Posts

An Honest Mistake or Propaganda?

From Haaretz: French public television network France 2 on Tuesday revealed they had aired photographs that allegedly showed destruction caused by the Israel Air Force during Operation Cast Lead, which were in fact taken during a different incident in 2005, … Read More

By / January 7, 2009

From Haaretz:

French public television network France 2 on Tuesday revealed they had aired photographs that allegedly showed destruction caused by the Israel Air Force during Operation Cast Lead, which were in fact taken during a different incident in 2005, one in which Gaza civilians were killed by an explosion caused by militants in the Strip. The footage aired on Channel 2 on Tuesday afternoon showed dozens of dead bodies, including Hamas gunmen and citizens, which the channel said were killed by an IAF bombing raid on January 1st. It later came to light that the channel had instead aired footage of the devastation caused after a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp.

A news editor at France 2 told Le Figaro Tuesday that they had "made a mistake by airing those pictures," which he said depict events from 2005.

I will in all seriousness credit France 2 with acknowledging its mistake, even if it means that the original images it broadcast have already been propagated and have already done their unavoidable damage. I’ll also go so far as to not draw any definitive conclusions about the current integrity of a television network whose Israeli bureau chief, Charles Enderlin, has, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary — last legitimized* by the Paris Court of Appeal — maintained his position that the IDF was responsible for the alleged shooting death of Mohammed al-Durrah, a 12 year-old Gazan whose "martyrdom" has been called the Palestinian Dreyfus Affair. Reporters are not necessarily defined by their news organizations (Marx wrote for the New York Tribune), and vice versa.

War reporting, it must also be said, is prone to errors, and some errors carry heavier consequences than others. Whatever the truth behind France 2′s admission of an honest mistake, it does emphasize an important point raised recently by Jeffrey Goldberg about the stupidity of the IDF’s decision to disallow foreign correspondents into Gaza.  There are good, honest print, TV and photo journalists from all countries–not least of all, ours –willing to expose the very real tragedies of war, and also the heinous propaganda efforts which seek to fabricate new tragedies for ideological purposes. (As Jeff points out, Hamas is unconscionably adept at doing just that.)

Still, that this snafu comes at a moment that demands great sensitivity and fastidious attention to detail, whatever one’s politics or sympathies, indicates a gross dereliction of duty on the part of France 2. Whoever is responsible for running old images of dead Palestinians–killed, no less, by detonated Hamas explosives–should at the very least be kept away from the newsroom for the remainder of the conflict.

(For those curious, the embedded photograph is probably the most famous war photo ever taken, by the unrivaled Robert Capa during the Spanish Civil War. It’s entitled "Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano," and is dated September 5, 1936.)

* Ismail’s comment below is correct. My original use of the term "substantiated" was technically misleading because the Court did not rule that Karentsy had proven his case, but it did uphold his right — based on the seriousness and sincerity of his investigation — to call the al-Durah footage a forgery. There is indeed overwhelming evidence that the tape was a fake. This is not a minor point, and many other critics of France 2′s reportage have come to similar determinations. See in particular James Fallows’ piece in the Atlantic, "Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?" The reader is of course invited is make up his own mind, but I would add the following: given the contentiousness surrounding France 2′s portrayal of events during the second intifada, might it not have been expected to exercise greater caution in its reporting of the current conflict?

Tagged with:
  • Michael Weiss

    The IDF on Tuesday released video footage from 2007
    showing Palestinian militants firing from the school compound and
    carrying a rocket launcher with them as they fled the scene.

    Gunness said the 2007 video bears no connection to Tuesday’s military strike on the school.

    But do you not see how this doesn’t bear comparison with France 2′s mistake, which mis-dated the images as having come from the present when they came from the past? There is no indication in the above that the IDF tried to pass off 2007 video as 2008 video; indeed Gunness’s response derives from the accurate timestamp.

    What this does signal is a weak or insufficient defense of IDF military operations; i.e. "Look, Hamas has done this before, here’s proof. Of course they’d do it again."

  • Ismail
  • Michael Weiss

    No, I know about the UN School bombing (we have somebody working on a post about that now.) But Ismail says the IDF tried to pass off old coverage of mortrar fire as new coverage. That’s the source to which I was referring.

  • Carl Frikkin Sagan

    I don’t want to get involved in this, but I’ve read it in the Denver Post & CNN at least. It seems pretty widely reported. From CNN:

    "Israeli artillery and missiles have struck three U.N. schools in Gaza this week. More than 40 civilians were killed in a strike Tuesday on a U.N. school in Jabalya that was being used as a shelter. Three people were killed in airstrike Monday on a school shelter in Gaza City." 

    From Here:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/08/israel.gaza/index.html 

  • Michael Weiss

    By the way, when may we expect your condemnation of the IDF and its
    reptilian spokesman Benjamin Rutland for representing old file footage
    as showing the presence this week of mortar positions in the UNRWA
    school Israel levelled ?

    Do you have a source for this?

  • Michael Weiss

    Not what most would call "substantiating".

    Quite right. I’ve appended a correction to the post. Thanks for pointing this out.

  • Ismail

    By the way, when may we expect your condemnation of the IDF and its reptilian spokesman Benjamin Rutland for representing old file footage as showing the presence this week of mortar positions in the UNRWA school Israel levelled ? 

  • Ismail

    "…Charles Enderlin, has, in the face of overwhelmingly (sic) evidence to the contrary — last substantiated by the Paris Court of Appeal — maintained his position that the IDF was responsible for the alleged shooting death of Mohammed al-Durrah …"

    Nope. The court did no such thing. Rather than "substantiating" the evidence against Enderlin’s position, the court ruled on the considerably narrower question of whether a libel had occurred. It held that Karsenty’s (Enderlin’s opponent) questions constituted legitimate media criticism and so could not be considered libelous, but pointedly did not endorse Karsenty’s views. That is, questions about the legitimacy of the Al-Dura tape were permissible, its accuracy was not indubitable-but that’s all. Not what most would call "substantiating".

    So, you claim, falsely, and contrary to the specifics cited in your own link, that the Paris court substantiated overwhelming evidence against Enderlin. Referring back to the headline of your piece-shall we conclude that your mischaracterization of the French court’s ruling was a mistake or propaganda?