user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Take the spaces out of the link and it'll work.
I'm glad that constant scrutiny from individuals on the internet has forced them to admit their mistake. But they know perfectly well that a false story with a belated retraction has already had it's effect.
I'd rather they simply stuck to reporting the well researched truth, but I suppose I'll have to settle for their continued lies followed by half hearted apologies after they've been caught.
And yes, this is evidence of bias in the media. By itself it might be written off as human error, but this is part of a massive campaign that has been revealed (mostly in just this week) to manufacture the truth.
One error in favor of the terrorists is forgivable. Maybe even two or three, although they were quite blatant and even an amature could tell the mistake at a glance. But a half dozen in a week? No, that's not so easily explained away.
I just can't fathom why they are so eager to help out the jihadis? Why turn your previously respectable news agency in to a mouthpiece for terrorists? Why sacrifice their integrity to help those savages? It makes no sense.
The site is biased, obviously and they admit it.
But the photographs and captions were taken directly from the AP and Reuters newssites. You can't find the originals anymore on those sites because they took them down.
And I find it very unlikely that either the AP or Reuters will run a headline accusing themselves of lying. No doubt by 'official' sources the soviet pravda magazine was 100% unbiased and fair, and never got a single thing wrong. But is that proof that they were honest, or that there was simply no one to call them on it?
The day we start seeing actual criticism of the media by the media then we can enjoy some honest reporting, but I'm not holding my breath.
Fair enough to be skeptical (that's the whole point of this ballot).
So I did some digging and here's the photo off their site with the corrected caption:
http:// news.yahoo .com/news?tmpl =story&u=/060810/ 481/e0d330b5be 67454d950c02de 62336627
Take out the spaces.
I also found this article interesting:
jpost.com/ servlet/Satellite? pagename=JPost /JPArticle/ ShowFull&cid= 11545 25850241
'
But what if that child was killed by the Israeli's? If she were, I'm sure it was by accident. How do you know, or how do we know for that matter, that your source is not lying, particularly since you point out they are biased as well?'
The source for the retraction is reuters, they decided to actually do their jobs after the fact and went back and checked with the people involved and then printed what actually happened. I don't usually trust them, but to post something damaging to themselves it's not likely they'd lie to do that.
' Perhaps in all the ensuing chaos of the military strike, people naturally assumed she was killed as a result of the military strike. It could just be a case of confusion. Secondly, there was indeed a military strike my Israel, as your source points out, right in that area, so perhaps she really was killed by the military strike.'
The doctor and the parents said it wasn't as a result of an airstrike. The reporter should have asked these questions, or the editor at least, before running with the story.
If this were an occasional thing I could understand, but they've been doing it alot lately.
Here's another one where they took a random photo from a hospital and presented it as an Israeli victim:
http://news .search.yahoo. com/news/search? p=correction+ hospitalisation&c =news_photos
Again, these are the actual news agencies themselves admitting fault, which lends credence to the corrected story. But a corrected story is mostly ignored, I had to search for about half an hour to get those two links, so the damage is done and few people hear the truth.
Meggido, a perfect exaggeration example would be what happened in Jenin. In European newspapers, CNN and other places claims of a massacre of hundreds of people were being reported without any fact checking. Of course the reality was far different as even the palestinians admitted.
From the BBC, some time later (Aug. 1,2002):
"A United Nations investigation has rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed in Israel's attack on the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin.
In a report released on Thursday the UN said the overall number of Palestinians killed was 52 - around half of whom may have been civilians - while Israel lost 23 soldiers there."
"It says Palestinian militants sought by the Israeli military were placed in heavily populated areas, putting civilians at risk.
"Palestinian groups are alleged to have widely booby-trapped civilian homes, acts targeted at IDF personnel but also putting civilians in danger," the report adds."
Israel came if for share of the criticism in the report, but the reality was far different that what had been reported at the time.
Inaccuracy or distortion in journalism is not acceptable.
That being said ... I cannot believe you.
Do you deny the death and destruction going on over there?
No, you quibble about who is involved and under what circumstances.
This approach disgusts me. Just like the aWol controvery ... ignore the fact that every accusation amd eagainst W was true ... go for the technicalities.
Have you, at last, no shame?
Cath: so because deaths are actually happening you have no problem fabricating more deaths?
Ok, 911 actually happened, people most definately died. So maybe a chunk of one of the planes also hit a kindergarten and killed 200 children. Yeah, that'll get some attention. No problem right, people actually died, why quibble about the details?
Do you deny the death and destruction occured that fateful day?
I 'quibble' over details because lying to us about what is really going on disturbs me. Because there have been so many 'massacres' that weren't. So many dead civilians that were either exagerated or turned out to be fighters. So many staged tragedies.
At this point I don't believe the numbers coming out about that or any other war they report on involving the US or Israel. THey're just too damn biased.
Surely you can see why it's wrong to routinely attribute deaths to one party when they had nothing to do with it? You're not going to take Al Gores approach that if it's close to the truth or helps people come to your side it's ok to knowingly overezaggerate? Because that would be very dishonest of you cath.
Which is more important? Proving Israel is evil, or your integrity?
And I take it you didn't bother to look at this source any more than you bother to look at any of my sources.
Cath: example,
On foxnews the big story is: Tens of thousands of Israelis killed since hezbollah began rocket attacks.
Two weeks later: In regards to our August 13th story, we may have skipped a few minor details. It turns out those Israelis died of natural causes ranging from cancer to heart attacks to car wrecks and they just happened to die at the same time as a rocket attack, but not as a result of that attack. We apologize for any inconvience this may have caused.
Now, is your response A) those lying bastards they should have checked the facts before running with taht story, or B) well people were dying because of those attacks, why bother over trivial details like finding people who had actually been killed, rather than those who happeend to die on the same day? In fact this whole correction is disgusting, why quibble over details when people are dying? Have you no shame?
So which is it cath? A) you're a hypocrite B) you're insane.
Keep these type of ballots coming Herz as you're obviously going to have to hit these people with a barrage of truth before they might even consider the possibility that they do not know all.
|
|
