Chris Anderson isn't going to like this report from Harvard (PDF, h/t LGF):
An open society becomes the victim of its own openness. During the war, no Hezbollah secrets were disclosed, but in Israel secrets were leaked, rumors spread like wildfire, leaders felt obliged to issue hortatory appeals often based on incomplete knowledge, and journalists were driven by the fire of competition to publish and broadcast unsubstantiated information. A closed society conveys the impression of order and discipline; an open society, buffeted by the crosswinds of reality and rumor, criticism and revelation, conveys the impression of disorder, chaos and uncertainty, but this impression can be misleading.
Charles points out, as I have on previous occasions
, that the press felt no
need to question Hezbullah's statements and public presentation. The very
same press that accepted Nasrallah's talking points verbatim
could be found questioning every
statement released by Israel, and reporting every rumour
about the IDF as fact.
How's that for "fair and balanced" coverage?
The press failed miserably in the Israel/Lebanon war. Instead of acting as the arbiters
of debate, and trying to provide a factual
pictures of events on the ground, they allowed themselves to be used
Chris likes to counter that the U.S. Army puts the same restrictions on reporters that Hezbullah did. If that's the case, Chris, then how do you explain this story getting out into the general public
? If our Army were as censored as you like to suggest that it was, wouldn't stuff like that never
hit the news?
If the press were interested in the "truth," I think we would've seen more skeptical coverage of Hezbullah in last summer's war. Like, for starters, perhaps asking them why they insist on hiding behind civilians
.See also: Hyscience
, The Jawa Report
, Ace of Spades HQ
, EU Referendum
, Michelle Malkin
Israel/Lebanon War 2006