Why does the media not show the same skepticism towards Palestinian libels as it does towards official Israeli statements?
11 January '11
Following reports that a Palestinian woman was killed by tear gas fired by the IDF at a Palestinian demonstration, we asked why the mainstream media had reported this as fact even though there were more than enough question marks surrounding the circumstances of the death.
Considering that there are no recorded instances of anyone in the world dying as a result of tear gas inhalation in an open space and the fact that out of all of the Palestinians present at the demonstration, only one person was allegedly fatally affected, shouldn’t the media approach the Palestinian “eyewitnesses” with a certain degree of skepticism?
In light of the ever-increasing holes in the Palestinian story that were coming to light, it was disappointing that virtually no media outlets were prepared to follow up on a story that had all the hallmarks of an anti-Israel libel.
The New York Times, however, did follow up. Would this bastion of supposedly professional reporting re-examine its initial story? Unfortunately not. Instead, Isabel Kershner decided to concentrate on the supposed battle of narratives in an article headlined “Israeli Military Officials Challenge Account of Palestinian Woman’s Death”.
(Read full "Tear Gas Or Palestinian Smokescreen? New York Times Takes Sides Against IDF")
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
Who firebombs a grave?
14 hours ago