And (as most of you probably figured out) we’re going to talk about one of them.
The “thing of the moment” happens to involve slanted, partisan “news coverage” by certain members of the mainstream media. Namely, CNN, which in my mind now stands for something slightly different than its owners and editors probably believe. More accurately, several somethings, none of them polite or appropriate for a family blog (and at least one of which I shouldn’t have to mention, because statistically, at least 95% of you have already thought of it).
But, you may ask, why this sudden need to post the obvious? Why this Friday-night harangue against the Monday Morning Quarterbacks of the news world? Why the need to point out something that everyone already knew?
Mainly because the photo essays CNN has posted in the past 48 hours have really ticked me off.
Why? Because the photographs accompanying CNN’s alleged coverage of the developing situation in Israel, Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East have been anything but neutral – and skewered photojournalism represents (to my mind at least) one of the more reprehensible forms of partisan reporting.
CNN has chosen to accompany its reports of violence and missile exchanges between Hezbollah and the State of Israel with a number of photo essays, each of which contain the same curious anomaly. Photographs taken in Israel show tanks, missiles being launched toward Lebanon, militia and military forces or combinations thereof. Photographs taken in Lebanon show fires burning, the rubble and destruction caused by missiles (presumably fired from Israel) or other signs of damage caused by attacks from Israel.
Anyone else notice the difference?
News reports which accompany the photos present threats, reactions and reports of military strikes on both sides – and clearly CNN has access to photos from photographers on both sides of the lines. So the question is: why do we see only destruction on one side and only aggression on the other? CNN’s own news stories indicate both sides have taken aggressive action and both sides have suffered damage. Why, then, does CNN treat its viewers to lopsided photographic coverage?
After considering the situation, I’ve come up with a few possibilities:
1. Photographers in Lebanon cannot find any members of Hezbollah engaging in aggressive acts, whereas photographers in Israel cannot find any destruction. (After all, Israel is such a big place, it’s probably difficult to find where the rockets land…)
2. Photographers in Lebanon move slowly, and arrive at the scene only after everything has already been engulfed in flames, whereas photographers in Israel see rockets coming and move away quickly. (Suggesting that perhaps the AP sends its slow photographers to Lebanon…)
3. Someone has consciously manipulated photographic evidence in an attempt to distort the viewer’s impression of events in the area, making the armies of Israel appear aggressive while displaying Lebanon as a weak victim of Israel’s aggression. (Nah, that couldn’t possibly be the answer. Everyone knows the mainstream media isn’t biased.)
Whether the photographic evidence represents a conscious (or unconscious) attempt to sway the opinion of the viewer, the result of haphazard photographic coverage or merely a perfectly random and accidental occurrence, the fact remains that CNN’s photographic coverage appears significantly out of balance – a fact which creates a dangerous potential for misleading the unwary viewer. A person watching only the photos, and not paying attention to the wider story, could easily leave with the impression that Israel, and not Hezbollah, was the aggressor and that Lebanon was suffering damage while Israel walked away unscathed. Granted, anyone who reads the coverage and pays attention to the reality underlying the media accounts can tell this is not the case, but powerful images like the ones currently coming out of Israel and Lebanon should not be used without discretion.
As the old adage says, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” and lopsided photojournalism reeks of irresponsibility – no matter what the underlying reason or cause.
If CNN didn’t have access to enough photographs to demonstrate that both sides have suffered physical damage and both sides have missiles to launch, then editors could – and in my opinion should – have refrained from publishing photo essays showing the current “state” of the conflict. To publish images showing only the military might of Israel and the destruction its forces have wrought upon the poor, desperate (terrorist-harboring) state of Lebanon appears – to my eyes – an endorsement of Lebanon and Hezbollah and a condemnation of the state of Israel, which has finally chosen military action as a reasonable alternative to silence in the wake of not one but many terrorist attacks.
And that really ticks me off.
(Permit me to note, momentarily in closing, that my views are my own and not necessarily those of David or Third World County. And yes, I support the sovereign state of Israel and its right to defend itself against attack.)
