Israel's bombardment of Lebanon the 'most intense aerial campaign' outside Gaza in last two decades

This is the headline from an article by Kara Fox for CNN dated 10/04/24. It is surprisingly a better attempt to put together a piece than most of the media typically does. There are relevant graphs etc. with data and some limited/some missing context and sourcing given. It would be nice if the attempts to get it right were to become a trend in Western media rather than the exception. But all media suffers to a degree from the idea of the "pictures/quotes" style of reporting. I'll include an example of that malady also. But there are issues to be raised about the CNN report as well.

The IDF actions in Lebanon have been described by the IDF and others as "limited" and "targeting only Hezbollah". The run-up to all of this was also presented in much of the media as the IDF and Israeli towns in the north were being inundated with attacks by Hezbollah while the IDF was acting with great restraint on the border. But the included graphic showing number of attacks by both sides, sourced from Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) and prepared by Soph Warnes, shows that since October/November of 2023 the number of attacks are not mostly from Hezbollah. They have been back and forth and up until September of 2024 the IDF conducted a much greater number of attacks. The spikes seen toward the end of September are the beginning days of the intense bombing of Lebanon. In fact the article gives us a total "Israel has launched nearly 9,000 attacks into Lebanon since October 8; Hezbollah launched 1,500 attacks in that same time frame, according to the ACLED data."

But there are potential issues with this graphic that must also be noted. The criteria ACLED appears to use includes attacks by citizens outside the military or perhaps Hezbollah. But we don't know what the criteria is. In other words does a single rifle shot count as an attack? We just don't know from this presentation. CNN could have been more clear by giving us the ACLED criteria or a link. This graphic is also depicting attacks by number. But apparently there is no equivalence information and so an attack is simply a single number in the count and the timeline would be better understood if we weren't looking at a potential situation for small arms fire or a single round from a tank being an "attack" and 30 rockets being an "attack". They are hardly equivalent and so the chart may be helpful but I caution that without a real in-depth into ACLED criteria used and event recording methods we should look at the graphic as merely a general indicator of activity rather than reading into it. I would have been more informed by the CNN article if we had gotten an idea of equivalence and severity. But in the defense of the author, writing for a big organization with editors, we understand that they only get just so much space to tell the story and many times they may have included things that the editors have taken out.

Further down in the CNN article there is a map showing locations of IDF strikes inside Lebanon using data from multiple sources including the IDF. To their credit CNN indicates the data they had is not necessarily exhaustive. But once again the map presented could have been more informative but perhaps their were information gaps, time constraints etc. So the map on face value shows a very extensive number of strikes throughout Lebanon rather than the concept most people would expect when we are told the word "limited". But once again I note the idea of severity/equivalence. The map as presented doesn't do anything for us to understand the intensity of one strike over another. So an IDF strike with 2 jets on 1 building or a single launch site in a remote area is not differentiated from a repeated wave of strikes by multiple jets over a larger group of buildings.

I point these critiques/cautions out while praising the attempt by the author and CNN to be more informative. Sometimes a brief caveat or disclaimer with a graphic would be appropriate and helpful in making it less likely that people would read more into a graphic than what it really shows.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/04/middleeast/lebanon-israel-aerial-assault-intensity-intl/index.html

Now comes the example of the malady encompassing media today of "pictures and quotes" reporting. This linked report is from News.com from Australia and is a lengthy recitation of some of the events of recent days in Lebanon etc. with all kinds of pictures throughout. But when they get to the portion about the IDF bombing of the main evacuation route out of Lebanon they completely drop the ball by just identifying the crossing by name. But to people not familiar with where the name is located along the extensive Lebanon/Syria border we end up with no idea of is it further north or further south or is it positioned near the strategic area of the Golan Heights or near Shabaa Farms? It would give us some understanding to know and it could be easily accomplished with a small map showing the location. But instead we have picture after picture of Iranian leaders, bombed buildings etc.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/israelhezbollahiran-conflict-updates/news-story/99fb6486cafba2ed4f562d3e16a2f58f#:~:text=Israel%20bombs%20major%20route%20out%20of%20Lebanon%20A,border%20crossing%2C%20creating%20a%20four-metre%20%2812ft%29%20wide%20crater.

But here is a linked report to an example about the bombing of the evacuation route being done in far more informative and useful way for the reader. This is from the BBC. As we can see it clearly shows that the crossing is more or less on the way between Beirut and Damascus and is well near the center of the country. It gives the reader the understanding that evacuees form the south of Lebanon have to travel well north before going east if they want to leave Lebanon for Syria. In other words there is no quick way for people from the south to get out and the way to Syria has now been made much harder.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20d0r8rvro