Barred from publishing details of Iranian missile impacts or interceptions, local and international journalists are struggling to tell the full story.
Barred from publishing details of Iranian missile impacts or interceptions, local and international journalists are struggling to tell the full story.
I feel like the question is about balance though, yes they should censor and obfuscate geographic, but is this being used a shield to prevent any reporting, or is this actually being used for safety?
It seems like the article is implying it is being applied to silence, not protect.
I agree. Consider this situation:
“In one case known to +972 Magazine, an Iranian missile hit its target while fragments struck a nearby educational facility. Yet the media was only allowed to report on the latter, without being able to even mention the former or inspect the damage.”
This results in inaccurate reporting. The facts are distorted to make it seem that a school was the intended target, when in fact it was not.
IMO, the balance is lost to censorship.
That is important evidence.
I’d rule that you can report on obvious-actuality, all you want, so long as you aren’t pushing DarkTetrad agendas ( narcissism / machiavellianism / sociopathy-psychopathy / sadism ),
& that hiding that a particular building which everybody there can see was hit, is in the unacceptable machiavellianism-deforming-accuracy category.
_ /\ _