Does everyone have me on "ignore", or is the intent here to just keep posting "discussion"?
The following prefaces the article in my last post, titled,
Downer's unfounded faith in the internet
The Foreign Minister has been hoaxed by a callous blog, writes Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov
31aug06
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...307128,00.html
Quote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...2-7583,00.html
Editorial: Red Cross rocket snares Downer
August 31, 2006
Balance and caution are needed when reporting on war
.......In the media's defence, war reporters often work under time pressure in the most trying of circumstances. And casualty numbers can be imprecise in the immediate aftermath of violence. That the truth is not always easy to discern must be better appreciated by Mr Downer following his embrace of the Lebanese ambulance incident, as presented by internet site http://www.zombietime.com. In his speech to PANPA, Mr Downer said the incident, in which it was claimed Israel had deliberately bombed a Red Cross ambulance, did not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. Mr Downer said that after closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it was beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. His source? A pro-Israel website that specialises in posting pictures of student protests, naked bicycle riders and historic pictures of the prophet Mohammed. In a lengthy posting, the website puts forward its own conspiracy theory and claims the incident never took place. This newspaper was aware of the website claims but, rather than accept them at face value, dispatched reporter Martin Chulov to review the evidence and reinterview those involved. In his report in the Media section today, Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack. We have done what a good newspaper should, done the leg work and reported the facts. Mr Downer may himself have fallen for the propaganda trick he is keen to warn against. While his point may be true, that most media have taken a pro-Lebanon, anti-Israeli stance, what Mr Downer's experience most highlights is the benefits of an unbiased, well-resourced, established media, as opposed to its new online cousin. In this case, readers have a choice, a website that relies on analysing photographs a long way from the action or media with resources on the ground. Mr Downer is correct that the first duty of responsible media is to get the facts straight even when that story might not necessarily conform to existing opinions or prejudices. But, as his experience highlights, this is equally true for politicians.
|
So....what's it gonna be, Seaver....Ustwo....are you going to accept the reporting....and re-checking of news correspondent, Martin Chulov, who reported from Lebanon and inspected the bombed ambulance and interviewed the victims....or a blog that is written by people who only looked at pictures, and who already held a known pro-Israeli bias?
Careful now....if you choose to believe the report on the "blog", you will be embracing a "conspiracy" theory, and you will become the "wacks" that you claim to detest!