Overall, a fair article?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-gaza-death-toll-is-confusing-and-unreliable/ar-BB1mzsOz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=736886bc51d04e43b610f9724bb59148&ei=9
The Gaza Death Toll Is Confusing and Unreliable
The article seems pretty fair. The main issue of contention seems to be IDF's policy of not allowing embedded reporters. The author posits that a lot of disinformation by Hamas and GHM would be able to be debunked by doing so. I have a few issues with that opinion.
1) The biggest issue has been of the airstrikes. Israel's critics say that they are using bombs that are too big, they are using them too indiscriminately, and the deaths tolls are too high. Embedded journalists won't help dispute any of those issues, as they are embedded with the ground troops, not the air force.
2) One of the larger PR issues Israel has had is from social media videos which are taken at face value. These are taken at hospitals or at sites of bombings. It has been documented extensively how many of these clips are pure fabrications. The way today's media is consumed, embedded journalists wouldn't change that.
3) While embedded journalists may be common in regular US Army operations, they still do not allow journalists on special ops.
4) The author assumes that the media will automatically give Israel a fair shake if they are just given the opportunity. As has been documented extensively, here and all over, most international media doesn't do that. Israel is definitely of that opinion. Why would they embed someone when they don't think it will help, anyway?
4a) When embedding journalists, there are rules about when information can be published. Giving away a position or information that cannot be released until the end of an operation is a real risk. If there is no trust between the IDF and the world media, it doesn't make sense to embed journalists to the IDF's operational detriment.
