In a message he’s probably posted on any blog that’s treating this, the key Western player in the Mashharawi affair defends his position. Feel free to analyze the response before I get a chance.
WORLD NEWS & FEATURES, which has been operating in zones of conflict since 2001, is responsible for the supply of video material to a number of major television stations during this Gaza conflict, and we are very careful to ensure we work only with people we know and trust in the Gaza Strip. Ashraf Mashharawi is probably the most respected independent producer in the Gaza Strip. We have worked with him, and with his late brother Ahmed, an excellent cameraman, on and off there for at least five years, and throughout the Mashharawis have been fair and accurate. We would expect even the most objective Western journalist to be somewhat upset when he has to carry his own 12-year-old brother to hospital, fatally wounded by a rocket while playing on the roof of his own home. No-one in their right mind would suggest that any person would allow doctors to play games with a dying or dead younger brother. The idea is bizarre and deeply insulting, and actually damages the credibility of your blogger’s scrutiny of TV output in general - a scrutiny which in principle we would strongly applaud.
The tape, filmed by Ashraf’s cameraman, was fed to London and used by several outlets, without WNF itself actually having the facility to watch it beforehand. But having now done so we continue to stand by the complete genuineness of the footage. What is shown is just the very final stage of doctors’ failed efforts to save Mahmoud. I suppose the reason their effort as shown is so gentle is that they have already in effect concluded that it is futile. And I think your blogger’s understanding of TV is somewhat flawed in this respect: no-one would need to ‘dramatize’ any such death, gently or vigorously. The death itself and the fact that Ashraf’s cameraman had filmed all the PREVIOUS events, and the subsequent return to the home with the body, and the funeral, would have been dramatic enough… in fact the hospital post-death concluding effort by the doctor(s) in no way enhanced the power of the filming - if anything it weakened it… just a body lying there and Ashraf mourning over his dead brother’s lifeless corpse would have been more powerful.
So there is no logical reason to suspect that this doctor was playing to the camera (if so he would have bacted much more dramatically, of course) - let alone that Ashraf would have asked him to do so. The hospital has confirmed that Mahmoud Mashharawi, aged 12, was brought in still breathing but subsequently was pronounced dead. There is therefore not the slightest indication of any faking.
I think a decent apology to Ashraf might be in order.
I might also add that trying to suggest Ashraf has some political agenda is also a false trail. He does not. He was (but is no longer) employed by a company that produced the .ps suffix, and just as anyone can sign up for a .com or a .info or a.tv suffix on payment of a small fee, so can anyone buy a .ps suffix - even Little Green Footballs. All Palestinians like the .ps suffix so anyone can sign up, including affiliates of Hamas. So what WNF has also used this company’s services, because it has a big US-based server that can contain a lot of video, and it is quite cheap! We are happy with this web hosting service - which has no influence at all on our editorial output - we can switch to any commercial provider whenever we wish. The fact that we have had both a personal and a commercial relationship with Ashraf Mashharawi is one good reason why we are relying ONLY on his services during this current conflict while I myself and our other people cannot enter Gaza itself. We have other Palestinians offering to work for us there but have turned all of them down so we can rely only on someone about whose integrity we have certainty.
Finally, an attempt was made by one of your bloggers to show that one of the doctors wanted to make a film with Ashraf. His brother, who died in a car crash, was hosted by a family in Norway and that is probably how he came to know about Ashraf’s production services. The idea that this somehow resulted in this same doctor and Ashraf acting out some faked scene over his dying or dead youngest brother is ludicrous and sickening. Ashraf’s father, who is a medical doctor too by the way, deserves better than to have the death of his child portrayed in any way other than the truth - Mahmoud died because a rocket hit him while he was playing on the roof of his apartment. It is a legitimate story for the media to cover.
