arena. First, let a disproved anti-Israel story run until it is no longer news, e.g. Qana and leading with Annan's angry condemnation of the destruction of a UNIFIL base, ignoring the already well-known fact that Hezbollah were using these bases to shield themselves and all but ignoring the email sent by one of the casualties which substantiated the Israeli case. Similarly, unqualified acceptance of one side of the story / ignoring the strategic context, for instance repeated use of Lebanese government casuallty figures to make a "disproportionate response" case and heap moral opprobrium on the IAF, when these figures included both dead terrorists (as civilians) and their human shields; also, ignoring the strategic importance of the specific buildings in South Beirut targeted by the IAF and ignoring the fact that many areas of the city were uuntouched; charging the IAF, in the closing hours before the ceasefire, of attacking Christian "areas" of Beirut, whereas the reality was that specific roads which Hezbollah were now using to bring up munitions had been targeted.

Was any reporting from the Israeli side similarly misleading? No.

The second tactic was to let images tell a misleading story. For instance, those accompanying Guerin's visit to Bint Jbeil and those of Robin Denselow's round-up piece just ahead of the ceasefire, which included "green helmet" footage, days after this Hezbollah ploy had been outed.

Were any images from the Israeli side similarly misleading? No.

Here's a challenge for the ±«Óătv which is, certainly, technically feasible - cross border link-ups were, occasionally used. For all stories, other than pure human interest, confine yourselves to those on which you can report from and receive comment from both sides at the same time. In an open society, such as Israel's, people will always be ready to contribute constructively. With Hezbollah....well, let the audience judge.

"An internal Lebanese army statement, circulated among forces in the past week, has called for troops to stand "alongside your resistance and your people who astonished the world with its steadfastness and destroyed the prestige of the so-called invincible army after it was defeated".

The circular has alarmed ministers in the Lebanese cabinet who had been calling for the army to disarm Hizbullah.

It will also fuel the concerns of Israel, the US and the UN security council that the Lebanese army is incapable of securing the south of the country, adding increased urgency to the calls for a multinational force to be swiftly deployed."
THE GUARDIAN

WHY WE DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF NEWS IN THE ±«Óătv?

While I am extremely critical of ±«Óătv reporting, let it be said that

#34 is wrong. The ±«Óătv did report on the message to the Haifa Arabs -- but it DID do so deep in the article rather than calling out this shocking historical irony in the headline:

Colin Parkinson wrote: Hezbollah has very limited ability to plot targets in Israel and must use any information they could get to adjust their aim, which is likely based on mathematical calculations. Likely their biggest source of targeting data is Google Earth...

Actually, when I went looking at Google Earth during the fighting in order to try to understand where some of the Lebanese towns and villages were I found there was nothing there more detailed than a view of Lebanon and Israel together. "No Data at this Magnification" on both maps and satellite view, of both countries, for anything closer. It's all back up now.

±«Óătv editors might like to slightly reconsider the level of their writing here. Many of the issues that arise in subsequent comments might be more constructive if the more senior editors were to pitch their contributions more at the level they might use in conferences of their peers, rather than to groups of teenagers.

This posting on reporting restrictions is a case in point. whilst what was written is no doubt true, it ignores just so much that journalists have had to be aware of for, well, more than a century. Since at least the Crimean War really.

Let me just take the reporting where Hisbullah chaperones were provided. comments here have suggested that the acceptance of the "facility" meant that reporting was affected. But the editor denies that. Says there was no actual problem and they worked out what they would say if there had been. Fine. But that leaves critics asking if the protections and guided tours were not inevitably biasing?

Well, in much less dangerous circumstances, ethical journalists do usually declare when facilities have been provided, and accepted, without charge, or by organisations mentioned in the resulting work. Travel pieces for example. The ultra ethical will insist on paying for everything to ensure independence. Now, whereas in Iraq there has been some major efforts, by a proportion of journalists to be quite independent - for which some paid with their lives - in Lebanon things have been murkier. Let's assume favours and facilities had to be cadged wherever they could and journalistic ethics were relied upon to distance the reports from the favours. It's a big assumption, but may be generally fair. However there was very little sign of desire to be open about the favours. Except, sometimes in mentioning Hisbullah, or more obliquely, in capturing chaperones in frame.

