Wednesday, October 31, 2012
AP: Your bias is showing
The lead paragraph of an AP story today:
CAIRO -- A suspected Israeli airstrike against a weapons factory in Khartoum last week points to a possible escalation in a hidden front of the rivalry between Israel and Iran: The arms pipeline through Sudan to Islamists on Israel's borders.So the airstrike, for which no explanation other than an Israeli attack has ever been offered, and which even the article says that "consensus has built among Israeli and Arab military analysts" that it was done by Israel, is just "suspected." But the existence of an "arms pipeline through Sudan to Islamists on Israel's borders," for which no evidence is given other than that "Israel has long contended that Iran uses the route to supply Hamas," is stated as simple fact.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
What is the meaning of "documenting"?
Reporting on the latest incidents in Syria, the BBC writes of the Syrian "Observatory" on Human Rights (which as far as is known is one guy in an apartment in England):
The SOHR is one of the most prominent organisations documenting and reporting incidents and casualties in the Syrian conflict. The group says its reports are impartial, though its information cannot be verified.So I have just a simple question? Isn't the claim of "documenting" something antithetical to the words "cannot be verified"? Yes, it is possible to claim to be documenting something and to completely fabricate the documentation, and you could claim to be "documenting" it, but the news media should simply say you are "asserting" it. Or "alleging" it. Not "documenting" it.
