Acid? Oh-hum

The JPost published a story a few months ago, actually on December 3, 2008 which claimed that:

One officer was wounded when acid was thrown at his face.

That charge has been going around and around and around.

I blogged on a reaction by JTA to the claim that the police were lying.

Like the same false claim in 2005 at the evacuation of Kfar Darom during the disenagagement.


So, someone thought to clarify matters and wrote to the JPost, in my edited version:

...everybody believes that this allegation has no basis in fact. can you sort this out - did this ever really happen, or is it an unsubstantiated assertion. by now it should be easy for somebody at the police spokesperson's office to provide the name of the officer in question, and there ought to be a medical authority who can look at the relevant medical record and confirm that acid injured the officer's face

That was at the end of September, nine months since the original report.

The response:

we'll check into it and get back to you

A few days after, more:

...the police [are] check[ing] into it, they are doing so...[they need] to check arrest records from nine months ago...

Now, how long do you think that it is reasonable for the police to take over this?

Shouldn't the JPost be concerned that the police will simply not give a reply. Should not the JPost say to the police that their corroboration of the acid story is required by a certain date and if not provided, the paper will publish a clarification indicating that even after an inquiry with the Israel police there is no corroboration of the story. Maybe even the paper should announce it is retracting the report.

What do you think a suitable "date x" should be? A week? Two weeks? Five hours?

Of course, some journalists wait a number of weeks to receive accurate information from security officials. They are confident that the police really are pursuing the matter and not laughing at the paper. Some think it reasonable that the matter would take some time to be investigated in that it occurred nine months ago. In the interest of accuracy, maybe all should wait for the police to thoroughly look into the matter.

A suggestion was raised: that the JPost simply publish an item that it is checking the story, that the police have not as yet responded but that the JPost is still pursuing the matter.

They didn't like that over at the JPost.

It seems that the police have responded, they say, and it appears to the paper that the police are working to provide the necessary information. It simply takes time. I guess that if the paper felt the police really weren't working cooperatively certainly something would have been published.

Yes, there is anxiety, but some feel it is in everyone's interest for an accurate story to be published. The JPost claims it is in pursuit of that goal.

I have a specific idea:

why not ask the police medical department if any policeman was treated for acid burns and ask the payments section if any policeman received sick leave and compensation for his acid wounds.

That should take, what, 2-3 days at the most?

What's the problem?