Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (25482)	4/16/2002 12:36:58 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Mideast Press Process War, unlike politics, can go on without reporters. BY P.J. O'ROURKE Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT Israel banned journalists from covering military operations in the West Bank. The Committee to Protect Journalists called this "unacceptable." The International Federation of Journalists stated, "Censorship will not bring peace." Margaret Engel, managing editor of the Freedom Forum's Newseum, said, "It's an outrage." Actually, it's a mistake. (Something Israel seems to have realized, since it has partially lifted the ban.) Journalism is the opposite of pancake makeup and boudoir lighting. The farther journalists get away from you, the worse you look. But attempting to control news during a war is too usual to be labeled outrageous. Stalin didn't ban journalists from Stalingrad. He sent them there. They couldn't refuse. I'd rather be banned. And there was censorship in the Soviet press anyway. The International Federation of Journalists is right. Censorship did not bring peace. Not that peace with Germany would have been a good idea. Trying to evict journalists is probably better than trying to dress them in uniforms and enlist them in the war effort. Israel would find modern media types balky--Dan Rather as an overpaid Ernie Pyle opening his evening newscast with "Yitzak Tannenbaum from Haifa would like to say hello to his mother." (Although Dan has done stranger things.) Newseum's Margaret Engel went on to say (in an interview with Newsweek) that Israel's limitations on coverage have "a dreadful impact. The news flow is instantly restricted. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone." Well, not everyone. Israel thinks reporters have a pro-Palestinian bias. They do. This is not because of the complex blames and injustices of the region. (Journalists are no better than other liberal-arts majors at doing regression analysis with infinite variables.) But when someone is pounding the stuffing out of someone else, there's more human interest in the unstuffed than in the stuffing pounders. The Sioux were right at the Little Bighorn, but Custer is what sells. Any good reporter would have stuck to Yellow Hair, at least until the last 20 minutes. How do you say, "I'm with CNN" in Sioux? Also, from my own experience, Palestinians are warm, hospitable and chatty. Israelis soldiers are not. Journalists are as alert to social cues as any other herd animal. We prefer the Palestinians even if they don't invite us to come along on suicide bombings. Reporters thus ignore a basic principle of news: There are two sources you can't trust, those who won't tell their story and those who will. Maybe the Israelis are just sick of journalists. No sensible people (celebrities thereby excepted) want journalists to cover them doing anything, ever. Jeffrey Skilling did not let a reporter sit in while he consulted with Arthur Andersen, safe as that would have been since no reporter is smart enough to understand an Enron partnership. So journalists aren't welcome if what Israel is doing in the West Bank is wrong. Nor are they welcome if it's a necessary evil. You have two leads. One begins with "Necessary." The other beings with "Evil." Which lead has tabloid impact and which sounds like a press release from the United Nations? Even if Israel's West Bank actions are a positive good, reporters can buzz off. Santa doesn't bring us down the chimney. We'd write about elf labor conditions. But without reporters, how do we get the eyewitness, objective news that's necessary to shape public opinion in an open, democratic society? Good question and I'm glad the Israeli government had to answer it, because I couldn't. Yet that question raises other questions. How valuable is eyewitness war reporting for anything other than exciting shaky-cam lead-ins to Mylanta commercials? It's always hard to see the forest for the trees, especially when you're hiding behind one, scared silly. And where did the idea of Olympian objectivity in journalism come from? Not from the good liberal-arts majors that journalists are supposed to be. Olympus had its finger in every pie in "The Iliad." The great war correspondents of more recent history were strangers to neutrality. Richard Harding Davis seemed willing to fight the Spaniards in Cuba by himself. Ernest Hemingway styled his World War II press contingent "Hem Force" and liberated several French towns, or at least the wine cellars thereof. As for shaping public opinion, the media's record is spotty. We practically caused that ignominious war with Spain and then, ignominiously, almost kept America out of the war against the Nazis. Maybe we ended the Vietnam War, but it took us long enough. Then there is the matter of plain, brilliant war reporting. The best example in years is "Black Hawk Down." But Mark Bowden wasn't there. His book wouldn't be as good if he'd been dead since 1993. These things don't excuse Israel's interference with the news media. They make it worse. Those of us in journalism who support Israel for being open and democratic were left with a lot of explaining to do, but we also learned a lot. The media learned that war, unlike politics, does not depend upon the media to exist. Reporters were being reminded that they are sometimes dense, prejudiced and self-seeking. Plus, if I couldn't go to the West Bank, wear a funny flak jacket and be on TV with tracer bullets in the background, how would I ever snag Geraldo Rivera's job? Mr. O'Rourke, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, is author, most recently, of "The CEO of the Sofa" (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2001). opinionjournal.com

To: skinowski who wrote (25482)	4/16/2002 12:00:30 PM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 281500

Looks like the on-line crowd is getting raucous... "Israel has been suffering a barrage of hack attacks since the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000. According to security firm mi2g, the Israeli domain .il has been the biggest victim of web defacements over the past three years, suffering 548 of the 1,295 attacks in the Middle East. As violence escalates in the region, cyber attacks on Israel are also on the rise. In the past 14 days, Israel has suffered about two-thirds of the significant web defacements in the Middle East. Online threats The tense situation in the Middle East is reflected in both covert and overt hack attacks DK Matai, mi2g Chief Executive The most active anti-Israeli hacker group claims to be Egyptian and started its activities just weeks after 11 September. Cyber warfare can be used as a barometer for political tensions around the world, said mi2g Chief Executive, DK Matai. "The tense situation in the Middle East is reflected in both covert and overt hack attacks," he said. Israel is vulnerable not just because of its action against the Palestinian Authority, but also because it has the largest number of internet connections in the Middle East. Israel has 2.4 million net connections, more than any of the 22 Arab countries. Attacks on infrastructure? So far hacktivism has been limited to web defacements and denial of service attacks. This is where a web server is bombarded with messages causing it to fall over. Violence has escalated in the Middle East It is possible for the political hackers to intensify their campaign, said Peter Sommer, senior fellow at the Computer Security Research Centre at the London School of Economics. "It is entirely feasible to mount an attack on critical national infrastructure," he said. "From a pro-Arab point of view it would be far more effective than sending in a suicide bomber." Cyber-politics Hacktivism is a growing problem on the internet as activists utilise the web to get across their political messages. One of the most prolific hacktivists is a group of Pakistani hackers calling themselves GForce Pakistan. Soon after the 11 September, the group defaced a server belonging to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. It also threatened to target US and British military sites unless the US withdrew from Saudi Arabia and ended its bombing campaign in Afghanistan. Similar attacks were seen during the Serbian conflict, the US-China spy plane incident in April 2001 and the China-Taiwan standoff in August 1999" See also: 23 Oct 01 \| Americas Hacktivists take sides in war 17 Sep 01 \| Sci/Tech FBI warns of surge in hacking 10 May 01 \| Asia-Pacific 'Truce' in US-China hacking war 01 May 01 \| Sci/Tech US and Chinese hackers trade blows 03 Nov 00 \| Middle East Israel lobby group hacked news.bbc.co.uk