A Leauki's Writings
Published on August 31, 2010 By Leauki In The Media

How does journalism work? An example:

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp

I am sure they teach this in journalism schools because all journalists involved knew exactly what to do and all of them did the same.

The case

1. An American Jew visits Israel and is beaten and stabbed by an Arab mob in front of a petrol station.

2. An Israeli solder saves the American and ultimately happens to stand behind the bleeding man.

3. Journalists take a picture of the bleeding man and the soldier.

4. Journalists publish the picture and add the caption "An Israeli police man and a Palestinian on Temple Mount".

5. The American's father sends a letter and clarifies that the bleeding man is his son and not a "Palestinian" and also that there are no petrol stations (visible on the photo) on the Temple Mount.

6. Journalists admit their mistake. Apparently the journalists who took the picture weren't aware of the fact that they were not on the Temple Mount and it never occured to them not to make up an identity for the man or to report what had transpired before they took the picture.

I cannot comprehend how so many journalists could all make the same mistake at the same time with the same picture.

I understand the freedom of the press puts upon journalists an obligation to report the truth. But for some reason the journalists involved here didn't even consider that option before they made up a caption for the picture.

Call it a campaign against free speech but I do believe that people who lie and incite in a situation where lies and incitments can lead to war and death should go to prison.

 


Comments (Page 2)
on Sep 01, 2010

Nitro Cruiser


I fear the news media conglomerates are too rich for that. They make more money with the stories than they might lose in court.
The slow bleed compounded with negative publicity of sketchy reporting trials/settlements, would be enough. You would want them to go away slowly (like Newsweek) because that exposes their dishonesty or bias. Disappearing quickly is no good, due to the short memory of the public. They need to be reminded why something is occurring repeatedly.

Nitro, its funny you bring up Newsweek because at one time it use be center leaning a little right and what a surprise that's when it became popular.  Since going to the left in the late 90s and in the 2000s to totally left its now became bankrupt.

Its not even good to use for toliet paper.

on Sep 01, 2010

Since going to the left in the late 90s and in the 2000s to totally left its now became bankrupt.

TPP, funny you should bring that up.  1999 was when I quit subscribing to Newsweek!

on Sep 01, 2010

Maybe liberals don't read magazines much?

 

on Sep 01, 2010

No, they stick together.

They won't if it costs them. Many media pick up stories by agencies like the AP or Reuters (and others), but even liberals will distance themselves from shoddy reporting. Now imagine if there were a monetary cost involved? Even so, who came to Newsweek's defense? That liberal mouthpiece was left to decay without much support, especially in the end. And trust me the slow route was the best. Had it ended abruptly, years ago, some people might have still attributed a certain amount of credibility to it (based on it's former history). It's slow destruction, in often vile, biased reporting left a much larger bad taste in the minds of many people.

Meta
Views
» 1016
Comments
» 19
Category
Sponsored Links