I would however suggest that it is vital for the media also to cover why such events occur, and to give balanced and fair overall coverage. Some filmed reports may show one aspect of the complex events, while another should show another side. For example, WNF is investigating (and has also asked the IDF) whether unmanned drones have cameras which produce only fuzzy pictures and therefore cannot or did not distinguish whether figures moving on a roof are fighter or just kids. That may well be the case. WNF is proud to be a very independent producer of news and current affairs from ALL sides of a conflict. Presently I am in Israel filming with the Israeli medical teams who go to the sites of rocket attacks, for example.
Finally, we welcome and encourage and salute scrutiny of the media, but we urge bloggers first to think before they leap to the keyboard, and then to be moderate and considerate, especially when alleging things that will be deeply hurtful to other human beings. Anyone with further queries (or apologies) is welcome to contact me.
Oh yes, by the way when the war is over and I can get into Gaza myself, I will get thea full video of the original filmed tape, and make it available to all on our website. We would then welcome honest analysis.
No-one in their right mind would suggest that any person would allow doctors to play games with a dying or dead younger brother.
i rest my case: as I said, cannot conceive a fundamental distinction between his culture and theirs.
he still has no clue of who he’s dealing with after all the pallywood evidence and pal behavior.
on the other hand, his business is to provide news from gaza and he is completely dependent on pals for his business. if he starts questioning them, he would lose his business. so he cannot afford it and must defend them no matter what.
The fact that we have had both a personal and a commercial relationship with Ashraf Mashharawi is one good reason why we are relying ONLY on his services during this current conflict while I myself and our other people cannot enter Gaza itself.
see what I mean?
but we urge bloggers first to think before they leap to the keyboard, and then to be moderate and considerate, especially when alleging things that will be deeply hurtful to other human beings.
only the pals count. the hurt caused by their reports to israel by inflaming the jihadis does not.
what pieces of shit these assholes are. no integrity whatsoever.
The tape, filmed by Ashraf’s cameraman, was fed to London and used by several outlets, without WNF itself actually having the facility to watch it beforehand.
they don’t ensure any quality control, they just let the pals do their thing.
But having now done so we continue to stand by the complete genuineness of the footage.
enderlin 2. can’t afford to admit the truth.
So there is no logical reason to suspect that this doctor was playing to the camera
oh, yeah. there has never been any evidence of such things by the pals.
Comment by oao — January 11, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
perhaps mr. martin should acquaint himself with islamic and arab culture and may lose his gullibility.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024347.php
however, i doubt he will. he’s now in full bunker mode to protect his livelihood as well as in denial about his incompetence and useful idiocy.
Comment by oao — January 11, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
1. Paragraph starts with a description of WNF and the assurance that they are bound to objectivity and therefore are a trustworthy organisation. This also implies that Martin accepts at least some responsibility for the video in question.
He goes on with describing Ashraf Mashharawi as an independent producer - regarding the Palestinian factions in the Gaza strip? Regarding media organisations in the world? Most plausibly in terms of general journalistic independence. He describes him as fair and accurete - plasusibly in the same sense.
He goes on with “We would expect even the most objective Western journalist to be somewhat upset…”. So there is the unquestionable objective Palestinian camera man and the more or less objective Western journalists “we” have to expect to be “upset” i.e. somehow not objective anymore but directed by emotions “when” something happens.
The suggestion here is that “we” should also expect Ashraf Mashharawi to “upset” i.e. loose his objectivity at some point i.e. when the “when” thing happens. The reader at this point should expect that the when-thing will be described and the when thing is not only hypothetically related to Ashraf Mashharawi but has happened to him.
“We” therefore should expect him to be “upset” somehow. Everyone will be upset, so will he.
At this point it is clear that Martin tries to defend Ashraf Mashharawi for being upset in the “when”-case i.e. for being directed by emotions i.e. for being not objective anymore. Here he concides the possibility that Ashraf Mashharawi realiter has been “upset” and done somthing that should be excusable under the when-circumstances.
The When-thing is carrying his fatally wounded - by a rocket - 12-year old brother to hospital. The rocket implies that it is a war-like situation.
