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”?
More from SNAPSHOTS
Mahmoud Abbas’ Diatribe Threatening Israel Included Bogus Canaanite Claim
September 10, 2019
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ recent anti-Israel diatribe that aired on PA TV was monitored and translated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Excerpt: "I say to [Israel]: Every stone you have built on our land [...]
CNN Calls House’s Unifying Anti-BDS Vote ‘Divisive’
July 24, 2019
Yesterday, in an overwhelming vote of bipartisan support, the House of Representatives voted 398 to 17 to adopt a resolution opposing the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) campaign. Yet, CNN's headline casts the unifying vote [...]
NY Times Cites Poll, Hides Palestinian Support for Violence
July 9, 2019
The New York Times has struggled to accurately describe polls this year. In January, editor Jonathan Weisman misrepresented Pew polling data to describe a nonexistent surge in Israeli support for the United States under President [...]
CNN’s Zakaria Indulges Palestinian Propagandist Hanan Ashrawi
June 9, 2019
Fareed Zakaria’s weekly Cable News Network (CNN) program (grandiosely named “Global Public Square”) June 9 broadcast included a discussion of the current U.S. Middle East peace plan with guests Hanan Ashrawi (Palestinian Authority official) and [...]
In Robert Bernstein Obit, AFP Inappropriately References His Judaism
May 29, 2019
Robert Bernstein (Courtesy the New Press) In its obituary yesterday for American publisher Robert Bernstein, Agence France Presse inserted an inappropriate reference to the Human Rights Watch founder who later turned on the organization due [...]