What you don't know

An interesting piece from the WSJ editorial page, on a reporter being held hostage in Gaza:

A Reporter's Fate: The BBC held hostage in Gaza

Yet the BBC also seemed to operate in the Palestinian Authority with a sense of political impunity. Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti described Mr. Johnston as someone who "has done a lot for our cause"--not the sort of endorsement one imagines the BBC welcoming from an equivalent figure on the Israeli side. Other BBC correspondents were notorious for making their politics known to their viewers: Barbara Plett confessed to breaking into tears when Arafat was airlifted to a Parisian hospital in October 2004; Orla Guerin treated Israel's capture of a living, wired teenage suicide bomber that March as nothing more than a PR stunt--"a picture that Israel wants the world to see."

Though doubtlessly sincere, these views also conferred institutional advantages for the BBC in terms of access and protection, one reason why the broadcaster might have felt relatively comfortable posting Mr. Johnston in a place no other news agency dared to go.

By contrast, reporters who displeased Palestinian authorities could be made to pay a price.

   This brand of journalism, in which journalistic values are traded for access, is rampant. One of the worst examples of this came back in April of 2003 when CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan admitted to keeping many of Saddam's crimes against humanity out of the headlines for fear of getting kicked out of Baghdad. What good is your news if you aren't reporting it? The media has become a joke, or perhaps it is just the ability to see past them now that has revealed their worthlessness. The ability to trust sources of information is a luxury these days, you must analyze the source and question everything. Heck, question the link I put in this post. Just by doing that, you are already miles ahead of the herd.