Martin is right. Everyone will be at least upset in that case. Most people will be overwhelmed by emotions. Judgement will be impaired.
He goes one with “No-one in their right mind would suggest that any person would allow doctors…”. It is plausible that doctors is related to the doctors in the hospital who are treating the fatally wounded brother. No-one is either A.M. or someone else. Any person is either A.M. or someone else. The statement is that no right-minded person will suggest that doctors are allowed to do something by someone. Because right-mindedness should be expected to be the normal and healthy state of mind one can ask what doctors are normally not allowed to do. The job of doctors in the patient-treating-situation is to do the feasable things to heal the patient or bring him back to the most healthy state that is possible. Furthermore he has to deal with relatives and treat them well. They are not allowed to do experiments on their patient or others things that do harm to the patient. That inludes damaging their dignity in a wide sense. This includes protecting the patient from being exposed to the public for no good reason. A good reason would be documentation for medical education purposes. But even then the identity of the patient must be disguised. This is called medical ethics.
But these medical ethics are not subject to possible allowence. A doctor is not allowed to treat a patient unethically even if “any person” has allowed it. Martin’s statement is therefore skewed.
So what could have been suggested by a not rightminded person in Martin’s sense?
The allowence of unethical behaviour of the doctor treating the wounded brother. That implies that any person plausibly refers to A.M..
Since P.M. is defending A.M. against something (pointed out before) what he might have done when he was “upset” it is plausible to assume that such suggestions have been made by someone.
P.M. is therefore calculating with the possibility that A.M. has indeed allowed doctors to treat his brother unethically.
He goes on with “to play games with a dying or dead younger brother”. Games are activities that entertain and have generally no greater use. Children are playing games. PM suggests that someone could have suggested that AM had allowed the doctor to play games with his dying brother. And he is - perhaps unwillingly - suggesting that AM indeed was “upset” and could have done things he normally does not do i.e. allowing the doctor to play games.
De facto has no one suggested that the doctor in question was playing games with the patient in the video.
The claim was made that the very doctor and his collegues have treated the brother unethically and more specifically have exposed him for propaganda purposes. Unethical because willingly exposing patients in a video without an educational reason is unethical.
It is known for sure that the doctor in question has treated patients in this unethical way. He has systematically exposed patients for obviously non-medical reasons:
“Mads Gilberts bilder fra Gaza”
http://www.tv2.no/nyhetene/utenriks/article2498080.ece
One of the extreme images shows not unlikely the brother in question (No. 7)
The video and the image imply that AM has either allowed the doctor to expose his brother or not hindered the doctor from exposing his brother in the very way. The mentioning of “games” therefore is a feint:
No one has suggested that the doctor has played games but the claim that the doctor has treated the brother unethically i.e. for non-medical reasons is proven by the video itself. The following accusations “The idea is bizarre…” therefore are baseless.
The claim was made that the doctors in the video are performing ineffective CPR which purpose is not treating the boy but producing dramatic images for the camera.
I’m not going to judge whether the displayed CPR is genuine.
PM goes on “The tape, filmed by Ashraf’s cameraman…”
We know for sure that the doctor in question Mads Gilbert is willingly exposing patients for non-medical reasons and it is said that AM’s collegue has been filming the dying brother. It is very plausible to assume that AM himself allowed these two persons to film the brother and take pictures of him in this unethical way.
It is plausible to assume that the non-medical reason for exposing the brother is nothing else but creating the impression of tragic suffering.
to be continued…
Comment by harris — January 11, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
bloggers should think 2ice before they comment, but mr. martin should not think at all in his endeavors; he should blindly believe whatever the pals feed him.
Comment by oao — January 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
looks like the bloggers are doing the various martins work for them:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022521.php
they THINK.
Comment by oao — January 11, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
He goes on with “without WNF itself actually having the facility to watch it beforehand”. So apparently WNF was not responisble for publishing the video. Or they “fed it to London” without having seen it. Latter would demonstrate the great confidence they have in AM.
