A brave few are reporting
IN THE chaos of any military conflict, even the best generals can find it difficult to work out precisely what is taking place between the warring factions.
Amid the rapidly changing landscape of the battlefield, fighters on the ground need to take spur-ofthe-moment decisions to gain the advantage and protect the lives of their comrades. Even with the benefit of sophisticated communications, modern-day combatants will rarely have any profound understanding of what is going on elsewhere on the battlefield.
If this is the predicament facing those actively engaged in the fighting, then just imagine the difficulties experienced by international media organisations charged with providing 24/7 news coverage of a conflict, particularly when their correspondents on the spot have little, if any, contact with those directing operations on either side.
The extensive media coverage of the Gaza conflict is a case in point. Day after day, we have been treated to harrowing accounts, in words and pictures, of the appalling suffering of Palestinians.
But while this is unquestionably an important part of the story, it is not the only issue that needs to be covered. What about the circumstances that led to the attacks in the first place? What about the provocative acts, such as Hamas firing rockets into Israel?
The problem facing those covering this terrible war is that invariably they arrive in the aftermath of an attack, completely oblivious to what transpired before the bombs started falling.
And yet, after the implementation of a 72-hour ceasefire, new details have
Finnish, Indian and French news