Israeli Pillar Of Defense (IPOD) Media activism Media malfeasance NYT

NYT COLUMNIST UNDER FRIENDLY FIRE FOR OUTRAGEOUS REPORTING FROM GAZA……..

 

If Carr would have been stupid enough to be seated with such a high value target terrorist, he would have gone up in smoke as well, and would have himself to blame. It’s the exact same if US journalists covering the fighting during WWII, would have decided to embed themselves within the ranks of the Germans, and then cry foul when Allied forces bombed the hell out of German soldiers filming the area.

I’ll go even further, the only people that are free from being targeted, are those within the medical profession, and that’s as long as they’re not being used by the military for some military advantage other than saving lives. Palestinians have used Red Crescent ambulances to ferry uninjured terrorists from one place to another to avoid Israeli fire.

UPDATE: A must read:  How Hamas and Islamic Jihad Use Journalism as a Cover for Terrorism

From the New York Slime’s sharpest blade:

New York Times Columnist Under Fire Over Claim that Israel Targets Journalists, Public Editor Mulls Response

The spray-painted car carrying terror operatives that was targeted by the IDF. Photo: IDF.

A New York Times columnist, who covers media and culture, has come under fire for falsely suggesting in a recent column that Israel deliberately targets journalists that it doesn’t agree with.

Referring to Israel’s recent “Pillar of Defense” operation, David Carr, who gained recognition for his role in the documentary Page One: Inside the New York Timeswrote in a Nov 25th column entitled Using War as Cover to Target Journalists:

“…three employees of news organizations were killed in Gaza by Israeli missiles. Rather than suggesting it was a mistake, or denying responsibility, an Israeli Defense Forces spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told The Associated Press, ‘The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity.’”

“…Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV, which is run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that affiliation. They were covering events in central Gaza when a missile struck their car, which, according to Al-Aqsa, was clearly marked with the letters “TV.” (The car just in front of them was carrying a translator and driver for The New York Times, so the execution hit close to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a missile.”

“…While it is true that news media operations have become one more arrow in the quiver of modern warfare, a direct attack on information gatherers of any stripe is deeply troubling. And such attacks are hardly restricted to Israel: recall that in the United States assault on Baghdad, television stations were early targets.”

The IDF however asserts that they were targeting a high level terror operative in the strike. An IDF spokesperson confirmed to The Algemeiner that Muhammed Shamalah who was in the car, was a ”commander of Hamas forces in the Southern strip and head of the Hamas militant training programs.” This “places him as a pivotal figure in force buildup and the execution of operations in the area,” Eytan Buchman, another IDF spokesman confirmed in an email.

“We knew who it was that was in the car,” said the spokesperson, “there was the proper intelligence and confirmation to back it up before we hit the car.”

They  spray painted the letters TV on his car in a cynical effort to “exploit the cover of journalism,” Buchman wrote.

More here.

One Response

  1. An enemies propogandists are legitimate military targets. For instance, according to US military legal guidlines they are to be considered “enemy beligerants”. And we know what all armies do to enemy beligerants.

    (ya I know that’s just US military law but it’s presented as an example. It probably reperesents the standard conservative position on the matter)

    They can call themselves journalists all they like but if their purpose is to create and disseminate military propoganda for one side in a military conflict then they are rightly considered to be enemy propogandists – and thus enemy beligerants.

    It doesn’t give me a warm cuddly feeling but thems the facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *