12/08/2024
On 31st July I posted about the importance of reading news and understanding the context and why a news item was published as part of competitive intelligence. I mentioned the importance of looking out for bias. Of course printed news is not the only form of news (and my comments apply especially to social media too).
What about news interviews? Do the same principles apply? The answer is yes but even more so. Does the interviewer pick up clear lies put out to misinform or disinform? Are the right questions asked? Are contradictions picked up - especially exaggerations or changes in what has been said? AND if the newscast then includes a counter-view is the opposite spokesperson treated in the same way or are they grilled differently.
There was a masterclass in picking these differences up in this morning's UK BBC Radio interview with a Palestinian "medic" and an official spokesperson for Israel. (Palestinian side at about 1hr 16mins and the Israeli side at 2hr 12mins https://lnkd.in/er6bvSYu)
I'm normally willing to defend the BBC as they have a hard time ensuring balance, so they have to include both sides. hashtag also does a reasonable job in preventing disinformation. Not today on Today!
There is not enough space to show why the Palestinian spokesperson was lying and what is shameful is that when the Israeli spokesperson tried to point out lies, he was prevented by his interviewer, so in this case there was no balance. The average listener is not skilled at picking up the nuances. So I'll highlight a few. The Palestinian interviewer correctly named the UK prime minister and foreign secretary. Ask yourself - who is the current UK foreign secretary. (Especially if you are a non-British citizen). Would you know the key politicians who were only elected to office 5 weeks ago of any country other than your own? (Who is the foreign minister of France - the last two weeks has had non-stop coverage of France because of the Olympics? If you are not an American, who is the current US Secretary of State?). Name 2 or 3 current Canadian top politicians.... or Chinese.... Or Russian (other than Putin). Yet this on-the-ground medic could namecheck UK politicians. So clearly he was not a random medic but a professional spokesperson but this was not how he tried to portray himself. He claims to have been at the hospital when casualties came in. He says most victims were elderly but later says many were children. None were fighters (and in Hamas statistics there are never fighters only women and children casualties). Further, he wasn't asked why photographs of the damage by Israel's bombs was minimal and highly targeted - 95% of the building was not damaged. (Any subsequent damage was from armaments kept in the building as Israel claims).
In contrast, the Israeli spokesperson was constantly interrupted!
More on the statistics. The director of the local Al-Ahli Arab Hospital said that at least 80 Palestinians were killed. According to Gaza Health Ministry, 47 were injured which is odd as usually more are injured than killed. 47 injured could match Israel's claims to have killed 20 Hamas operatives who were using the school - and no more. The Palestinian Civil Defence said that 11 children and six women were among the victims, and elderly civilians were also reported to be among the victims of the disaster. Depending on your source (these figures came from CNN, Reuters, Al Jazeera and the Washington Post) you get different figures - indicating that there is an attempt at disinformation that's not been properly crafted.
Further to come up with exact figures so quickly also rings untrue.
It's important to note that the medic interviewed, Dr. Khamis Elessi, is regularly interviewed on the situation in Gaza. Another Gaza medic, Dr. Ahmed Al Jamal and his journalist son, Abdallah Al Jamal, were both responsible for keeping Israeli Noa Argamani hostage, and as a slave. Dr Elessi and Dr Al Jamal may have medical qualifications.
