Gaza’s death toll is Hamas propaganda!

The New York Post is calling out the failure of the world's media in applying the pub test to Hamas' claimed Gaza civilian casualties. Indeed there is much to question. Abraham Wyner in his article Hamas is almost certainly lying about the number of deaths in Gaza points to the suspicious 'straight-line' rise in casualty numbers reported by Hamas. Is it likely that exactly 275 people were killed each day? Certainly does not pass the pub test.  And of course if Hamas is lying about this, then what else are they lying about? 

 

Surprise, surprise! A terrorist organisation that sends rockets at civilians, or commits vile atrocities, also lies. Who would have thought it!

Yet it seems that the rest of the world's media repeat lies without question. What happened to the analysis? To questioning? 

Indeed as another story from the NY Post put it in a follow up article (Hamas’ Gaza death toll stats are pure fiction — yet world media and leaders like Joe Biden still use them to smear Israel) ;

(This is ) a devastating lesson on the credulity of the world media and the gazillion politicians across the globe who’ve been repeating the stats as if they meant something — with no less than President Biden then falsely charging that Israel’s tactics are “over the top.”

Thank goodness there is at least one media organisation willing to look for the truth and then have the guts to publish it as they see it. We need many more.

The burden of truth

"There is a burden of truth on all of us. There is a weight of responsibility to not give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it" Gemma Tognini "Media regards claims of murderous monsters as legitimate"

Gemma has hit the bull's eye again with her piece (see link above) articulating what many of us have concluded about Main Stream Media. I am not new to criticising the media, just look at the many posts I have penned over the years (see Media related posts ). 

Given the horrendous, unspeakable atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on Oct 7, I expected that the civilised world would speak with one voice. A singular, unquestioning, unambiguous, unqualified voice of condemnation. Yet I was wrong. It did not take even one week for the apologists for Hamas to take to the streets condemning not Hamas but Israel. I guess some reaction from the Islamists, and their useful idiots was not really surprising, but what was and remains surprising, at least to me, is the lack of moral clarity by the media. These are educated, trained journalists who should be able to discern the truth. Professional journalists would be expected to ask questions and evaluate commentary based on the credibility of their sources. Most of all I would expect a commitment to truth. But no. Too many journalists have failed their profession. 

They have accepted as true statements from those who have shown no respect for truth. From those who have been shown repeatedly to have lied. What can you say about a journalist who reports as true, without qualification, claims of 10000 dead civilians, when their source, Hamas,  had claimed 500 civilians had been killed by the Israeli bombing of a hospital which was later proved to be false. It was not Israel but a Palestinian rocket misfire, it was not 500 but about 50 and it had not destroyed the hospital but the car-park of the hospital. Ok so they did it once. But then they made repeated claims that the Al Shifa hospital was not being used by Hamas and that Israel was guilty of war crimes for attacking a hospital When Israel stated they had evidence that it was being used by Hamas, the media started qualifying the reporting saying "Israeli spokesmen claim that the hospital was being used by Hamas". Suddenly they qualify when it comes to claims by Israel but make no such qualifications when reporting on civilian deaths claimed by Hamas.

As a result, Israel has had to do its own media reporting to ensure the truth was told. They have published videos proving that the hospital had been used by Hamas for a long time given the existence of large reinforced tunnels built directly under the hospital. They also released a video from the hospital's internal video systems showing that hostages captured on Oct 7 were taken to the hospital. The truth laid bare despite all the lies.

YouTube Video of the tunnels under Al Shifa hospital

YouTube video showing Al Shifa hospital's security video showing Hamas transporting hostages. As this is adult content to view it you will have to follow the links and view it on YouTube

So what about our media. They have been shown to have had no respect for the truth. Indeed they have not had respect for the truth for a long time. The Shifa hospital was part of the Hamas infrastructure going back at least a decade. And it is unbelievable that the doctors who work there did not know, nor indeed that the media did not know it.