“But having done so we continue to stand by the complete genuiness of the footage”.
PM assumes that the footage is genuine in the sense the CPR displayed in the video was not performed just for the camera.
Since PM is not a medical professional he is not able to decide whether the displayed CPR is medically effective. “What is shown is just the very final stage of doctors’ failed efforts to save Mahmoud.I suppose the reason their effort as shown is so gentle is that they have already in effect concluded that it is futile”. He either has seen the whole material which shows other stages or he simply assumes this in defense of AM. Given that it is the final stage of their efforts. There is either material that show eralier stages or such material does not exist. If there is video material that shows earlier stages of the effort to stabilize the brother and if the given sequence indeed shows the brothers death it means the cameraman was filming while the brother was still alive. Filming during such a treatment undoubtedly is distracting the doctors and other medical personal. Consider the camera light. Furthermore it is potentially impairing their movements and therefore the effectiveness of their treatment. It therefore can be concluded that if the cameraman was indeed filming the whole treatment as it is claimed by PM and if the doctor and AM had allowed the filming then they all have de facto endangered the brother’s life. I suppose one will never see live scenes from a Norwegian ER.
(The argument that there are different cultures is futile because Mads Gilbert has allowed the filming)
The reason for that could be nothing else but a propaganda purpose. It is plausible to assume that they were genuinely trying to save the brothers life. I therefore dare to assume that there is no such video material.
In this case they started filming when the brother either was dead or they recognized that their effort was futile. Which would be very good timing by the camera man.
“And I think your blogger’s understanding of TV is somewhat flawed in this respect: no-one would need to ‘dramatize’ any such death, gently or vigorously. The death itself and the fact that Ashraf’s cameraman had filmed all the PREVIOUS events, and the subsequent return to the home with the body, and the funeral, would have been dramatic enough… in fact the hospital post-death concluding effort by the doctor(s) in no way enhanced the power of the filming - if anything it weakened it… just a body lying there and Ashraf mourning over his dead brother’s lifeless corpse would have been more powerful.”
“The death itself” is only dramatic for the public if he is displayed. Displaying the death means displaying the very last moments of life and the efforts in saving this life. As pointed out before it would have endangered the brother’s life to film their actions when it seems to them not to be futile. But if this video is genuine then the question of the right doctor doing the CPR if the boy is dead is genuine. It would mean that the video shows exactly the moment at which it comes to his mind that his effort is futile. Which again would imply that the filming de facto has endangered the boy before.
We know that Mads Gilbert is willingly exposing patients for propaganda reasons.
We know not very much about the operating camera man. We do not see AM himself in that video sequence which can mean that he is waiting behind the camera or outside the room. But why would he be outside the room while camera man is inside? There is no moaning and no screaming in the video.
“The death itself and the fact that Ashraf’s cameraman had filmed all the PREVIOUS events, and the subsequent return to the home with the body, and the funeral, would have been dramatic enough…”
PM claims that in the displayed sequence the doctors aren’t really trying anymore to save the life. That they are not genuinely performing CPR - in a medical sense. But the output would much more dramatic if it were showing genuine CPR effort in a medical sense. PM is plain wrong here.
“if anything it weakened it… just a body lying there and Ashraf mourning over his dead brother’s lifeless corpse would have been more powerful”
If that would be true - which it is not - then someone did a bad job since the purpose of that video is undoubtedly creating an dramatic impression. But such images can be seen all the time in the media.
to be continued…
Comment by harris — January 11, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
From Paul Martin’s posting above: “… during this current conflict while I myself and our other people cannot enter Gaza itself.”
From the worldnf tv web site at :
“Film-maker Paul Martin, of WORLD NEWS & FEATURES, has gained exclusive access to the men who fire the rockets. Martin filmed with a militant group as they prepared to risk their lives - and his - in a rocket-firing operation. He presents a unique view of the ROCKET MEN of Gaza.”
