On Monday (Oct. 20) the
IDF carried out a series of five air
strikes against terrorist targets in Gaza. One of the later strikes
occurred when the IDF caught a group of Palestinians attempting to
infiltrate Israel through the Gaza fence. Apache helicopters pursued
three men fleeing in their car, then struck down the car in the Nusseirat refugee camp.
The media lent immediate credence to Palestinian claims that two
missiles were fired ― the first hit the car, and the second was
purportedly fired into a "crowd of people," causing a "massacre of
civilians":
Reuters: "One missile fired by a helicopter gunship hit a car and
another slammed into a crowd of people by the road, prompting angry
protests and calls for revenge, witnesses said. 'It's a massacre.
They slaughtered civilians with no mercy,' one protester at the
scene said."
Another Reuters report didn't even attribute the claim to a witness,
passing it off as established fact: "In one attack on a refugee
camp, a helicopter gunship chasing suspected militants in a car
fired a missile into a crowd of people, killing seven civilians."
AFP: "Hospital sources said all those killed were non-combatants...An
Apache combat helicopter scored a direct hit on a car with a
missile...a second missile struck and killed residents who came to
the rescue of the passengers, the witnesses said."
The IDF, apparently stunned by these media reports, released to the
press a video of the strike taken by an airborne drone. The video
clearly shows there were no Palestinian civilians on the street when
either of two rockets hit the car. The
Jerusalem Post describes the
video's contents (emphasis ours):
 |
| IDF picture from airborne drone |
The picture shows the main road in the camp with two vehicles
traveling a distance apart along it. The helicopter monitors the
movement of the terrorist's car, which is the second vehicle seen on
the film, and shows the first Hellfire missile directly hitting it.
The driver loses control, crashes into a tree and the car
disappears, hidden by a building, but is seen seconds later
traveling in reverse. There are no people on the streets and no
other vehicles when the car comes to a halt.
An ambulance is then seen passing the damaged vehicle as it
continues along the road. Only after the ambulance is a distance
away does the air force pilot release the second rocket, which hits
the vehicle and clearly shows three bodies lying in the street.
For at least two and a half minutes after the attack the footage
shows the thermal images of one or two other people in the area, but
not close to where the vehicle that was hit.
(The video is available
here.)
The IDF has therefore proven convincingly that neither of two missiles fired on the car
directly struck a crowd. As an
IDF
officer said, "We would not allow any munition to be launched on a
massive gathering of people. To fire into a crowd is not
professional, it is not ethical and it's not moral."
The
Associated Press and
New York Times are to be commended for
supplying follow-up articles detailing the IDF video's evidence.
Both also report a revamped version of the Palestinian claim ― that
a third missile (not seen on the video) struck a crowd. The IDF
denies that.
The facts ― two missiles not directly striking civilians, and a questionable
third missile ― are a far cry from the media's prominent coverage
of initial Palestinian claims of a massacre of civilians.
Responsible journalism demands that, when initial reports are proven
false, a proper follow-up article is published. So where are the
follow-up articles from Reuters and AFP?
Comments to Reuters: editor@reuters.com
Comments to AFP: contact@afp.com
Some papers, such as the
Chicago Tribune,
LA Times, and
Boston
Globe, made reference to the video, but buried it deep within their
articles, where few readers would see it or recognize its
significance.
Did your local paper carry the initial report ― but fail to carry
the essential follow-up information regarding the IDF video in a
prominent manner? If so, contact your editor right away.
* * *
This episode also raises a fundamental issue of media ethics. After
the enormous media botch in Jenin in April 2002 (read HonestReporting
accounts here
and here), caused by the media
unquestioningly accepting Palestinian claims of a "massacre," it is
remarkable that the media remain willing to swallow Palestinian
statements (even "eyewitness accounts") at face value, without due
skepticism and inquiry.
For example, MSNBC TV (Oct. 21, 5:25 pm) quoted PA official Saeb
Erekat commenting on the Nusseirat strike: "This is the most
disproportionate use of force in history...a crime." This is same Saeb Erekat who vociferously charged that 500 Palestinians were
"massacred" by Israel in Jenin. Now that the outrageous, libelous
claims about Jenin have been
proven false, how can MSNBC and
others continue to grant unchallenged credence to statements from PA
officials such as Erekat?
Analyst Joshua Muravchik makes this very point in his book,
Covering
the Intifada: How the Media Reported the Palestinian Uprising:
Journalists seem to follow a canon that says when two sides are
fighting, it is their obligation to report equally and with equal
credence what is said by each. But the quality of the information
provided by the two sides in this conflict is highly asymmetrical.
By this I mean simply that the Palestinians repeatedly lie. It
starts with Arafat and goes down to his many deputies. It seems even
to reach...man-in-the-street interviews, such as the Jenin resident
who claimed [falsely] to have watched Israel bury ten bodies under a
building.
Given this, media objectivity cannot be achieved in this conflict by
simply quoting Palestinian officials or local "eyewitnesses,"
unchallenged. This week's Nusseirat incident confirms that.
UPDATE: The
New York Times reported on a possible explanation for the
Palestinian civilian casulties - a group of Palestinians running
toward the car from an adjacent alley. Still a far cry from a missile
"slamming into a crowd."
The IDF has now indicated that it did not fully disclose the weaponry used in this incident.
HonestReporting.com 