So let's think about Hisbullah tours. Was it in the interest of viewers that ±«Óătv crews had their guidance and protection? Hisbullah would have wished for the worst damage to be seen, and viewers would have wished that too. No point in a reporter showing miles of countryside unaffected if somewhere significant has been bombed back to the middle-ages (to borrow a favourite US neocon ideal). If it had just been a Hisbullah building that would have been a different matter, but it was obviously much more general (and satellite pictures now make that clear to everyone). so being guided by people who knew where the damage had been done, and how to get there, despite the destroyed roads, was of benefit to the viewers.

What about the "protection", or perhaps armed intimidation whilst filming? After all, what isn't shot cannot be shown. Did the Hisbullah men intimidate the reporters? Apart from in respect of showing launch sites? Well, the evidence seems to be that several film crews would go along together on such tours and we seem never to have had any report of intimidation. Would that not have been revealed by now, with reporters, in some cases returned home?

So I would conclude that the Hisbullah tours were to the benefit of the viewer, of journalism. But things were more complicated than the Blog posting made it seem.

I try to ignore one-sided sections and try to read between the lines, - though I feel good when I don't have to:) ±«Óătv is mostly the former two.

If you write downtown Haifa was hit, - you may want to tell that no military base there. Someone might think there is.

If you write ~1000 civilians were left dead in Lebanon, - you may want to tell the reader if militants count civilians as well. I assume that militants are included in the final loss of life.

If you write that Israel was making plans to break down a militia in Southern Lebanon and don't write that the militia was showering North Israel since decads: this sounds one-sided.

The extent of picture processing that you accept is entirely your decision. But tell us how far you went in the case of a particular pic. The arranged pics would be practical to be named as arranged ones. The legend to a pic should be about the pic, do not make up stories, please.

Providing the background info:
1 One of the main player of this war is a militia that untill now did not seem to acknowledge the authority of the Lebanese gov. I assume that the Lebanese gov doesn't support it either. If you do backround wouldn't you uncover where the support of this militia comes from. Since war is a very heavy issue, I would expect the source of support to be mentioned every time you talk about them. It is more relevant to the war events then the charity network of the same militia before the war.
2 It is kinda arbitrary how far you go back in history when you decide who is the intruder. You see Islam wasn't invented when Jews were already roaming around in the region. In fact, ±«Óătv should be more narrative then sentencing.

Jim Muir writes of Hezbollah

"there have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such - there's been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say, indeed very little interaction of any sort."

Funny how other news agencies covering the Israel/Hezbollah war don't agree with Muir.

For instance Anderson Cooper of CNN avers that reporters were taken to see staged events by Hezbollah, such as the 'departure' of ambulances to a fictional 'emergency'.CNN's Robin Oakley chaired a discussion yesterday which included Brent Sadler, who stated that he and other reporters were heavily dependent on what their Arab fixers chose to show them, and were aware all the time that they were being carefully shown only what Hezbollah wanted them to see.

Another guest on the programme, from the American University in Cairo, criticised news agencies for failing to alert their viewers that reporters were working under war time restrictions, so viewers would be aware of receiving only part of the story.

Spokesmen from CBS have make similar comments.

So how come the ±«Óătv is the only organisation not to experience these widely reported restrictions.

Is Muir so naive that he can't see a restriction when it's before him?

Or is Hezbollah so confident of a sympathetic angle from the ±«Óătv that it allows ±«Óătv reporters a freedom denied to more objective outlets?

I think we should be told.

Accounts from other reporting agencys or individual reporters differ widely. I question why that is? one suggestion is that access to sites of variable interpritation were only given to nore "controllable" reporters. But in some cases the wrong people were there at the wrong time for the Propagandists.

