Post by Teddy Bear on Mar 12, 2010 22:31:06 GMT
Melanie Phillips at the Spectator, and Tom Gross at the National Review both make the valid observation of how Paul Martin, a respected journalist, who was trying to report the situation in Gaza in a fair way, and subsequently held hostage by Hamas for a month until released, received such little coverage from the British media.
This includes our 'cherished' BBC who he also worked for. How different it was when the Palestinian friend and BBC journalist Alan Johnson was kidnapped there. We never heard the end of it.
Martin's 'crime' was
So what do you think was the difference in the way the BBC reported or failed to report on these events?
Safe -- but where's the bunting?
Friday, 12th March 2010
Good news: it appears that the BBC journalist Paul Martin, who was kidnapped by Hamas four weeks ago, has been released.
What’s that – you didn’t even know a BBC journalist had been kidnapped by Hamas? This isn’t surprising. Virtually nothing has been written about this. And even now that Martin has been released, I can’t see any domestic coverage of this at time of writing -- not even on the BBC website home page, although it does appear on the BBC World Service page. Compare and contrast with the tsunami of coverage over the previous BBC journalist who was kidnapped in Gaza, Alan Johnston, and the enormous razmatazz over his release. At NRO, Tom Gross makes this key point:
Can this really be true: a British journalist of moral and intellectual integrity who wanted to do his job properly by telling the truth about the Middle East conflict?! Golly. No wonder the British media is underwhelmingly interested in Paul Martin’s fate.
This includes our 'cherished' BBC who he also worked for. How different it was when the Palestinian friend and BBC journalist Alan Johnson was kidnapped there. We never heard the end of it.
Martin's 'crime' was
....Indeed according to the Palestinian Maan news agency (but not reported by most Western media) Hamas detained Martin because he “sought to distort the image of Palestinians by going to tunnels, trying to prove that Hamas smuggles weapons, that we used children as human shields during the war.” In other words Martin wanted to tell the truth.
So what do you think was the difference in the way the BBC reported or failed to report on these events?
Safe -- but where's the bunting?
Friday, 12th March 2010
Good news: it appears that the BBC journalist Paul Martin, who was kidnapped by Hamas four weeks ago, has been released.
What’s that – you didn’t even know a BBC journalist had been kidnapped by Hamas? This isn’t surprising. Virtually nothing has been written about this. And even now that Martin has been released, I can’t see any domestic coverage of this at time of writing -- not even on the BBC website home page, although it does appear on the BBC World Service page. Compare and contrast with the tsunami of coverage over the previous BBC journalist who was kidnapped in Gaza, Alan Johnston, and the enormous razmatazz over his release. At NRO, Tom Gross makes this key point:
One of Hamas’ aims in detaining Martin was, of course, to further deter any brave foreign journalist on assignment in Gaza who might dare report the truth about the Hamas regime.
Indeed according to the Palestinian Maan news agency (but not reported by most Western media) Hamas detained Martin because he ‘sought to distort the image of Palestinians by going to tunnels, trying to prove that Hamas smuggles weapons, that we used children as human shields during the war.’ In other words Martin wanted to tell the truth.
Can this really be true: a British journalist of moral and intellectual integrity who wanted to do his job properly by telling the truth about the Middle East conflict?! Golly. No wonder the British media is underwhelmingly interested in Paul Martin’s fate.