This provides a tough ethical question: is it acceptable to tag along on what might be a war crime and film it? Would this firing into Israel constitute an accomplice in a war crime, that of firing at a civilian population. I don’t think that he filmed this rocket crew firing into the Mediterranean Sea instead of Israel. Unless he is referring to the risk of a prematurely burst rocket on firing, it would seem that he is aware that there may have been some retaliation from the government of the area into which the rocket(s) were going to be launched.
Did Paul Martin know that they were going to fire on a civilian target before he joined the rocket team?
Did he assist in any way?
Would they have fired if he was not present? Was this rocket firing event put on for Paul’s benefit?
How did he make the contacts with this rocket team? Did Ashraf Mashharawi provide an introduction or make the contact on his behalf?
Comment by Bill — January 11, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Appendix:
The third medical person finally orders Mads Gilbert to put something on the body which seems to be medical equipment. If the two doctors indeed were aware that their effort was futile they would probably not have applicated items after that.
“So there is no logical reason to suspect that this doctor was playing to the camera (if so he would have bacted much more dramatically, of course) - let alone that Ashraf would have asked him to do so. The hospital has confirmed that Mahmoud Mashharawi, aged 12, was brought in still breathing but subsequently was pronounced dead. There is therefore not the slightest indication of any faking.”
Plain wrong for reasons pointed out above.
The doctors have either endangered the boy’s life by allowing filming during the whole code or they said at some point - when they knew that their effort was futile: Let’s roll. All that comes after such a signal I would call playing.
There are strong indications for such playing.
“I think a decent apology to Ashraf might be in order.”
He has either endangered his brother’s life for producing propaganda material or he has allowed the production of propaganda material after his brother’s death. Therefore: Not at this point.
“I might also add that trying to suggest Ashraf has some political agenda is also a false trail. He does not. He was (but is no longer) employed by a company that produced the .ps suffix, and just as anyone can sign up for a .com or a .info or a.tv suffix on payment of a small fee, so can anyone buy a .ps suffix - even Little Green Footballs. All Palestinians like the .ps suffix so anyone can sign up, including affiliates of Hamas. So what WNF has also used this company’s services, because it has a big US-based server that can contain a lot of video, and it is quite cheap! We are happy with this web hosting service - which has no influence at all on our editorial output - we can switch to any commercial provider whenever we wish.”
leaving out this one.
“The fact that we have had both a personal and a commercial relationship with Ashraf Mashharawi is one good reason why we are relying ONLY on his services during this current conflict while I myself and our other people cannot enter Gaza itself. We have other Palestinians offering to work for us there but have turned all of them down so we can rely only on someone about whose integrity we have certainty.”
leaving out this one.
“Mahmoud died because a rocket hit him while he was playing on the roof of his apartment. ”
That is what has been claimed. AM in the video claims literally that the Israelis had deliberately targeted these two children. This claim is unfounded because noone else but the Israelis can judge whether they were deliberately targeting these children. That the Israelis were responisble for the incident at all is unfounded as well. It is just an assumption made by AM, PM and others.
“It is a legitimate story for the media to cover.”
It is. But it is not legitimate for the media to display suffering or dead patients in an unethical way - even when the brother and the doctor have allowed that.
“I would however suggest that it is vital for the media also to cover why such events occur, and to give balanced and fair overall coverage. Some filmed reports may show one aspect of the complex events, while another should show another side. For example, WNF is investigating (and has also asked the IDF) whether unmanned drones have cameras which produce only fuzzy pictures and therefore cannot or did not distinguish whether figures moving on a roof are fighter or just kids. That may well be the case. WNF is proud to be a very independent producer of news and current affairs from ALL sides of a conflict. Presently I am in Israel filming with the Israeli medical teams who go to the sites of rocket attacks, for example”
PM is probably not allowed to film the worst scenes in the ERs in Israel. That is because Israeli doctors behave according to medical ethics.
