Riddle me this? Isn't the definition of news something that is "new" or noteworthy. And if something is reported as news even when it's not, doesn't that mean that there could be some sort of ulterior motive for making readers think it IS news? Case in point.
Bold letters, upper left on the NY Times home page (that's the journalistic equivalent of using an exclamation point) is an article titled Israel Plans to Remain in Lebanon Until Force Arrives. The sub-header is "Israel will keep troops in the area “until the multinational force arrives, even if that takes months,” the Israeli general said."
Since we need to assume this is "news", that must mean that this is an unexpected move on Israel's part, no doubt blocking the process of getting things back to normal. Those warmongering stiffnecked Israeli bastards!
Except that would be wrong. The text of the recent UN cease fire resolution says the following:
Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel.
Given that the deployment of Lebanese and Unifil has not begun, Israel is not expected to leave any part of captured territory. Therefore, there is no news, but the Times wants you to believe that there is - so much so that it's the most important story in the world at this point in time.
No word in the Times to let us know that no one believes that either the UN or the Lebanese government is actually going to disarm Hizbollah given that another key cease fire provision is "that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon".
Bold letters, upper left on the NY Times home page (that's the journalistic equivalent of using an exclamation point) is an article titled Israel Plans to Remain in Lebanon Until Force Arrives. The sub-header is "Israel will keep troops in the area “until the multinational force arrives, even if that takes months,” the Israeli general said."
Since we need to assume this is "news", that must mean that this is an unexpected move on Israel's part, no doubt blocking the process of getting things back to normal. Those warmongering stiffnecked Israeli bastards!
Except that would be wrong. The text of the recent UN cease fire resolution says the following:
Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel.
Given that the deployment of Lebanese and Unifil has not begun, Israel is not expected to leave any part of captured territory. Therefore, there is no news, but the Times wants you to believe that there is - so much so that it's the most important story in the world at this point in time.
No word in the Times to let us know that no one believes that either the UN or the Lebanese government is actually going to disarm Hizbollah given that another key cease fire provision is "that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon".
No comments:
Post a Comment