I guess the bias in "Western media" is not really at question. We have speach to discuss and disect news as it comes in and after. But the question I have is news that the ±«Óătv and AP/AFP pass on to Arabian TV / Radio with out the same level of concern for media accounability.

How on earth is:

"There have basically been no restrictions on reporting as such - there’s been no pressure in any direction with regard to anything we actually say, indeed very little interaction of any sort."

Consistent with:

"We were visited by Hezbollah representatives and told that by showing the exact location of firing we were endangering civilian lives, and that our equipment would be confiscated."

A rather large credibility gap I think!

Why didn't you even connect the dots? If "showing the exact location of firing we were endangering civilian lives" then presumbly Hezbollah rockets were in civilian areas. If Israel was intent on neturalising the threat is it little wonder that there were some civilian casualaties.

Now, Hezbollah are (a) a terrorist organisation; (b) the protagonists in this conflict; (c) using civilian shields; (d) suppose to disarm under UN resolutions.

Yet the ±«Óătv seems to think Hezbollah has some moral equivilence with Israel, a democratic nation state.

FranW wrote: So how come the ±«Óătv is the only organisation not to experience these widely reported restrictions.

One reason might be that the ±«Óătv was the only such broadcaster to have its own bureau in Lebanon before the bombing started. A fortuitous decision based on Lebanon's wonderful recovery to that time, and to be seen alongside their having a reporter based in Gaza, in addition to several staff in Israel, rather than forewarning of the horrors.

Ummm, I just thought, should we class all those locations as being in Israel? The country not having set the limits of its borders, clearly acting on the belief it has the right to fly over the whole, and arrest anyone anywhere there? I'm thinking we should be working on the basis of one side having in mind Old Testament, Kingdom of David borders.

Max wrote: In reality, the ±«Óătv reported from the scene on the rocket strike at the base outside Kiryat Shmona, where 11 soldiers were killed.

A location said to be the carpark of a tourist facility where reservists had been given food, showers and a place to lay their sleeping bags. So was everywhere a member of the Israeli military was to be found a military facility, reporting of damage to which was banned?

Given that all adult citizens (as opposed, of course to the denied citizenship residents of long controlled conquered territories) are either doing military service or in the reserve (unless excused on religious grounds) that would really cover just about everywhere with a human presence.

To put ±«Óătv and MSM reporting on the the middle east on a personal level may I say this to the ±«Óătv.

The ±«Óătv I think likes to consider itself a non-racist institution. I still think the ±«Óătv would passionately argue it is in no way whatsoever anti-semitic.

So why do I feel as paranoid as I do, as it is not a feeling I usually have a problem with? It may be because I have read to many history books, studied and understood them far to well? It may be just that I knew to many people with long badly tatooed numbers on their fore arms, when I was growing up?

I am a part Jewish ( certainly Jewish enough to be qualified for the Nazi shower treatment )small busines man, married to a Hindu. The ±«Óătv is helping to make me as genuinely concerned as I ever thought I could be of a 21st centuary Jewish pogram, happening in Britain, in my lifetime.

If this does happen, homosexuals feminists the disabled, communists and libertarians among many others, WILL be next on the list? I think an increasing amount of the above people are starting to wake up to this possible but still fairly unlikely future outcome.

However as some still seem to remain in a form of optimistic head in the sand, state of denile, you have now been warned.

Unfortuately not by the ±«Óătv YET. This of cause, as we all should know, was the same thing the ±«Óătv was doing in the late 1930s. Winston Churchill was unofficialy banned from the ±«Óătv and his published opinions marginalised.

I live near Seattle, am a former journalist/foreign correspondent. I watch no American network news shows; only the ±«Óătv from PBS.Org. It's by far the most balanced coverage available in the English language in the US.

On the Middle East, for print journalism, I'll take Robert Fisk as head and shoulders above everyone else.