So, Islamist homicide bombers detonate themselves in two hotels in Jakarta brutally killing several innocent people. The BBC reports this as the act of "attackers" - wonder if the word Jihadist is banned by those sensitive souls at the Beeb? Perhaps the people just "died"? Gigits has an excellent post here picking up on the BBC's increasingly freakish attempts to try and prop up McDoom. Of course they know that he is a busted flush but then there is the lovely Sarah - she who is a member of the "First wives club" apparently... What at first seemed like a straightforward controversy over war ethics has turned into one about irresponsible journalism.
THOSE JAKARTA "ATTACKERS"
>> FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2009
THE LOVELY SARAH
Breaking the Silence Part 2
The original question asked:
Should soldiers be compelled to risk their own lives by adhering strictly to military rules of engagement even when, in the fog and extreme chaos of war, they are faced with an unpredictable and fanatical enemy which is under no such obligation?
Now, I’m asking:
Is the media ever justified in abandoning journalistic standards of inquiry and investigation by publishing unsubstantiated hearsay?
What if they’re lucky enough to get hold of a sensational scoop that both exposes war crimes and bears out the very things they’ve been telling us all along, that Israelis are as brutal as Nazis - and the icing on the cake is that they’ve admitted it themselves?
Throw caution to the wind? Let the presses roll?
Seeking maximum publicity, Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence (to which the British Embassy has donated a generous grant) offered their report to the newspaper they felt would be most sympathetic to their cause, Haaretz.
But once bitten twice shy! Not so long ago Haaretz had their fingers badly burnt by rushing into print far too hastily with another uncannily similar tale. When it transpired that the whole thing was unsubstantiated and based entirely on hearsay, their credibility suffered a blow. So this time Haaretz behaved more cautiously, and before going to press they sought the IDF’s response. By which time the JPost had got hold of the story and published a critical version of it.
The BBC and some of the MSM also snapped it up, and beamed it far and wide tout de suite.
Which brings to mind Charles Enderlin’s impetuous decision to air the notoriousAl Durah report on French state T.V. channel France 2, and to distribute it to eager broadcasters everywhere. The footage that shocked the world was later exposed as a fraud, fabricated in order to inflame hatred and provoke violence. But by the time the deception was exposed the desired effect had already been achieved, and the iconic image of 12 year old Mohamed Al Durah’s horrific death at the hands of the Israelis had the disastrous consequences the makers intended.
The fact that it wasn’t quite like that was neither here nor there. The exposé received little publicity.
If the these two episodes have something in common it’s the alacrity with which anything that discredits Israel is grasped, perpetuated and publicised.
A disregard for journalistic rigour and integrity seems to take effect and override other considerations the moment the opportunity presents itself.
The BBC can publish and be damned. No worries. If they are forced to retract something, or apologise at a later date, they can bury it in some godforsaken corner, and we can like it or lump it.
Unless, that is, someone very litigious threatens to take them to court.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Posts