It reminds me of the MeToo movement that seemed to burst into our newspapers only after one brave victim of Harvey Weinstein's sexual misconduct spoke out. Then of course many a victim then came out of the woodwork to join the accusing crowd. In that case, too, it was well known that Weinstein had been a sexual predator, yet no one, not one of the strongly outspoken feminists who had been abused had had the courage to call it out. 

It has taken an all-out war between Israel and Hamas to call out the media lies that have provided support for Hamas' public relations. With Weinstein, the victims and their supporters came together as a group to ensure Weinstein was punished. Now that the media acolytes have been exposed will we see the media call out Hamas for its lies? Will the media confess their own complicity? I doubt it.

But Gemma's words resound more than ever. 

"There is a burden of truth on all of us. There is a weight of responsibility to not give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it"

Too Many Useful Idiots

This post is directed to all journalists and commentators who serve to form opinions in our chaotic world.  If you qualify, and if you published Hamas' claims of Israel's bombing of a hospital resulting in the death of 500 people, then you should look in the mirror, and ask yourself the question, "Am I a useful idiot?" 

If you did, you have been and are being used by Hamas. You accept their lies without question while pointing the finger at Israel without checking the facts on the ground. You provide cover for heinous acts against civilians while equivocating about condemning such atrocities. You are an accomplice to all that follows. Sure your complicity may be unintended, but by negating the horror of Hamas' barbarism by some sort of moral equivalence you condone it, and in effect encourage it. Your lies had a direct effect. They caused the cancellation of high level diplomatic meetings between Biden and Arab leaders and launched massive anti-Israel marches in much of the Western World. Your implicit support for Hamas prolongs the war and will cause further casualties on both sides.

As a journalist, you have one job to report the facts without fear or favour. If you don't have the facts, you should say so and report nothing at all. 

More than a week after this event, I have only seen one half-hearted apology from the New York Times. Every media organisation that spread the lie should apologise for accepting Hamas' lies without checking the facts and to correct the record. We are waiting.

So really, have you acted as a useful idiot? Many would think you have!

Why no one trusts the media

Once respected as the final bastion of a free society, our media has fallen far. It is hard to find any, ANY, media outlet that always takes the ethical high road on journalism. Our ABC, the Murdoch Press, Sky News, our Free to Air television stations, all present facts intermixed with the political biases of the outlet. This makes it impossible for a viewer/listener to glean the un-tainted 'facts' of a story.

While it is sometimes difficult for even the most ethical journalists to filter their own prejudices, this is not the cause of the bias. Journalists today insert their opinions intentionally to try to sway their readership to their views. Journalism has evolved into advocacy.

A recent Prager video titled "Why no one trusts Main Stream Media" presented by Sheryl Atkinsson covers the problem admirably. Well worth the few minutes.

The consequences for our society are dire. A free society require a vibrant free press. The media's role is to gather and report facts without fear or favour, without bias and free of personal opinion. While there is room for personal opinion and debate, it must be clearly delineated from the factual foundations. This allows the audience to critically review the information presented and form their own views. It generates a 'marketplace of ideas' allowing the survival of the fittest.

Alas it seems our media has caught the twitter/facebook disease whereby like minded audiences listen to like-minded journalists entrenching the same ideas in an endless loop. Advocates of an idea become so entrenched they cannot even consider an alternative view and will even resort to violence to prevent it being presented.

In 1839 Edward Bulwer-Lytton noted "The Pen is mightier than the sword" recognizing that the written word had more power than direct violence. How ironic that in today's world those who wield the pen have created a society that is willing to use the "sword" to control the "pen".

10 rules to raise the standard of professional journailsm

In many earlier posts I have written about our media, highlighting bias, inappropriate priorities and the poor attitudes of journalists always looking for gotcha moments (see Media posts ).  The posts provide many examples of these failures so I won't go through them again.

A major contributor to these failures is the ever-increasing competition by a voracious media for engaged and loyal audiences. Journalists and news commentators adopt attitudes aligned with their audience in order to garner a following. This in turn drives the selection of the stories they cover, the arguments/questions they raise and their attitude in interviews.

