An Israeli journalist who goes by the name Omerka (and who will be featured on this blog), wrote the following about the issue of roadblocks (and journalistic coverage thereof) and the recent events in the West Bank:
Since no army is as moral like the IDF, its officers, naturally, will never lie… except when they think they’ll get away with it. That’s nothing new, and the IDF getting caught lying is also not new. But for senior IDF officers to admit they’ve been lying, well that is a bit unusual.
“The Israel Defense Forces admitted yesterday that the 44 dirt obstacles it said had been removed from around West Bank villages did not actually exist… This statement confirms a claim made recently by United Nations organizations operating in the territories”.
Maybe they remembered to grow a conscience, or more likely the lie was just to outrageous this time. BTW, omitted from the English edition text, you can find it at the Hebrew edition, was a reference to a story published a week earlier in Haaretz where it turned out that the reliefs promised at some roadblock was in fact non-existent, or already in place before the promise was made.
Who wants to be objective anyway?
The news media is not objective, not does it aspire to be. Each outlet, and sometimes each editor, can put his views forward by the way he handles a text. Haaretz from the 22nd provided an excellent example of that. Two editors, one in the English edition the other at the Hebrew one, were both given the exact same text yet went on to produce two totally different results, opposing even.
The story was about the preliminary results from the autopsy of Abir Aramin. While the English edition’s editor chose to emphasize that the autopsy ruled out rubber bullets, his colleague at the Hebrew edition (I wonder who that was…) chose to headline the possibility that Abir was killed by a stun grenade. Curiously enough, the grenade is not even mentioned in the English text.
Also note that while the Hebrew edition editor chose to use Abir’s name in the headline, in the English one she’s simply “10-year-old Anata girl”.
Political bias or just different approaches to editing? You can’t really tell for sure, but Its not unlikely.