On a recent episode of Amanpour and Company, anchor Christiane Amanpour purported American munitions were used in an Israeli airstrike that resulted in over 45 deaths, without giving the full context of the situation. She failed to mention that the explosive warhead on the bomb wasn’t large enough alone to cause the disastrous fire, leading to a hefty number of casualties.
During the show, Amanpour launched into a critique of President Joe Biden from the left. She reported, “Israel’s assault on Rafah is intensifying, but the U.S. president, Joe Biden is not changing tack,” conveniently leaving out Biden’s hold on weapon shipments to Israel because of concerns about larger munitions.
According to a CNN report, a US-made GBU-39 small diameter bomb was visible in videos of the scene. Israeli military spokesman, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, explained that the weapons used, were the smallest possible, equipped with warheads containing 17 kilos of explosives. A key detail Amanpour failed to mention is that such an airstrike couldn’t solely cause the ensuing inferno, much less the casualty count.
Amanpour continued her narrative by bringing Sen. Chris Van Hollen into the discussion. She sheerly focused on whether or not the United States was, or should be, using its leverage. She ignored Biden’s past actions to mitigate Israeli force and the recent efforts by Israel to reduce the firepower of its airstrikes following Biden’s concerns.
Van Hollen responded by expressing that he thinks more leverage can and should be used to further US interests. However, he missed the point that the United States was already taking a stance, by insisting on a post-war plan that aligns with its concerns and interests. Notably, nowhere did Amanpour interject to say that Benny Gantz, whom Van Hollen expressed hope for, also opposed the idea of creating a Palestinian state.
In her portrayal of the United States-Israel relationship, Amanpour overlooked crucial details. She sidestepped the importance of Biden’s previous halt on weapon shipments to Israel, and Israel’s response by using smaller munitions. Instead of highlighting these actions, she focused on the continued civilian casualties, neglecting to mention that Israel has been responding positively to Biden’s push for reduced firepower.
The episode is a clear example of journalistic irresponsibility. It accomplishes little more than obscuring the facts of the situation and pushing a one-sided narrative omitting crucial aspects. We deserve journalism that reports full facts, not a selected set aimed at promoting a specific narrative. It’s essential to question and critique, but we must also remember that there’s always more than one side to a story. Avoiding context and cherry-picking facts does no service to the cause of journalism or the understanding of complex situations. We urgently need journalists to take up the critical task of truth-telling, rather than promoting incomplete narratives.