Given journalists have these 'negative' drivers, management must be ever more proactive to ensure standards are maintained, or preferably raised. They can do this by setting clear editorial guidelines, and ensuring all journalists know are fully informed and expected to follow them. Moreover compliance should be monitored and any failures penalized.

This post would not be complete without at least a suggested list of Editorial Guidelines. My suggestions are based on the editorial guidelines for the highly professional PBS Newshour. (see Another Chapter Begins for Newshour)

10 rules for professional journalists

1. Do not report anything you cannot defend.
2. Cover, write, and present every story with the care you would want if the story were about you.
3. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
4. Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as you believe yourself to be.
5. Assume the same about all people on whom you report.
6. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
7. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything
8. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions.
9. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
10. Remember you are NOT in the entertainment business.

Even if followed rigorously these rules may not guarantee audiences, but would certainly raise the standards of news commentary.

Some media accepting some blame

Is hell freezing over? Are pigs taking to the sky? Perhaps not, but I do seem to detect a whiff of mea- culpa from the media. There is at least partial acceptance that media has been a cause of our political instability.

First it was Niki Sava asking the question "is the system broken?", and offering a stern denial (see The Australian, Sep 19, 2015, Yes, we’re not a banana republic, and no, the system ain’t broke).

Then came Paul Kelly, with his forthright, but gentlemanly rebuttal of Sava (see The Australian, Sep 23 2015, Negative politics the biggest enemy of reform). Yes, our political system is broken. Yes, this is having a negative impact on our society. By our media's focus on the negatives our politicians are busy fighting fires and as a consequence have deferred reform for virtually a decade. Yes, the media are at least partially at fault, by their unedifying emphasis on the trivial while ignoring the significant.

Today, we have Troy Bramston on the same topic and building on Kelly's arguments (see The Australian, Sep 28,2015, Revolving-door PMs not healthy for the nation).

"Clearly, we have a problem. As Paul Kelly wrote last week, we have had a revolving-door prime ministership, countless ministers and no substantial economic reforms since 2004. As a result, our living standards are declining. Poor performing leaders are always going to be vulnerable but this level of instability is affecting our economy and society." 
Troy Bramston, Revolving-door PMs not healthy for the nation

While Troy steers a kindly middle of the road, in the main, he has put forward a couple of suggestions which could alleviate the problem. He notes that there are too many polls, that parliamentary terms should be increased and that the Liberal party could take a leaf from the ALP and change the rules relating to party spills. These are constructive contributions that could provide greater stability. Although I don't know how you could prevent a pollster from producing a poll.

But as the others before him, the focus on the media is superficial. There is no attempt at identifying the media culture that is the root cause of the negative reporting. The culture that treats the trivial on equal terms as the substantial, the culture that seeks out foibles and slip ups. The culture that looks for gotcha moments, with aggressive interviewing tactics. The culture that worships moments of anguish by interview victims.

I have written about this before (see Interviewing:boxing or surgery?, Mischievous media magnifies mayhem, Raising the standard of public broadcasting ) I guess it is one of my 'bug-bears'.
I believe our media culture has a vital role in our society. It has a direct impact on our political and economic system, as evidenced by the political instability now acknowledged by Kelly and Bramston.

However its influence goes beyond that. Our media enters our homes, and becomes part of our daily life. Whether they intend it or not, our media set an example for all our behaviour. How we interact with our colleagues, our friends, or the man in the street. By their interactions on the radio and our TV screens we learn that it is okay to shout down those with whom we disagree. It is ok to laugh at others' discomfort. It is okay to ridicule and make fun of foibles.

But it isn't. And I am sure that the Leigh Sales's, Emma Albericis and the various Jones's of our media, indeed all our commentators, do not believe that their behaviour should be taken into our daily lives. I am sure they believe they are doing their professional duty as journalists. Even if they interrupt or talk over the interviewee, or ask questions with aggression and malice, or indeed focus on the trivial, such as winks or flags, they believe these behaviours are justified in the quest for truth. Their role as noble guardians of our society somehow justifies such transgressions of respectful discourse. Alas these are but empty rationalisations. There are many examples where journalists, despite their common role as 'noble guardians', manage to maintain higher standards than many in our media (see Raising the standard of public broadcasting).

