Perspectives on Lebanon July 22, 2006
Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Politics , trackbackI suppose its to be expected, but it’s clear that the US is letting Israel have a free hand to do whatever it wants to do to Lebanon, including rearming them, as this report in the NY Times discusses. The BBC picks this up very briefly, and I can’t find any mention of it on Al Jazeera yet.
Coverage of today’s raids, including the taking of Maroun al-Ras and the bombing of TV stations, varies somewhat between these three well-respected new sites.
The BBC emphasises the humanitarian crisis , and talks about the numbers killed on both sides.
The NY Times talks more about the plans to send Condoleeza Rice, and is only precise about Israeli casualties, with ‘numbers’ of Hezbollah and Lebanese killed or injured. It’s the only one to suggest that Lebanese Christians whose TV station was destroyed by Israeli bombers actually blame Hezbollah
Al-Jazeera has its journalists further into southern Lebanon than the other two, and reports more precisely on the effects on both sides. It also has more information on the US position than the BBC, and the US position is a vital element of this.
It seems that if you want a better understanding of what is going on in Lebanon, and the geopolitical forces around it, it’s worth reading all these sources. There are differences, but more of emphasis and perspective than outright bias. Al Jazeera clearly has an advantage in its ability to get its journalists right into the frontline, in a way that would perhaps be harder for the BBC and certainly for the NY Times. The NY Times is writing for an American audience, and it may have a better ability to get into the corridors of power there. The BBC seems a little off base with this, perhaps writing for a home audience that is as concerned about the British evacuation as the war itself.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?