MURDER of CBS News crew in Lebanon
Lance Spangler
Southern Lebanon, two freelance employees of CBS News were killed by a
shell fired from an Israeli tank crew. There have been conflicting reports
on whether the crew was (1) in the company of armed terrorists/guerilla
fighters, (2) visable/recognizable to the tank crew, and (3) in a location
approved by the Israelis for TV news crews.
As in any war situation, the journalist must take some chances. The central
American conflict, Vietnam, Korea, the 1967 mideast war, and others are good
examples. But I believe it's incumbent upon the various factions to take extra
precautions to prevent the death of ANY journalist covering the event. Public
opinion often plays an important part in any armed conflict. In this nation,
the perception of the American public can sway administration policy. I would
think such a "public relations attitude" would be especially important to both
the Israelis and the various Moslem and Christian factions fighting in Lebanon
at this very moment.
But the Israelis have forbidden any Beirut journalists from covering the
withdrawal, since they have to travel from North to South. They have said that
Israel based journalists may cover the withdrawl, but only under Israeli
Defense Force rules. These rules include telling the various news crews what
they may and may not shoot. Often the only thing they are allowed to shoot are
pictures of tanks withdrawing from an area. They may not take pictures of the
Israelis killing "suspected" terrorists. They may not take pictures of the
weapons the Israelis say they take out of homes in Shiite villages. They may
not take pictures or report on the interrogation of suspected terrorists.
Please understand that I am NOT supporting either the Israelis or the other
factions. A journalist can not take sides when covering an issue or conflict.
And while I am not in Lebanon covering the event, I am presenting the facts to
a very large viewing audience, helping shape public opinion in the process.
What I am looking for is someone who can possibly make me understand what gives
the IDF forces the right to take the lives of two innocent, impartial journal
ists who are simply doing their job.
I would hope that someone can supply these answers. Because at this moment, I
harbor some very hostile feelings toward the Israeli government. They have
killed two co-workers of mine, brothers of the cloth so to speak.
In an attempt to head off some flames, let me say that I am working quite hard
to prevent these personal feelings from influencing my news judgement, and I
believe I have done just that since the murders occured.
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-sally!kvue!spangler Lance Spangler
Telco: 512-459-1433 (Pvt. biz line) Senior Producer
Telco: 512-346-4447 (Home / evenings) KVUE Television
Austin, Texas
The only thing we have to ((P. O. Box 9927))
fear is computing itself! :-)) zip------> 78766
S. Plunkett
> This past week, while conducting its "Iron Fist" policy of withdrawal in
> Southern Lebanon, two freelance employees of CBS News were killed by a
> shell fired from an Israeli tank crew.
> ...
> Please understand that I am NOT supporting either the Israelis or the other
> factions. A journalist can not take sides when covering an issue or conflict.
> ...
> What I am looking for is someone who can possibly make me understand what gives
> the IDF forces the right to take the lives of two innocent, impartial journal
> ists who are simply doing their job.
Their right comes from their primary duty to complete a military mission.
What right do journalists have in wandering about--on enemy lines--and
not expect a very low probability of survival?
> I would hope that someone can supply these answers. Because at this moment, I
> harbor some very hostile feelings toward the Israeli government. They have
> killed two co-workers of mine, brothers of the cloth so to speak.
I'm under the impression, given the nature of your article, not
to mention the subject line accusation of MURDER, that you are not so much
after answers as a confirmation of your hostility not only against the
IDF (they did it deliberately, knowing they were meddling journalists),
but also the Israeli Govt. (their whole Lebanese policy is immoral).
This is a fair example of the bias which the net has argued about recently.
One may well have passionate resentment against the particular commanding
officer that directed the fatal shell fire, but to immediately extrapolate
this to a broadside attack on the Israeli government hints at an unspoken
bias.
The allusion to a religious order, "brothers of the cloth," is not well
taken. It suggests an entirely inflated sense of importance, and some
strange implication that journalists hold a sanctified status. It is
ludicrous that military operations that can be lost in a matter of
moments must somehow accomodate reporters dashing about along enemy
lines.