I suggest, however, our journalists, particularly our radio and TV presenters, should think more about their audience. They should visualise their audience as impressionable youngsters or indeed their own children. Is this the way they would want their children to behave, or indeed is this the way they would want their children to see them behave? I suggest this perspective may encourage them to tone down and fulfil their role with greater professionalism.

Media are part of the problem

Are the media reporting or taking an active role in our political system?

This very question was raised by Tony Abbott in his concession speech; -

".... a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery.

“And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this – refuse to print self-serving claims, that the person making them won’t put his or her name to. Refuse to connive or dishonour, by acting as the assassin’s knife".

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/13/26/abbott-makes-final-speech-as-pm#ikzRdGplb5WGbhAQ.99

Tony Abbott's point was about the role of anonymous sources and 'white-anting', and I have covered that in my previous post (House of cards).

More generally stated, it is an accusation that the media by its constant focus on 'negatives', often trivial non-sensical contrived issues, creates, amplifies and perpetuates instability in our political system. Politicians are distracted to fight nuisance issues while their reform agenda is put on the back-burner. As a consequence our country's problems are not addressed, opportunities are not taken.

Is the 'system broken' when we have had 5 PM's in 5 years? Most external observers would think so. Not so our journalists. Niki Sava, and I m sure she is not alone, argues that our system is not broken and is working as it should (see The Australian, Sep 19, 2015, Yes, we’re not a banana republic, and no, the system ain’t broke). She argues it is our Prime Ministers who have not been up to the game. Many have nodded agreement, but this is simply self-serving media rationalisation.

Paul Kelly took the most unusual step of contradicting Sava, admittedly in a most gentlemanly style. (see The Australian, Sep 23 2015, Negative politics the biggest enemy of reform). How often do you see the Editor-in-Chief of a paper write an article addressing the same issues but offering a totally opposite view to one of their own journalists? I have not seen it before and surely it is rare. It is a brave and insightful article. Kelly has, I believe, described the issue well. By their very active magnification of even minor political 'issues' to the point that it causes paralysis, the media are complicit in the rising instability of our political system. We no longer get reform because any attempt at addressing it gets shot down in a torrent of criticism.

Media as king makers

However, I believe the problem goes deeper, as illustrated by the down-fall of three recent Prime Ministers in their first term.

There is a simple vicious circle, in which the media has a central role, that works to undermine sitting PMs.

It works like this; -

• The media pick up any nuance of what is regarded as a 'political' error by the PM. 
• All such errors are widely reported, scrutinized from every possible angle, usually to the exclusion of all else. This magnifies the issue and takes air-time from everything else. Often the trivial overtakes the substantial. Consider flags, cigars, winks, to name just a few.
• Wide publication influences public opinion. In the first instance it need not be a great influence, even a small one will have an impact.
• The influence is reflected in the polls with a downward movement in the popularity of the leader and his party. Published lower poll numbers further influence the electorate and the popularity of the PM and his/her party.
• This becomes a vicious circle, with each decrease in poll numbers encouraging the media to look for more faults which then causes further falls in the polls.
• Bad polls lead to questions of leadership and eventually a spill.

Does it look familiar?  Is is any wonder that three recent PMs have been brought down by their own parties?

Without doubt our political media are a key ingredient and must accept their failure in perpetuating this vicious cycle.

It is not difficult to address. Indeed it is very simple. But I will leave that commentary to another day.

More media musings

It is but a short time since the poll driven removal of Tony Abbott as our PM. Much has happened; a new cabinet has been sworn in, the new ministers have gracefully fronted the media and had warm loving interviews with a compliant media.  New polls have proclaimed the success of the change with a bounce of some 5% in two party preferred for the LNP and a corresponding drop for the ALP. Malcolm Turnbull is now the preferred  PM by some 20 points. All signs of a successful coup.