“Finally, we welcome and encourage and salute scrutiny of the media, but we urge bloggers first to think before they leap to the keyboard, and then to be moderate and considerate, especially when alleging things that will be deeply hurtful to other human beings. Anyone with further queries (or apologies) is welcome to contact me”
PM himself repeated the claim that the boys were hit by the strike of an Israeli drone which is an unfounded claim:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7819819.stm
“Then an unmanned Israeli aircraft fired two small rockets.
Ashraf rushed upstairs and took the boys to hospital, but it was hopeless. They were buried the same day”
In this sequence PM also suggest that AM has been at home which differs from the CNN narrative and the Channel 4 narrative.
The claim made by AM in the video that the Israelis have deliberately targeted his brother and his cousin will probably hurt the Israelis. It furthermore endangers the Israelis because it promotes a worldwide antisemitic stance against Israel with the notorious stereotype of children murdering jews.
PM and AM are not living up to their own standards. In the case of AM it may be excusable due to him being “upset”. But for PM in the relatively secure Israel it is not.
“Oh yes, by the way when the war is over and I can get into Gaza myself, I will get thea full video of the original filmed tape, and make it available to all on our website. We would then welcome honest analysis”
I urge PM to do that. But there are some critical points that cannot be removed by that:
*A doctor,a brother and a camera man willfully exposing a dying patient and / or endangering his life - or re-enacting CPR on a dead body for nothing else but propaganda purposes.
*The unfounded claim that they were hit or deliberately targeted by Israelis.
Finally another statement by PM that displays an anti-Israeli aquidistance which is virulent among westerners:
“How long both sides find the cease fire convenient remains to be seen.”
Paul Martin, BBC Audio, from 2:01
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7730446.stm
Comment by harris — January 11, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
In this article, Paul Martin says that the death of the two boys happened “on the sixth day of this current war.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7819819.stm
Since the war began on December 27, the sixth day of the war was January 1. Yet the CNN clip was released on January 8 and the Channel 4 clip is dated January 4. So this Pallywood production was produced in 3-4 days and Paul Martin didn’t have the time to review it first??? I call big B-S on this one.
Comment by lewisinnyc — January 11, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Why would anyone have their children out playing on a room in the middle of a war?
“No-one in their right mind would suggest that any person would allow doctors to play games with a dying or dead younger brother.”
There is nothing in the scenes on the news from Gaza hospitals that strikes me as normal. If a Hamas “gunman” told doctors and cameramen to “play games” with an injured or dead person, there are many who would go along with whatever the person with the gun to their head requested. Furthermore, we have seen stories of doctors lying or coaching patients to lie to the media to about “Israeli atrocities.”
I don’t know what the real story is and I don’t want to belittle his grief. But given the doctor involved, the hospital and what we know about Palestinian “journalists” and their Western employers, we have every right to suggest that some part of this story could be staged or made up.
Comment by 4infidels — January 11, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
#8 first sentence should say “on a roof”
Comment by 4infidels — January 11, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
10 - read the link that I posted. It says the “sixth day,” which is either a distortion or an indication that this production took 3-4 days to make, which is a lifetime in war reporting.
Comment by lewisinnyc — January 11, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
jpost: shifa hospital hamas hub
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231424936164&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment by harris — January 12, 2009 @ 6:52 am
hamas doing propaganda ops in shifa in a colab with a norwegian antisemite by eploiting the death of a 12 year old boy?
inconceivable?
Comment by harris — January 12, 2009 @ 6:59 am
Video: Gilbert und Fosse im Interiew after having returned to Norway:
http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/innenriks/article2503942.ece
Comment by harris — January 12, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Another WNF-production
On CNN:
Medics live dangerously in Gaza 3:04
CNN’s Fionnuala Sweeney reports on the plight of ambulance workers in Gaza.
Embedded video from CNN Video
Comment by harris — January 13, 2009 @ 5:32 pm