September 28, 2011
Where Max Blumenthal and CAMERA Disagree
Max Blumenthal doesn't seem to care too much about the facts.
The anti-Israel blogger flatly lied to the readers of his blog when, in a headline, he announced that Benjamin Netanyahu called the September 11 attacks a "very good" thing. And today he lies again, writing that "CAMERA claimed ... all media reports suggesting that the Border Police killed [Abir Aramin] were categorically false."
On what basis does Blumenthal rest his allegation that we called the reports "categorically false"? An article in which we wrote that "the Israeli border police are not necessarily to blame," and that Palestinian stone throwers "may very well have been responsible for the death of Aramin."
Blumenthal is a writer. He knows that his term — "categorical" — and our phrasing — "not necessarily" and "may very well have been" — have completely opposite meanings. That is, anyone who hears "not necessarily true" but reports instead "categorically false" is being flagrantly dishonest.
On one narrow point, Blumenthal is right. Our piece about the death of Abir Aramin, written over five years ago, needed an update. It's been updated.
On the larger point, he's well off the mark. He apparently thinks news reporters in a fog should report what they want to believe, as opposed to what the available information allows them to conclude. If there is an incomplete picture, the journalist gets to complete it based on their own partisan leanings.
Our piece, which Blumenthal so hysterically attacked, argued the opposite: If information is hazy and contradictory, then reporters should tell their readers that information is hazy and contradictory, and explain why. Only when the fog lifts should news reports relay categorical information.
In the Aramin case, the fog has lifted. Israeli courts accepted the results of an autopsy that concluded she was indeed struck by a rubber bullet. That much is clear today. But based on what was known (and not known) at the time, reporters were unable to reach that conclusion, and so should not have done so in their news copy.
Blumenthal disagrees. But what else would you expect from someone who tries to sell the idea that Netanyahu supported the 9/11 attacks, and who claims that "not necessarily" means the same as "categorically not"?
Posted by GI at September 28, 2011 11:37 AM
This is the same Max Blumenthal who tried to say a Thai worker massacred the Fogel family in Itamar.
Even after it became known that a Palestinian commited the massacre, Blumenthal made excuses for this Arab terrorist.
The man is a sicko who turns a blind eye to the Palestinians genocidal media against Israel.
As Caroline Glick said, The fact that the Palestinians from Fatah and Hamas alike are Jew-hating racists should surprise no one who has been paying a modicum of attention to the Palestinian media and general culture. Since the PA was established in 1994 in the framework of the peace process between Israel and the PLO, it has used the media organs, schools and mosques it controls to spew out a constant flow of anti-Semitic propaganda. Much of the Jew-hating bile is indistinguishable from anti-Jewish propaganda published by the Nazis.
Posted by: Dan Kelso at October 1, 2011 06:08 PM
Guidelines for posting
This is a moderated blog. We will not post comments that include racism, bigotry, threats, or factually inaccurate material.