News or propaganda?

The limitations of time make it ~~nearly~~ impossible to provide nuance or context via five or ten minute television news clips. Nevertheless, we watch because we want, we need, we are addicted to instant news. Where did the latest missile fall? How many were killed? How bad is the damage? Those are the questions television news broadcasts can answer. Who, what, where and when are easy – or they should be, but still the reporters do manage (frequently) to get things wrong, mostly because they are crippled by ignorance and/or do not have time to fact check before deadline. But “why” is impossible. For “why,” you need a book. Several books, in fact. And you'll still end up with a subjective point of view, because the Middle East is like a Rorschach inkblot test: different people(s) look at the same thing and each see(s) something completely different. And, incredibly, they are often willing to kill those who disagree with them.

So I do not have high expectations of television news. And I feel sorry for anyone with little knowledge of this conflict who is trying to understand what is going on around here right now by watching the boob tube for a few minutes at the end of a long day. At best, you will be confused. At worst, you will be seriously misinformed.

Since I “get” television's limitations, I mostly take the news for what it is and I don't get all riled up about the theatre aspect. Unless I see something that is pure crap, which is what I saw on a BBC World studio interview tonight.

The BBC anchor in the photo above interviewed a Middle East analyst named Dilip Hiro in the studio – and basically made my jaw drop.

Paraphrased tidbits are below:

Well, said the anchor whose name I did not catch. It seems that, with its actions in Lebanon, Israel is actually siding with Hezbollah in its efforts to abort all chances for peace.

Indeed, concurred Mr. Hiro.

[I believe that is called "leading the witness"]

And then Mr. Hiro explained that there is this thing called an “assymetrical conflict.” Israel has a large and powerful army with tanks and fighter planes, but these poor guerillas only have guns, grenades and missiles. So, unfortunately, they have to use suicide bombers in order to balance the stronger power's military force. It's the only way, you see, explained Mr. Hiro.

The interview ended with Mr. Hiro's astonishing theory left completely unchallenged by the anchor.

Now, I am very (very!) critical of the actions taken by the IDF over the past two days. And yes, I will probably write about that subject in an upcoming post.

I am just wondering two things here:

1. What do suicide bombers have to do with the Hezbollah sending armed men into Israeli sovereign territory in order to kill and snatch Israeli soldiers who were patrolling their own country's border?

2. Does the fact that the anchor failed to challenge Mr. Hiro's astonishing statement about suicide bombers amounting to a “balance of military power” mean that the BBC is, in fact, justifying suicide bombings?

I really do not know what to say. Hey, you BBC people who read my blog, do you know this anchor? Was there was any controversy at work over that insane interview he did with Mr. Hiro? Seriously, I'd like to know.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post meta

This entry was written by Lisa Goldman and posted on July 14, 2006 at 2:14 am and filed under Main Page. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

23 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

Lisa, I agree 100% – which is refreshing because I often disagree with your other views on Israel / palestinians. You are an articulate and eloquant writer – by jeez by jingo you should be on Israel TV (really – not just saying to blow smoke). With your media contacts aren't you able to submit a complaint to the 'right' people in BBC? I know you're busy with other stuff and work, but this one of those interviews (like an infamous one I saw of Saeb Erakat screaming about jenin massacre on Australia's (govt) ABC network…where does a common man like me lodge a complaint against BBC

1. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
They probably called this guy in to talk about the Mumbai bombs, but the news changed overnight and they had no other pundit in the vicinity. As for the anchor, I blame the beady eyes.

2. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Lisa,
This (sadly) is very typical of the BBC. Whilst people can (and do) argue about its accuracy regarding the “situation”, the fact is that almost all their reporters whether studio based or out in the field are severely lacking in any kind of historical knowledge of the conflict and/or a strategic overview of the situation. This significantly hampers their value (to put it mildly). The world service (radio) is a better bet IMO. That said things could be worse as the Guardian is a veritable “hate fest” at present and the talk and comments boards are really ugly.

3. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I used to buy whatever the beeb was selling, too. At least until 9/11. You would have thought that being freshly wounded, we might have found some comfort from the beeb and its quackmeisters, but I witnessed the most appalling hatred toward america on the part of the hosts and audience members of some trite chat show. I just never realized what a nation of america and jew haters the uk had become, til I began watching the beeb more carefully. I am not surprised anymore by the things they say. I only wish they had to live daily with the threat of suicide bombers on busses and subways. Clearly, 7.7 doesn't mean anything to them.

4. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
hi dear lisa
only 2 remind u of a friend who actualy lives there….
avi,ex-ginzbourg, kfar hanasee,

5. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Umm, give me a break? 60+ civilians (most of them children) have been massacred here (for the kidnapping of 2 soldiers and the killing of 8 others) and the entire country blockaded, its infrastructure destroyed, airport completely leveled, and BBC has “Israeli Views” section on this issue. And you still complain??

6. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Of course there will be no controversy. This guy and his “expert” were just parroting the recieved wisdom of the Mainstrean European Media. My (albeit limited) experience with Great Britain is that it takes a titanic cosmic wave to shift the “story line” from what everyone is expecting to hear. No matter what inconvenient facts exist, it is very difficult to get them to move beyond what they expect the story to be. It's like the Christmas pantomimes, the story is always the same:
“Poor suffering Hizb'allah (or fill in other Arab group), weak, almost defenseless, no room at the inn, etc etc.(plus they wear cool hats)
Big bad Israelis, Jews, Judas, rude heartless etc etc….”

7. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Dilip Hiro is a well-known leftist who has been posing as an expert on India and the Middle East for at least 30 years and has written 28 highly partisan books.
The issue is clearly that the BBC are treating him as an academic expert rather than a political figure.
Thus if one of the small horde of Islamist militants the BBC regularly invite into their studios had made these comments there might have been some attempt at an interviewer challenge or a balancing speaker.
However as an 'expert' Hiro is there to provide background and the interviewers will just nod sagely whatever he says.
After all this is exactly the kind of stuff they read every morning in the Guardian or Independent – sometimes written by Hiro himself – and it no longer even strikes them as controversial.

8. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“Was there was any controversy at work over that insane interview he did with Mr. Hiro? Seriously, I'd like to know.”
Why would there be any controversy?… It is the BBC after all, and that's what they're known for… I don't tune in to them since it gets way too aggravating.
Be safe.

9. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Thanks for your funny and articulate writing, and your insights about the situation on the street in Israel. As for this post, though, I must say that first of all, it's hard to tell what the context of these comments you cite in the BBC interview actually were — they seem very odd and exceedingly provocative out of context (and from what I know of BBC, rather out of their norm). (Do you know if there's a transcript of the whole interview, by the way?) I'm a bit puzzled by your expression of outrage at the claim that this is an uneven conflict, though. How else would one describe it? This is not a “war” between two armies: it is an Occupation by a state with the 4th largest military in the world, of a people who don't have an army. This does not mean that the Occupied people — the Palestinians — are angels and the Occupiers — the Israelis — are devils. But it does mean that Israel, as the only state power operating in this conflict (since Palestinians don't have a state, and nor can they properly build one when they're under Occupation and siege) has certain responsibilities under international law — most notably the Geneva convention. Does this imbalance “justify” suicide bombings? No, I'd have to agree that it doesn't. But nor do I see any justification for bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure with the most advanced weaponry in the world. And if Israel is indeed to be considered a mature state actor, and a democracy, than it should behave with more restraint than its enemies because it has the *power* to do so. Instead, it is acting like a blindfolded madman swinging wildly with a deadly weapon; or, to be more precise, like a state that's bent on expanding its borders deep into (if not clear across) the West Bank, which makes it difficult to take any of its claims to being interested in “peace” seriously.

10. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
But I don't see where Hezbollah fits into this analysis. OK, for the sake of argument, let's say this 'explains' the Gaza kidnapping. I'm putting the quotes on explains, because I'm not sure how the kidnappings lead to a better situation for the Palestinians, but let's skip that.
Hezbollah is operating from Lebanon. They aren't even a group of displaced Palestinians, at least not at the leadership level. They aren't operating from occupied territories. They are operating from Lebanon, and the Lebanese either have to acquiesce in their actions (which would promote the conflict to a war between states) or they have to express a desire that Hezbollah stop using its territory as a staging ground. I have no illusions that the Lebanese Army could actually stop Hezbollah operations, but at least if they indicated that they didn't approve, the international community could come down on both sides. That benefits Israel more, because they weren't trying (any longer, I know, I know) to kidnap Lebanese.

11. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Israel is dealing with an enemy that refuses to recognize it's right to exist. Suicide bombers and daily small rocket attacks by Hezbollah terrorize the Israeli people.
Israel has offered to withdraw from 97% of the lands in question. Each time it acquiesces, their enemy takes it as a sign of weakness. How do you deal with people who state that, “we love death more than the Jews love life!”
The poverty of the Palestinians is a result of leadership that is more bent on destroying Israel than it is concerned with improving the lot of their people.

12. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
You have provided an example of third worldism. The dark man is right because he is dark.

13. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Thirdworldism —
Shows you how really ignorant these people are .. they don't even question themselves, but they judge and condemn others presumptiously..
And then there are all the 'educators', politicians, 'experts' and raving, immoral liberals who live in democratic societies and are supposedly 'intelligent', but parrot the same drivvel and somehow find a way to rationalize and defend the cause of terrorist murderers, who wear a cloak of decency, while they plot DEATH.

14. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Fox News don't seem much better (Notice the last 20 seconds of this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar0jRu5fDZw&eurl=

15. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
You are surprised, really? I have been seeing it for years now, to a greater or smaller degree. It was an eye-opener to be in Israel and see footage and then see only half of it on BBC and Sky News. Shocker no more.
First anon, if you had had the courage to sign your comment we might agree to disagree. As it is, am tired of cowards, throw thyself in the river, go on.

16. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I'm actually a bit sad to see Dilip Hiro wading into this particular sump. Back in the '90s, I actually read a lot of his reporting about Central Asia which was top quality stuff. Just goes to show you that just because someone is knowledgable about region A doesn't mean they aren't an idiot when it comes to region B.
I'm surprised the Beeb didn't do their usual trick of pretending to provide a balanced debate by matching Hiro with somebody from the extreme fringes of the Israeli left who would also condemn the IDF.
And while we're on the hasbara note, I think we should all applause Brig. Ido Nechushtan. Nechushtan has been all over Sky News the last couple of days and has shown a keen ability to stay on message even when the Sky anchors start getting hostile.

17. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
But how do you know Hiro on Central Asia was top quality stuff?
Hiro may have been born in India but has apparently spent his adult life in Britain and the US.
I doubt he can speak any modern Central Asian languages and nothing in his bibliography or anything of his I've read suggests he can speak Russian.
His expert status seems to be based upon the fact that he's published a lot of books with Iran, Middle East and Islamic in the titles rather than from any serious academic position (his highest degree appears to be a masters from Virginia Polytechnic and State University – whatever that is).
I am sure he knows more about the ME and Central Asia than me (even if most of what he does know is either questionable or downright wrong) and a hell of a lot more than your typical BBC anchor.
However he is not an objective expert – he's a Leftist with an agenda and everything he writes and says should be judged on that basis.
Nobody treats John Pilger or Tariq Ali or Noam Chomsky as unchallengable experts and Hiro is very much in their camp.
Doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong but you only need to know what his starting ideological position is to be able to predict with 100% accuracy where he will stand on any issue.

18. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Re the war: we are carefully playing out the scenario prepared by Nasrallah in advance. Although he is unsure now how it will end.
And re Dilip Hiro – a known entity, mad as the proverbial hatter and thus an acceptable expert on Middle East for BBC. The anchor, though – that's another story. Interesting, indeed.

19. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
When was the last time Hezbollah used suicide bombing?

20. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Hizballah provides support, training and funding to groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which use suicide bombing constantly. It may or may not have played a role in the bomb assassinations of anti-Syrian figures in Lebanon, but it certainly uses suicide bombing by proxy against Israel.

21. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I believe they asked “when” was the last time Hizballah used suicide bombings against Israel, not “Do you think they do, with no concrete examples whatsoever”, and you shouldn't reply with, “well where is the concrete proof that they don't” because it's impossible to prove a negative

22. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Lisa, this is the usual reporting on the Middle East from the BBC. There are certain underlaying assumptions (“Whatever Israel is doing, it's out of sheer nastyness; whatever anyone else is doing, at least they _mean_ well.”) So whatever news is reported or opinion is presented, this is the mental background to it. It's all sorts of little things — Israel always “claims” things, and whatever Hamas says is taken on faith, etc.

23. Anonymous
on February 9th, 2010 at 12:39 pm