Monday, February 02, 2009

A Question of Questionable Media Ethics

What disturbed me about this?


A Palestinian man was killed Monday morning near the West Bank religious village of Beit Yatir in South Mount Hebron. The Israel Defense Forces said the man was a terrorist attempting to hurt soldiers, while Palestinian residents claimed that he was part of a group attempting to infiltrate Israel to look for work.

According to the army, an IDF force was fired on from a moving car at around 9 am. The troops fired back at the vehicle and killed the gunman. There were no injuries among the soldiers. A military inquiry into the incident revealed that the gunman had slowed down as he approached the soldiers and then opened fire at them.


No, not the terror.

No, not the army's "disproportionate" response (just kidding).

This phrase: the West Bank religious village of Beit Yatir.

Oh, so there's something special about the Jewish community being "religious"? Is Tel Aviv always described as "a secular city"?

What's the implication? Why the adjective?

Bad journalism.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's not even the worst part of it.

The worst part of it is that they placed the second paragraph first and the first paragraph second.

They lead you to have sympathy for the man prior to learning that he initiated fire on Israelis.

galia said...

What is the implication, in your opinion? I don't get it.

The Palestinian man most likely didn't "attempt to infiltrate Israel to look for work" for he had a weapon. He probably lost his family or his house was destroyed. Some tragedy happened to him that's why he took a weapon and went for a revenge. That's how i see it and it's really sad. And instead of being "disturbed by terror" and the tragedy that's happening right next to you, you are picking on words.

YMedad said...

If he didn't have his house destroyed, if he didn't have a relative hurt and if no personal tragedy occured, would he be "justified" in your eyes to go for revenge?

If not, then we have a probelm, because not every Pal., because there are many, can have had his house destroyed or family member injured. So why try to take revenge? In 1920, 1929, etc., also the numbers don't work.

Well, if there is then a national struggle, then both sides are at least equally at fault. But if one side consistently statrted, refused compromises and then uses such vile methods of fighting as suicide bombing, well, then that side is wrong.

galia said...

If he doesn't have a personal tragedy, then he doesn't have a hate and anger on his heart therefore no revenge! Absent of tragedy defeats the purpose of revenge.
Refuse to compromise? You are talking about Palestinians? They have compromised and gave away their land, their homes, their rights, their dignity. What else you want from them?
What did Israel have to compromise so far?