[antimedia] antimedia: Convincing proof that the media....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
Convincing proof that the media....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1156473207.shtml


   ....is reporting [1]fake stories as if they were real and swallowing,
   hook, line and sinker, the propaganda of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

     Could it be that the entire incident is a fabrication? All signs
     point to "Yes."
     If so, the implications are enormous, both for the outcome of the
     war and for the credibility of the media. Most analysts agree that
     Israel was pressured into a ceasefire due to international outcry
     over how it was conducting the battle. The media informed the
     public that Israel was intentionally targeting civilians; the
     public insisted that their governments demand that Israel stand
     down; international pressure was applied, and Israel caved in. And
     of all the incidents decried in the media -- taking out
     infrastructure, destroying Hezbollah-associated buildings that had
     not been fully evacuated, and so on -- only the ambulance incident
     could be held up as having no possible military purpose; all the
     other attacks were pointed out by Israel as being intended to
     degrade Hezbollah's ability to fight. Aside from a handful of stray
     missiles and accidents or misunderstandings for which Israel
     apologized, only this incident was "proof" that Israel was
     purposely aiming at noncombatants. So reports that an Israeli
     missile attack destroyed two ambulances played a role in shaping
     global opinion, which led to a ceasefire leaving Hezbollah intact.
     But if the entire incident turns out to have been an elaborate but
     clumsy hoax, where does that leave the reputation of the media? Not
     a single reporter or editor doubted the story for a second. Or if
     they did, they certainly didn't inform readers of their doubts. Why
     did the media swallow the story hook, line and sinker? In their
     zeal to bash Israel, did they allow themselves, consciously or
     unconsciously, to be duped by Hezbollah supporters into
     broadcasting propaganda as news? Or is the media so eager to jump
     on any fresh scandal that they simply switch off their critical
     thinking and become absolutely credulous of any juicy tale thrown
     their way?
     It took the blogs and non-professional independent researchers to
     shine the harsh light of forensic analysis on this case, in the
     process debunking just about every aspect of the allegations. And
     this was done merely with the meager scraps of evidence left over
     by the "professional" journalists, and by squeezing the maximum
     amount of information out of the subtlest of clues. But if the
     journalists who were right there on the scene had even the
     slightest interest in actually investigating the story, they had
     access to all sorts of information that could have blown the lid
     off the case. How hard would it have been to go back to the Red
     Cross office after a few days to inspect the ambulance carefully in
     person? To look at the hole in the roof, to photograph the rust up
     close, to search for burn marks or blood on the gurneys, to notice
     the driver's healthy chin? Wouldn't that have been a scandal worth
     reporting?
     Is the media that gullible -- or does it have a political bias?
     Either way, its credibility has now been lost.

   I think it's a little of both. The media is gullible because they have
   a bias.
   Read the entire, detailed report. The evidence is clear. The media
   trumpeted an "Israeli war crime" that never happened and changed the
   outcome of the conflict in Lebanon. How many other war crimes have
   they reported that never actually happened? (Hat tip to [2]Jason Van
   Steenwyk.)

References

   1. http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
   2. http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-right-you-bastards-im-calling-you.html