Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Feedback - 0 factual delivery/0 objectivity

Re: Spectator edition: Journalists View Slaughter As Sharon Declares Withdrawal Plans

Scoop edition: Journalists View Slaughter As Sharon Declares Withdrawal Plans

Yan Vishkautsan of Israel writes:

Dear Mr. Manning,

In a search for other material, I have encountered your article on the
Israeli military operation in West Bank and have read it with a great deal
of interest. After all, it is surely interesting how the Middle East
fighting is reflected in oh so distant New Zealand. Here in the fray we
rarely have an opportunity (or luxury) to take a step back and to look at
the goings-on objectively.

I couldn’t help myself but to respond to few of the choice items.

“ …Israel will now ease back on its offensive that has left possibly
thousands dead in Palestinian cities, towns and camps throughout the West
Bank and Gaza…”

You casually mention thousands dead – where the information comes from?
Independent sources, IDF, Palestinians? Is it possible to be more
forthcoming with your sources?

“Grotesque parched human forms sit, lie, decompose…”

Yes, but you have omitted the reason why. You have carelessly (or carefully,
I do not want to guess here) forgotten that the Palestinian Authority
refused for weeks to remove the bodies. Guess why? Yep, you are right –
waiting exactly for the below mentioned journalists who are now getting
inside Jenin.

“The journalists are getting inside Jenin now – but only after Israeli
soldiers buried the dead in mass graves…”

I do not know if you are aware that you are using slanderous and blatant
misinformation spread by Palestinian Authority here? IDF did NOT bury the
Jenin’s dead (aside of its own, of course). Even the removal of the bodies
from the streets was prevented by the Israeli High Court of Justice
injunction and is carried out now under supervision of ICRC.

“War crimes occurred there. We are certain of that.”

Doesn’t it seem to you that the above is a bit prejudgemental? Who are the
“we” you are mentioning?

“Sharon’s announcement however in no way means this murderous rampage is
over.”

Here is an example of a strong opinion, if I have ever seen one.

“Israel’s actions are indefensible. The indefensible continues. We fear that
this insult to humanity has only begun.”

And another one. Both items given only to underline the set of mind of the
author.

Mr. Manning,

Not knowing you or your writing history, I am to judge only the article I
quote on two aspects: use of factual information and objectivity.

On the first it is clear to me that you are ready to use hearsay or
propaganda without any qualms. I believe that the above examples show more
than enough blunders for a relatively small piece. For some reason you never
allowed any quote from an Israeli source to slip into your delivery of
“factual” information.

On the second – objectivity – the conclusion is no less damning to this
article.

Are you aware of the causes for the “murderous rampage”, as you so easily
brand the IDF operation? If so, why not mention, at least as an
afterthought, that during the month preceding the operation suicide bombers
in Israel murdered more than 120 Israelis?

Are you aware of the way the fighting of Jenin was carried out by IDF? That
instead of carpet-bombing the area where the armed terrorists were hiding
(of course, among unarmed civilians, as is their time-honored habit), IDF
sent in infantry to fight in impossible conditions? Does the name Dresden
ring a bell? Do Afghanistan and “collateral damage” ring a bell? Please name
another army that would have taken the same way IDF has chosen, to suffer
numerous casualties as a consequence and to be slandered nevertheless.

Why is it that your editorial does reflect only the Palestinian suffering
(which is undoubtedly enormous) without even fleetingly mentioning the other
side’s ordeal? Are you aware of the fact that half-truths could be more
damaging than outright lies?

Are you aware that the great majority of Israelis (half of whom are not
Sharon supporters) support the military operation? That even the people
(like I, by the way) of Israel who were staunch supporters of all peace
initiatives and believers of the peace cause have turned their backs to the
murderous, cheating and double-tongued creature called Chairman Arafat.

War is hell, Mr. Manning. I am not an expert on the exact text and meaning
of Geneva Convention you mention (which one, by the way?), but one thing is
clear to me: if Sharon is to be tried as a war criminal, he should share the
bench with Arafat.

So to conclude my (inexpert) evaluation of your article: 0 on factual
delivery and 0 on objectivity.

I hope that the beautiful NZ has other and better sources than this
unfortunate article. And I challenge you to publish this letter.

With respect,
Yan V. [Israel]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Jan Rivers: The New Zealanders Involved In Brexit

There are a number who have strong connections to New Zealand making significant running on either side of the contested and divisive decision to leave the European Union. More>>

Rawiri Taonui: The Rise, Fall And Future Of The Independent Māori Parties

Earlier this month the Māori Party and Mana Movement reflected on the shock loss of their last parliamentary seat in this year’s election. It is timely to consider their future. More>>

Don Rennie: Is It Time To Take ACC Back To First Principles?

The word “investing” has played a major part in the operations of the ACC since 1998... More>>

Using Scoop Professionally? Introducing ScoopPro

ScoopPro is a new offering aimed at ensuring professional users get the most out of Scoop and support us to continue improving it so that Scoop continues to exist as a public service for all New Zealanders. More>>

ALSO: