Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
I am sorry Rouge but you are taking his words and twisting them. Or at least the bit I provided.
He wasn't refering to their coverage in Israel. He was refering to their coverage in Lebanon when he said, "they didn't cover it." Where were the pictures of the missiles being fired? The unexceptable Hezbollah versions? You don't need to be beside them with today's technology.
Now certainly secracy played a part but then reporters were able to catch up with Israeli commandos on lamas inside Lebanon....why couldn't one reporter catch a barrage or 5 of missiles?
As for the daily count and damage coverage in Israel.....did you ever see the Israelis parade their dead in front of a camera like Mr. Green Helmet? You know bring the bodies back out of a ambulance for a better pose.
It wasn't like they were informing us that they had Hezbollah minders and therefore were unable to present anything that wasn't approved by Hezbollahs media relations. Upon pain of death.
|
Though hezbollah was certainly engaging in well orchestrated propaganda events, I think an easy answer is available as to why there wasn't more media attention on the lebanese side. It's much easier to report the news when you're not in any real danger. Because of the disproportionality of the Israeli air attack, being inside these urban areas was unsafe for journalists, while journalists 'embedded' in Israeli tank units inside northern Israel for example, were at considerably risk, and were to a point, 'safe'.