The Beirut photo fiasco opened the floodgates for all coverage to be lambasted by those who believe one side, the Israeli one in this instance, is more justified in it's bloodletting than the other. But if it's unethical to add puffs of black smoke to a Beirut scene, for whatever reason, what are the ethics of using said puffs as an equally artificial smokescreen to justify the attempted whitewashing of an entire war zone, denying that innocent civilians are suffering, and holding up their killers as blameless victims?Accept most people don't know that. Every little bit of false information that gets into the media adds to the sense that maybe none of this is real. Why Hezbollywood Was Born. Until I set foot in Beirut and see it for myself, I can't know, only believe.
There are things we don't know and things we do. What is not known is how the digitally falsified image of Beirut came about. We do know that on June 30, 2006, an Israeli airstrike on the nearby southern Lebanese town of Qana destroyed an apartment building and killed many of those inside.
Reading the news is a faith-based initiative.
1 comment:
It's sad. Because every side uses propaganda to the point that everyone loses credibility. I've got a Lebanese friend who just got his wife & daughters out. They were visiting family when the hostilities erupted. His story, coming from there has never made the news. He's mad at Hezbollah, mad at the Zionist (he says there's a difference between a Zionist & a Jew) mad at the Lebanese government. He even said that their news was reporting U.S. fighters were flying some of the IDF bombers that made the precision strikes. Lies, lies. lies and in a field somewhere the truth is raped and bleeding.
Post a Comment