In summary: Your profession would be better served by giving a little
less of the rage and more of admiration for these newsmen who in all
likelihood understood what they were doing, knew what they had to do,
but lost out.
..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
SEVENER
> What right do journalists have in wandering about--on enemy lines--and
> not expect a very low probability of survival?
>
is an American soldier trying to get intelligence information or a CBS
newsman? What right does any government have to indiscriminately kill
civilians, to bomb their homes, to disrupt their families?
Is it "bias" to so say that such actions are *wrong* no matter what
government engages in them?
>
> I'm under the impression, given the nature of your article, not
> to mention the subject line accusation of MURDER, that you are not so much
> after answers as a confirmation of your hostility not only against the
> IDF (they did it deliberately, knowing they were meddling journalists),
> but also the Israeli Govt. (their whole Lebanese policy is immoral).
>
> This is a fair example of the bias which the net has argued about recently.
> One may well have passionate resentment against the particular commanding
> officer that directed the fatal shell fire, but to immediately extrapolate
> this to a broadside attack on the Israeli government hints at an unspoken
> bias.
>
of the two newsmen and of many more deaths. These deaths came about as
a result of Israel's calculated policy of vengeance against the Shi-ites
and the general population of Southern Lebanon. The fact that it happened
to be two newsmen killed in this particular instance only brought more
public attention to what has happened to many other Lebanese civilians due
to Israel's "Iron Fist" policy. That policy of vengeance and indiscriminate
murder and destruction is *wrong*! It is just as *wrong* as the actions of
the PLO in massacring Israeli athletes in the Olympics at Munich, and
the PLO's other terrorist activities. It is *not* a question of bias-
it is a question of consistent opposition to immoral violence whether
practiced by enemies or friends.
I ask you, which is truly the bias: the condemnation of enemies for
terrorist acts while praising friends for similar acts OR
the condemnation of terrorist acts of violence by whomever commits them?
When talking about "bias" it is all too easy for "our side" to say
the other side is wrong (but we're "not so bad" even if we feel a little
uneasy defending the very actions we condemn by others), while the other side
goes on to say "our side" is wrong (while their own infractions are ignored)
*This* is the true bias in our current nationalistic system of war and
senseless murder.
tim sevener whuxl!orb
DR Anolick
place in net.politics and not net.tv. I have taken net.tv off of the
newsgroups list and I hope others in this discussion do the same.
> This past week, while conducting its "Iron Fist" policy of withdrawal in
> Southern Lebanon, two freelance employees of CBS News were killed by a
> shell fired from an Israeli tank crew. There have been conflicting reports
> on whether the crew was (1) in the company of armed terrorists/guerilla
> fighters, (2) visable/recognizable to the tank crew, and (3) in a location
> approved by the Israelis for TV news crews.
> Please understand that I am NOT supporting either the Israelis or the other
> factions. A journalist can not take sides when covering an issue or conflict.
> In an attempt to head off some flames, let me say that I am working quite hard
> to prevent these personal feelings from influencing my news judgement, and I
> believe I have done just that since the murders occurred.
You say that you are working to prevent your personal feelings from influencing
your news judgement, yet you insist on calling the deaths of the newsmen
MURDER. But as you say in your first paragraph, there are conflicting
reports as to the facts behind their deaths, so calling it murder at this
time is certainly a biased report.
I _DO NOT_ claim Israeli innocence in this affair. Since the facts are not
all available, I cannot know what the real story is. But I do know from
the recent history of the media, that when it comes to Israel there has
been very biased reporting. Of course there have been deaths of civilians
as well as soldiers. This happens in war. Why is ALL the blame Israel's?
You mean to tell me that no one is shooting back at them?
> These rules include telling the various news crews what
> they may and may not shoot. Often the only thing they are allowed to shoot are
> pictures of tanks withdrawing from an area. They may not take pictures of the
> Israelis killing "suspected" terrorists. They may not take pictures of the
> weapons the Israelis say they take out of homes in Shiite villages. They may
> not take pictures or report on the interrogation of suspected terrorists.
With the beginning of the 1982 war in Lebanon, the press in this country
began showing reports labeled "Censored by the Israeli Military." These
labels were often accompanied with statements like yours above. The
impression that the public gets is that what they see in the reports is
actually much more mild than what is really happening. So for example
if the scene is children crying over a burnt out building, the public
assumes that much more destruction has taken place.
However, most Israeli censoring is in terms of military information.
Even the shots of tanks withdrawing are censored so that numbers are not
revealed to Israel's enemies. As for the "weapons the Israelis say they
take out of homes in Shi-ite villages" I assume you are implying that
there are no such weapons. I heard similar claims in the summer of 1982,
about the amount of weapons taken from the PLO at the start of the war
in Lebanon. When in Israel, I saw some of those weapons taken, believe
me, they were real.
And of course, there is another type of censoring. The type which the
media in this country does, but its never labeled as censored by
ABC, NBC, or CBS news. I'm talking about selective reporting. Again,
back in 1982, at the start of the push into Lebanon, the Israeli's
bombed Sidon and Tyre. Before doing so, they first dropped leaflets
telling the population to take cover at the beaches, since they will
be bombing. This went unreported. And for being part of a war zone,
these two cities were relatively untouched. But the reports from
these cities featured the destroyed sections. (and were of course
labeled as censored) I'm sure that there were even reporters who
took a deserted bombed out building, brought children in from
another untouched area, and had them sit in the rubble and cry
before they would film the destruction.
I do think that there is a current media bias in this country
against Israel. But it is a sword that cuts both ways. Prior
to the early 70's, the bias in this country was toward Israel,
(and Israel took full advantage of it) now it is against (and
Israels enemies are taking full advantage of it) I do know
that I have lost almost all faith in the US media providing
a fair and balanced account of ANY news, not just the mideast.
Look, Israel isn't perfect, any more than the U.S. is. I do feel
that the entire war in Lebanon was a mistake. But they have been
unilaterally withdrawing! Isn't that worth something! I mean
we don't see Syria withdrawing, now do we? And during the pull-out,
Israeli forces have been constantly attacked. But there has been
relatively little reporting on the withdraw until this tragic accident.
Droyan David Roy Anolick
ihnp4!bentley!droyan (or dxa) ^ ^^^ ^^
P.S. In today's paper, there was a small article with the
headline: "CBS Accepts Israeli Version of Crew Deaths." Was
it on page one? Of course not. It was on page ten, and I almost
skipped right over it.
Mark Modig
> What right does any government have to go about killing people, whether it
> is an American soldier trying to get intelligence information or a CBS
> newsman? What right does any government have to indiscriminately kill
> civilians, to bomb their homes, to disrupt their families?
> Is it "bias" to so say that such actions are *wrong* no matter what
> government engages in them?
In case you haven't noticed, (or just didn't wait for the dust to settle)
CBS has bought in to the Israeli version of what happened. Coming
roaring out of the gate charging the Israelis with murder under
these conditions seems to me a fair example of bias. The Israelis
are fighting a war against a variety of groups seeking to first
throw them out of Lebanon and then destroy Israel as a nation. It
is not like Israeli guerillas snaeak into Beirut and blow up buses
crammed full of civilians, or deliberately shell Lebanese villages
that are known to have no military installations. In any war,
civilians will always get the short end of the stick. But I do
think it bias to condemn the Israelis, who have at least on one
occasion dropped leaflets on coastal towns warning civilians to take
refuge on the beaches because they are going to raid the towns, and
not their opponents, who pride themselves on deliberately going out
of their way to slaughter innocents.
> > I'm under the impression, given the nature of your article, not
> > to mention the subject line accusation of MURDER, that you are not so much
> > after answers as a confirmation of your hostility not only against the
> > IDF (they did it deliberately, knowing they were meddling journalists),
> > but also the Israeli Govt. (their whole Lebanese policy is immoral).
