Here's yet another instance of what I like to call "selective" truth:—We're presented initially, via our intrepid (by which I mean "totally uninquisitive") photographers, with news that a man was found
dead, shot somewhere in the Gaza Strip. This, as far as anyone can tell, is
true. Cue:
crocodile tears.
We're also told, via captional inference, that the Israelis are being blamed for this shooting. Hello,
conjecture.
Finally, we're told that, according to Israeli records,
no soldiers were in the area at the time. Enter, truth.
This type of thing
happens far more often than you'd
ever think, yet time and time again, the press falls for the immediate
blame-da-JEWSism spewed at them by the hostile locals and repeats the claims unquestioned. And time and time again, when the facts come in, the inital storyline is almost
always shown to be false.
Are the collective press acting as
ignorant dupes, merely parroting what they're told by "local" sources? If so, why do we even bother
having a press, since they can't be trusted to report information that is, well,
factual.
If they're not ignorant dupes, then the only other option I can think of is
far worse:—Are they
actively involved in trying to find stories that they can use to
smear Israel?
Check out the extended article to see the evolution of the captions surrounding this story. By my count, the press continues to fall farther and farther into the latter category each passing day.
Continue reading »