[Update: "Our support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process" apparently means one-sided bipartisan messages that are almost pornographic in scope. Hell. Hey, it's only boilerplate. It's like an invocation by a bigot. Don't pay attention to it. I'm sorta a writer, so that's a bit hard sometimes, but hey, c'est la vie. It isn't like we are paying and arming one ... oh wait. Sorry. It is left to the likes of "J Street" and other people whose actions who suggest they actually have an idea in hell what caring about even the Israeli side really means to provide a different view. Or, those lame sorts like the UN or Red Cross.]
In Today's Papers:
In an interesting side-by-side comparison, the LAT fronts a look at the differences in how media in Israel and the Arab world are covering the conflict in Gaza. On television, "the war being viewed by Israelis is a sterile affair," since media, for the most part, avoid showing gory images of death and destruction inside Gaza. When casualties are mentioned, they're usually discussed in the context of how it will affect world opinion. There's an intent focus on the Israeli soldiers and their families as well as "round-the-clock coverage of the Israeli south." In the Arab world, it's completely different, and media outlets are eager to portray Palestinians "as courageous victims against a bloodthirsty aggressor." There is a seemingly endless stream of pictures of the dead and injured. "It is the cinema verite of the underdog," writes the LAT, "an erratic landscape of martyrs and heroes and boys hurling white rocks at the enemy invader."
The fact that Israel, contra to a ruling of its own Supreme Court, has kept journalists from Gaza helps some here. All the same, this is generally business as usual, and fairly understandable. It is not really a good way to bring us the "news," which involves both sides. This includes some resources, such as Democracy Now!, that decide to balance the absence of certain views and material from the proverbial MSM by they themselves taking a certain p.o.v., being one-sided in a different way in the process. A mixed bag at best.*
A WP story referencing a Red Cross report (see TP link) suggests that we can get a sense of things by our media reports, if we read with a careful eye. The article notes:
Ahmed Youssef, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said the group would not stop firing rockets into southern Israel until the Israeli military withdrew from the Palestinian territory and ended the economic blockade, which has left Gaza's 1.5 million people dependent on smugglers and relief organizations for their basic needs. About 25 rockets landed in southern Israel on Wednesday, wounding two people, the Israeli military said.
You have numerous rockets, and two people are wounded. This does not justify them, but is telling all the same. Contra:
Gazan medical officials said the pause in fighting led to a drop in casualties compared with other days since Israel launched its ground offensive Saturday. Twenty-nine Palestinians were reported killed Wednesday, bringing the toll to more than 680 since the fighting began, Palestinian health officials said. U.N. officials estimate that about one-third of those killed have been women and children, including three youngsters killed Wednesday when a shell struck a car.
Seven Israeli soldiers and three civilians have died in the conflict. Four of the soldiers were killed by errant shells fired by Israeli forces.
Blogs and others who criticize the MSM often cite it to promote an alternate view -- how a story is told is very important, even if certain details are provided along the way.
---
* But, the alternative might deprive us of the powerful discussion of the harm to Gaza Strip provided by an analyst on the show Grit TV, a progressive news analysis show hosted by Laura Flanders. The analyst said very little about the Israeli victims, but did note the current policy (unfortunately in her eyes) only helps the Hamas side.
Also on the show broadcast yesterday, a progressive view of what needs to be done in the economic stimulus plan, including focus on the majority of workers, not just the privileged such as funding a few banks. Success is the result of many, not a few. It is akin to someone I know who was annoyed at being taxed by the city, even though he did not live here. But, he worked here. Thus, its well being is clearly in his interest.