Fadel Shana and flechettes

Reuters has released a video (see below) show­ing what appears to be the Israeli tank fir­ing the round that — it’s claimed — killed cam­era­man Fadel Shana.

The first thing to note is the dis­tance that Shana is from the tank, prob­ably a Merkava 4 with a 105mm gun fir­ing flechette rounds. Flechettes?

Flechettes are razor-sharp 3.75mm darts released from can­nis­ters that explode in mid-air and spray thou­sands of them in an arc some 300 metres long and 90 metres wide.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) gen­er­ally fires them in 105mm tank shells. Accord­ing to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the IDF is using a mod­i­fied ver­sion of US-supplied M494 105mm APERS-T rounds, acquired in the 1970s.

Accord­ing to the Israeli Supreme Court:

the use of the flechette is restric­ted to areas [Hebrew. gizra, is closer to “sec­tor”, imply­ing a more closed, delin­eated area] in which the danger to inno­cent civil­ians is not actual, and only against those sus­pec­ted of activ­ity that endangers IDF sol­diers or Israeli citizens.

If my maths is right — big if, and if it was a flechette — that gives an arc with an area of nearly 13,500 square metres (the pitch at Wemb­ley is 7,140). That is a large space for every­one within it to be sus­pec­ted of activ­ity endan­ger­ing Israeli sol­diers or cit­izens. Rid­ing a bicycle or film­ing for Reu­ters or just being a kid wouldn’t quite seem to do it.

Of course, Hamas reg­u­larly sends unguided Katy­usha and Qas­sam rock­ets into densely pop­u­lated parts of Israel (today’s lis­ted here) in the hope of killing who­ever hap­pens to be under­neath when they go off.

We hope, of course, that the IDF is more dis­crim­in­ate in its counter-butchery.

And hope is prob­ably the right word if you are lob­bing a couple of Wembley-sized pitch-fulls of death over a couple of kilometres.

Is every­one beneath a ter­ror­ist? Using flechettes implies either reck­less­ness with regard to civil­ian cas­u­al­ties or neg­li­gence or well…just not really giv­ing a damn about who hap­pens to be under­neath at the time.

It doesn’t exactly guar­an­tee the “sur­gical” pre­ci­sion which mil­it­ary types (of all nation­al­it­ies) like to ascribe to their work. Just the usual crime of guilt by vir­tue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now press play…

Arguing against Nick Davies

Flat Earth News by Nick DaviesBritish writer Nick Dav­ies is an inspir­a­tion to a lot of young journ­al­ists, and rightly so (you can read more of his writ­ing on social issues here). But now he has moved from cov­er­ing drugs and crim­inal justice to report on journ­al­ism. And in doing so, he com­mis­sioned some research to back up his cri­ti­cisms and ana­lysis. Con­tinue read­ing

Miles Kington on the spirit of journalism

The late Miles King­ton was one of those people who could fash­ion amuse­ment seem­ingly without bat­ting an eye­lid. Here he is in the Times explain­ing why he could never make it as a reporter:

I got caught up in the June 1980 mil­it­ary coup in Bolivia. There had been TV crews wait­ing in La Paz for a coup for months but they had all got bored and had departed.

A week later, when the coup came, the only TV crew in town was ours, and we were there to film rail­way engines.

We were quite lucky to get the first flight out three days later.

When we landed at Lima air­port, the first eye­wit­nesses to reach the out­side world, I was approached by an eager Per­uvian who wanted to know every last detail of what I’d seen, so obli­gingly I told him the full story.

As he rushed away I was approached by our cam­era­man, Nick Lera, who had already sent his news film of the coup back to London.

You’ll never make a reporter, King­ton,” he said. “That man you were talk­ing to is the Reu­ters man in Lima. He’s got your story now.”

The pity of it…

Why The Public Doesn’t Deserve The News

It depends on the habit of attend­ing to and look­ing into pub­lic trans­ac­tions, and on the degree of inform­a­tion and solid judg­ment respect­ing them that exists in the com­munity, whether the con­duct of the nation as a nation, both within itself and towards oth­ers, shall be selfish, cor­rupt and tyr­an­nical, or rational and enlightened, just and noble.
John Stu­art Mill

Every­one has a pur­pose in life. Per­haps yours is watch­ing tele­vi­sion.
David Let­ter­man

The pub­lic doesn’t deserve tele­vi­sion journ­al­ism as cur­rently man­dated by Brit­ish pub­lic ser­vice broad­cast­ing, because Britain’s polit­ical sys­tem provides no incent­ive for an informed pub­lic, and because the idea of an informed pub­lic is one of con­tem­por­ary polit­ics’ neces­sary myths. There’s actu­ally little evid­ence that broad­cast news is the unique medium by which the pub­lic can be mor­ally trans­formed, but plenty of evid­ence for a long tra­di­tion of social cri­ti­cism that sees the dom­in­ant inform­a­tion tech­no­logy as an agent of rad­ical change.

So where did the idea come from that the pub­lic deserved the news from tele­vi­sion? The answer that used to spring to people’s lips was a single name, John Reith. Reith developed the argu­ment that a short­age of wave­band made broad­cast­ing a pub­lic good, to be held in com­mon. It was a monopolist’s argu­ment with an aus­tere coat­ing of pater­nal­ism, and went by the name of ‘spec­trum scarcity.’ Just as imper­i­al­ism fol­lowed empire, the jus­ti­fic­a­tion came after the polit­ical fact of mono­poly. Con­tinue read­ing