All wars are unequal. Some are more unequal than others.

Acknowledging that this is firmly in the realms of 'two wrongs do not make a right', I found this comment in today's Indy thought-provoking:

About 500 people died in recent days at the hands of an army. They did not vote for a terrorist organisation. There were no mass demonstrations. Many of the dead women were found naked, their children possibly abducted. The dead people did not launch rockets on a civilian population. Governments the world over weren't in uproar. The dead were all civilians – not mostly terrorists. Civil society groups did not launch national appeals. So why on earth do the Palestinians garner such attention while the Congolese do not?

Without confirmation elsewhere that I can easily find (kind of making the point rather too well if it is indeed true) the author poses a question I would like answered (not that it would/will be. I have now ceased to attempt any reasoned discussion on a few other blogs on this topic as the selective cherry picking of what got shouted about and what was ignored was getting fruitless.. sorry, bad pun), especially by many in our major media 'news' organisations and the various cause groupies they see profit in stirring up.

If true, what does become clear is that it is not the actions that seem to be as relevant to many (despite many breast-beating wails about WHAT is going down) but simply WHO is involved.

It would seem that many are as blind to their own tribalism as they would decry others for being.

It will, I am sure, ultimately come in some way to impact me and mine here in our cosy UK home through our being British being used to 'hold us accountable' by those who prefer to trade in such notions above all else (a thought Annie and Alexei may like to ponder if in the wrong place at the wrong time and at the wrong end of those they would defend but may not share quite the same concerns for targeting as others), but thanks to our media's handling of pretty much everything these days I am getting to the point of selfishly not giving a damn unless it is directly relevant to me. Gazans, Congolese... the whole sorry lot. I feel for the innocent, and despise who I think may be complicit, but really see no merit any more in getting that motivated to do much.

Guardian - A rocket for The Sun...

The accuracy of rockets, literal and figurative, seems to be quite topical these days.

As with uncertainty as to where they originate from, one can only hope that we might eventually arrive at the truth.

Sadly, that's one casualty most agenda-driven media seem unconcerned with, so I am not holding my breath.

Telegraph - Press freedom is Israel's casualty of war

'..no foreign correspondent is capable of being truthful, objective and reliable..'

From what I have seen and heard from most so far, getting any one, and certainly all three (what happened to his colleague was awful, but the logic behind Jeremy Bowen's position in the BBC seems akin, objectively, to putting a de Menenzes in charge of the crime beat in the Met), is proving a stretch, so maybe they do have a point.

I think it may stem from the move from 'the public has a right to know' to 'the media expects the right to ratings and shaping agendas'.

Whatever casualties there have been already, truth has again indeed been one of the first. And those boys and girls in their flak jackets having a hissy fit because they can't 'analyse' and 'interpret' and 'emote' over what used to be merely calmly and factually-reported frankly have themselves mainly to blame.

Oddly, the blackout does not seem to have prevented an amazing amount of 'stirring' stories and images being created anyway.

I have come to the view that 'I/we don't know yet' is not in most current reporters'/editors' vocab these days, closely followed by 'this bloke's told me it's true so it must be... let's run with it anyway as is it'll look great in 72pt and who cares if it turns out later it was all tripe'

Don't yet know if it's accurate (kind of proving both devil's advocate and contrary points), but for instance I am seeing some footage that would suggest that just because something is a mosque or has UN on it doesn't mean it doesn't get used to launch offensive attacks, or those that do get much by way of critique from the brand-owners for so doing subsequently. Maybe a point going through an Israeli squaddie's mind as mortar rounds are dropping down, and not leaving too much time to ponder whether or why that same place would still have a bunch of school kids in it. It could still prove to be a massive, and costly, cock-up, but from my experience the IDF does not set out to kill kids if only because there is no reason for them to want to, whereas those they are fighting seem, to borrow the powerful phrase... to 'hate the Israelis more than they love their own kids'. Which makes them darn tricky to deal with on any basis, much less rationally.

A lot of folk are reaping what they sowed, I fear. As will the IDF, if... IF it turns out that their claims are worth as much as those they are fighting. We'll see.

I don't say I uncritically support much of what they are up to, but at present, I can certainly understand it.

Telegraph - Israeli-Hamas conflict sparks debate over Demotix and citizen-journalism -To the most prolific supplier of the most graphic-imagery, provenance not so critical... the spoils of war. One way to provide news these days, I guess. Bet it makes money, too. I guess dead kids don't get repeat fees?