Agreed.
> There is a very good reason to blame the Israeli government for the deaths
> of the two newsmen and of many more deaths. These deaths came about as
> a result of Israel's calculated policy of vengeance against the Shi-ites
> and the general population of Southern Lebanon. The fact that it happened
> to be two newsmen killed in this particular instance only brought more
> public attention to what has happened to many other Lebanese civilians due
> to Israel's "Iron Fist" policy. That policy of vengeance and indiscriminate
> murder and destruction is *wrong*! It is just as *wrong* as the actions of
> the PLO in massacring Israeli athletes in the Olympics at Munich, and
> the PLO's other terrorist activities. It is *not* a question of bias-
> it is a question of consistent opposition to immoral violence whether
> practiced by enemies or friends.
>
> I ask you, which is truly the bias: the condemnation of enemies for
> terrorist acts while praising friends for similar acts OR
> the condemnation of terrorist acts of violence by whomever commits them?
Equating the events in Lebanon with the PLO's slaughter of Israeli
Olympic athletes is ridiculous. I don't think I can agree with your
definition of "terrorist acts." With all these newsmen covering the
war, how many stories have you seen of Israelis mowing down helpless
civilians or delibarately torching villages home only to civilians
and not held by their enemies? None, because the censorship is so heavy??
Come off it! Stories like that would get out somehow; they are too
big to keep a lid on. As near as I can tell, Israel is currently a
nation fighting for its life. The economy is in a shambles and the
latest military moves a failure, leaving the north open to attacks from
enemies. I think that Israel has a right to exist to defend itself
against its enemies. That doesn't include deliberately killing
innocent civilians, but I think the Israelis should be allowed to
defend themselves when attacked. "Bias" is a word that applies
here, but it applies to those who seize this opportunity to grind
their axes without waiting for all the details to unfold, and to
those who take single isolated incidents out of context, ignoring
the long history of conflict that had led to the Israelis feeling
they had to invade Lebanon in the first place.
Mark Modig
ihnp4!sftri!mom
SEVENER
people in "war" is justified. I am just as opposed to terrorism which
is really just an extension of war but by groups that aren't actually
the government. War and the "accidental" killing of innocent civilians
may deter opponents through sheer terror. But at the same time it sows
the seeds of hate and retaliatory violence. Israel should never have
invaded Lebanon- they may have succeeded in largely removing the PLO but
in its stead Israel's warfare has created a whole new opposition by
fostering the hate of the Shi-ites.
As soon as anyone criticizes Israel they are immediately attacked as
"anti-semitic". I am not anti-semitic, but I am not a "semitiphiliac"
either. Just because Jews were slaughtered in WW II does not give them
the right to slaughter others, or to take their land and rights.
I suggest people interested in this issue read the book, "To be an
Arab in Israel". The author is *not* antisemitic, nor a supporter of
PLO terrorism, and in fact was aided at times by liberal Jewish friends.
He was thrown in jail for his writings, his family's land was taken by
the Israeli army. He does not blame the new Jewish settlers for this:
he says that they all believed the myth that they were coming in to
settle "an empty desert". How could they know that before they came
to settle the area where his familiy had lived for generations that
the Israeli army had thrown out his family and all the other native
Palestinians living there? That the army systematically razed the houses
of those who had lived there and then stored the materials to use
when the new settlers arrived?
Israel is now doing the same thing in the West Bank. Am I wrong to say
that this is *wrong*?
tim sevener whuxl!orb
Michael M. Sykora
>
>Just because Jews were slaughtered in WW II does not give them
>the right to slaughter others, or to take their land and rights.
I have seen this argument presented a couple of times on the net. I haven't,
however, seen anyone advancing the idea the idea that Jews "have the right
to slaughter others . . .," probably because it is manifestly absurd.
Is it possible that SEVENER and others heard this once and now attribute
it to all those who take a contrary position on these matters?