Journalism just gets worse.
Yesterday, David Carr, who has a media blog at the New York Times, was attacked for blaming Israel for what can only be called the premeditated deaths of three reporters. His post, "Using War as Cover to Target Journalists”, related to Mohamed Abu Aisha, Hussam Salama, and Mahmoud al-Kumi who were killed in strikes by Israel during the recent hostilities in Gaza.
As it turns out, two were cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV, which even Carr admits is "run by Hamas” and is a French and a US-recognized terror-affiliated agency. A third was a director of Al-Quds Educational Radio.
Under criticism, Carr tried to excuse himself claiming they “were identified by Reuters, AP, AFP, and Washington Post and many other news outlets as journalists…The Committee to Protect Journalists, which I treat as a reliable, primary source in these matters, identified them as journalists (as did Reporters without Borders).”
"As for relying on official Israeli sources,” Carr continued “I don''t believe that an ID made by the IDF is dispostive or obviates what the others said. Doesn''t mean that I could not have gotten it wrong, only that the evidence so far suggests that they were journalists, however partisan."
As EoZ blogged, that’s a laughable response. Is he still getting paid as a professional journalist?
And so, from “radical chic” of the 1970s, to the “terrorist chic” to the use of “militant” and from “militant” we now have “partisan”. All so they don''t need to refer to these violent criminals as terrorists.
In addition, as this paper reports
, The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ
), a Brussels-based organization, is asking
for an international inquiry:
“we want an independent international inquiry into what we consider to be a targeting of media in this last conflict..."
Well, for sure we have a quite partisan media.
All that’s fit for the … trash basket.
Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Think others should know about this? Please share