Not quite. Whereas winners are grinners, the losers are unhappy. So far discontent has been largely under the covers and the media, in honeymoon garb, is reluctant to fan any flames. Even the breathless few comments by Tony Abbott clarifying some comments about Morrison did not lead to much. The entrails of this coup have not been scrutinised, yet. But it will come. And once the media-pack needs some fodder, the discontented will be sought out for their views.

Besotted media coverage

For the present, the media has welcomed the ascendancy of Malcolm Turnbull to the PM role with open arms, forgetting the many reasons they found fault in his last incarnation as LNP leader.  The interviews have been sycophantic. Listen, for example to the unusually slow talking Michael Brissenden in his almost apologetic interview on AM , or view Leigh Sales's kindly, soft interview on ABC 730 report allowing Malcolm to talk without her trademark interruptions.

This is nauseating deference. I have always advised against aggressive, interview tactics (see Interviewing:boxing or surgery?)  but for heaven's sake this looks more like a love fest.

Indeed the media is very pleased. Virtually every commentator has been at it. Praising the new ministry, the Turnbull style, and turning their critical eye, at last, onto the ALP. It is as if Turnbull is their man. No doubt some of this is the euphoria of success; the media's success in getting rid of Tony Abbott, their success in securing the leader they wanted.

Media as influencer

Of course much of this is not new. It happened when Rudd was elected, it happened when Gillard was elected, and indeed when Rudd was elected again.

Abbot however had never received the soft treatment of the others. From the moment he surprisingly defeated Turnbull for the LNP the leadership, the media has been up in arms.

Even after defeating the hopeless Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governernments, Abbott received but a short honeymoon.

Without doubt, like all before him, he made some grievous political mistakes. The commentators often note he had no 'political' capital, but more accurately he had no 'media' capital.

In the end all leaders must accept their fate, no matter how the end is wrought. But we should be very concerned if our media hijack the show. If they become players in the political drama. If their influence causes the very changes they want to 'report'.

House of cards

Our political system is unstable

It is but a day after the coup which saw the fourth change of PM in but just over two years, and the third time a PM was replaced within their first term. These are unprecedented events, more akin to a television drama than real life. But alas that is politics today.

Many are coming to terms with the events of the past 24 hours, some readily accept the change others more reluctantly do so. Time will tell how this drama ends.

Like many outside observers I find these blatant 'full frontal' challenges a rather brutal and brutalizing process. It hearkens back to the animal kingdom where the leader of the pride has to maintain leadership by mane to mane combat against all challengers, in a fight sometimes to the end. My preference would be for a more gentlemanly behind-the-scenes arrangement where leaders would be changed from time to time by handshakes-and-nods when the numbers favoured a new nominee. Alas today that seems so naive and idealistic.

Is any of this the media's fault?

While I don't want to go into the specifics of this recent coup I am concerned about the process which uses the media as a tool of the dissatisfied.

As the recently deposed Tony Abbott noted in his concession speech ;

".... a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery.

“And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this – refuse to print self-serving claims, that the person making them won’t put his or her name to. Refuse to connive or dishonour, by acting as the assassin’s knife".

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/13/26/abbott-makes-final-speech-as-pm#ikzRdGplb5WGbhAQ.99
It seems that the recent instability within our political system has come hand in glove with several trends in our modern media, including; -

• the oft cited 24 hour news cycle requiring ever increasing content
• the frequency of polling
• the increasing number of commentators and media sources
• a social media background that has an ever greater appetite for commentary

For all these reasons any political decision or indecision receives the most detailed scutiny.
Opinions abound and too often the trivial takes precedence over stories of greater import. I guess everyone will have examples but consider the kerfuffle about a 'wink', or  the number of flags on a podium.

As a consequence our media amplifies and extends these sometimes serious, sometimes trivial, issues way beyond what would have been the case but a decade ago. (See my earlier comments on media  Mass media moving masses , Mischievous media magnifies mayhem)

So by its nature the media will amplify dissatisfaction.

But wait there is more...

Add to the ready-to-report, ready-to-amplify media, the treacherous, underhanded, conniving politician, eager to undermine their current leader, whether for venegeance for a past wrong, to gain a more senior role, or some rationalised 'noble' reason. We now have a secret cabal whereby Mr Treachery becomes the anonymous source for leaks to a compliant journalist, or two. The information is thrust into the public arena anonymously to wreak havoc with public opinion and to undermine the leader. This process is not new, we have seen it all too often. Indeed it is now a tactic well proven.

Moreover since it has worked in the past no doubt it will be used in the future.
Reluctantly I accept the reality of human nature; naked ambition, the bitterness of wrongs past, and the ability of otherwise good people to rationalise dishonest behaviour.

My question is about the media. Is the media ethical when publishing anonymous sources?

Is the media's use of anonymous sources ethical?

The very juxtaposition of the two words 'media' and 'ethics' seems to generate a smirk, but I continue.

Media ethics is indeed at the very foundation of media studies and rightly so. Of course anonymous sources are an integral part of the profession.

My, admittedly limited, readings indicate the appropriate use of anonymous sources is not clearly defined. Indeed the Society of Professional Journalists advises care in their use and tellingly advises;

"2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The information-gathering business is a give-and-take practice with a lot of public officials. Some are willing to provide information only when it benefits them. When someone asks to provide information off the record, be sure the reason is not to boost her own position by undermining someone else’s, to even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda. Media outlet practices vary, but journalists should not overlook the danger of legal problems and credibility damage from publishing anonymously sourced information that is not confirmed by public records or credible sources. Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish." (my emphasis) http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

It seems SJP is advising not to use anonymous sources if any one of the following apply; -

1. the motivation behind the anonymous information is for some 'political advantage'
2. there is a possibility that the information is untrue
3. the news value does not warrant whaterver the source want to achieve

Looking at the recent white-anting of Tony Abbot, the leaks seem to have broken all of these criteria. Lets look at each in turn.

The motivation behind the anonymous information is for some 'political advantage'

Clearly, the leaks from the cabinet room have been for a political advantage, ie bringing instability into the government in order to initiate a coup. 

Consider these; - 

SMH June 16,2015 - Leaked briefing paper shows divisions in Tony Abbott cabinet over cancelling citizenship

SMH August 19, 2015 - Leaked talking points tell ministers to say our cabinet is functioning exceptionally well

These headlines speak for themselves.

Most significantly the leak about the planned reshuffle of senior ministers triggered the events of yesterday.

Herald Sun Sep 11,2015 - Cabinet leak is very messy

There is a possibility that the information is untrue

There have been several recent stories which relied on anonymous sources that have proved to be untrue. The one that comes to mind is the story that Mr Abbott had refused to meet with the same sex partner of Australia's ambassador to France. 

SMH May 5,2015 - Ambassador to France offers resignation after bizarre Abbott airport incident

And then proven to be false; -
The Australian May 6,2015 - Abbott had dinner with ambassador in Paris after snub

The news value does not warrant whatever the source want to achieve

Most of the above stories carry no news value other than to show that there is internal division in the cabinet. This is of course news, but it is in fact the very objective the source is trying to achieve. In other words by printing the story the journalist is providing no more information than what the source wants to achieve.
It is clear that, by the criteria outlined by the SJP a professional journalist would not have published these stories. Indeed a professional journalist should never use anonymous sources in these political 'white-anting' situations.

Oh, for a more ethical media

It seems a lonely cry into the ether, but I implore our professional media to look at their role as reporters of truth, without fear or favour. Do not become become the 'assassin's knife', do not accept anonymous leaked stories from treacherous MPs. By doing so you would not be failing your journalistic profession , on the contrary you would be practicing what the Society of Professional Journalists suggest is ethical best practice.