Now this is what I would call jaw dropping. Or eye-popping. Or outright mind-boggling.
But to the details. Since some of you may be unable to see the Facebook post in the above link, here was a snapshot of it. Unfortunately, the snapshot was removed due to Lisa's insistence that it is her private domain. Here is her position:
Hi there -- You do not have my permission to take a screenshot of my Facebook page. As per my privacy controls, it is meant to be viewable only by friends. Please delete the image right away. LisaBe it as it may - the text remains indefensible. But, since I can't use the original text for the reasons of above mentioned lawfare (or lowfare, whatever), the only way I can go is to give the reader a hint: the ideas for reporting on Gaza, as provided by Lisa are nicely overlapping with the guidance dispensed by Hamas Interior Ministry. As for the difference between the two: I shall leave here an empty space, which, if Lisa so desires, will be used for the text she demanded to be omitted. Of course, if she is willing to prove the difference. Update 8/20/2014: apparently she is, her behavior lately precludes any coherent thought, so here it is back where it belongs:
Did Hamas prevent journalists from reporting accurately or not? I think the FPA has muddied the waters here, partly because none of the people who claimed they were intimidated spoke for attribution. I don't doubt their claims at all. But for the port to carry weight, it needs to be solidly sourced. The main takeaway should be, as every journalist who's worked on the ground knows, that soldiers and authorities in Israel and in Gaza *both* try to control the message. They do not succeed, although they do often anger the reporters they try to intimidate. But the *most important* point is this: the claims that foreign journalists were intimidated by Hamas into presenting a sympathetic message in exchange for the dubious privilege of reporting from a war zone, MUST STOP. This claim speaks to the desire to ignore and deny what happened in Gaza.The tirade as a whole could be considered a lesson in illogical thinking: “FPA has muddied the waters” but “I don’t doubt their claims at all” but “it needs to be solidly sourced” but “soldiers and authorities in Israel [do same]” etc. Who muddies the waters indeed?
But, but, but – but of course that is not the jaw-dropping point. This is: “…the claims that foreign journalists were intimidated by Hamas into presenting a sympathetic message in exchange for the dubious privilege of reporting from a war zone, MUST STOP. This claim speaks to the desire to ignore and deny what happened in Gaza.” [Emphasis mine].
The jaw-dropping part is not the complete perversion of the claims about Hamas intimidation (they don’t intimidate journos to get “a sympathetic message”, rather focusing on cutting off the stream of unsympathetic ones, of course). It is the call, made by a person who was a journalist and – as I stated several times – a good one, to other journalists – to STOP (in capitals, too) publishing truth harmful to Hamas.
I don't know whether journalists have some kind of a secret oath, pledging to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. Also - I don't know whether they are taught that half of the truth is most probably a lie. But I am sure someone at some stage must have mentioned that point of "the whole truth" - otherwise what is the point of journalism?
And here we have a journalist (or ex-journalist?) demanding that her colleagues quit telling the whole truth, leaving out parts that may damage the otherwise lily-white reputation of the murderous outfit, Hamas. Because it may interfere with the pictures of dead children (frequently copied from other places far from Gaza) and destroyed buildings.
Because in their all-consuming righteous fervor to blame the barbarous Zionists, the progressive "journalists" are ready to make us forget the force of darkness that thrives on these pictures, that practically begs for more of that - willingly supplied by the legion of the immensely stupid fellow travelers.
And even the material of the Haaretz article that Lisa Goldman is using as a reference, was used by her selectively, while she completely ignored some damning information. Like this:
Some reporters received death threats. Sometimes, cameras were smashed. Reporters were prevented from filming anti-Hamas demonstrations where more than 20 Palestinians were shot dead by Hamas gunmen.The whole truth, indeed...
In perhaps the most serious incidents considered by the FPA, Hamas began firing mortars right next to the location of foreign reporters, in what may have been an effort to draw Israeli retaliatory fire.
Several foreign correspondents said the FPA had been right to issue the statement. One European reporter told Haaretz how Hamas officials prevented photographs being taken of any wounded or dead fighters at Al-Shifa hospital, even though their presence there was common knowledge. Only images of wounded or dead civilians were permitted.
And here are some excellent questions Alan Johnson is asking. Don't look to Lisa for answers, though.