Over at World Politics Watch, an interesting analysis (from Harvard, no less) of how the media sold out in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy. With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood. Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran -- including the provision of deadly weapons -- faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population.

Gradually lost in the coverage was the fact that the war began when Hezbollah infiltrated Israel, kidnapping two of its soldiers (still held to this day) and killing eight Israelis. Despite the undisputed fact that Hezbollah triggered the war, Israel was painted as the aggressor, as images of the war overtook the context.

This is one of the things that was most true during that time period - the media were continually looking for "access", and willing to do anything to get it. The fact that Hezbollah were caught staging "accidents" and faking photographs was amazing: even more amazing was the few media outlets that were willing to expose it. You'll note the highly left-wing and disgusting YouTube, which has suicide bomber videos and Jihad propaganda to this day, has pulled their copy lest someone see Hezbollah's propagandists for who they really are.

At the end of the day, I'm not surprised to see the media sell out; I am, however, disgusted at the lengths to which even Harvard researchers admit the media goes.