Dear Mr. Medad, After having looked into this article, we see that Mr. Mackey engages in reasonable discussion of the ammunition the soldier used in the incident. Certainly it would have helped clarity if there was some mention of that earlier in the piece but overall, our office is satisfied with the way the article was handled.
Best,Jonah Bromwich Office of the Public EditorThe New York Times
I sent back this reaction:
Dear Mr. Jonah Bromwich
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Thank you for your response to my complaint regarding the May 28
post of Robert Mackey, “Israel Suspends Soldier in West Bank Shooting
Investigation”, but I do not think you adequately address my concerns that
there was less than a “reasonable discussion” therein and for sure, your point
that “[c]ertainly it would have helped clarity if he had written it differently
and that is the point. While your office
may have been “satisfied with the way the article was handled”, I think there
is another opinion which must be
considered.
His opening lead-in is blunt and forceful and sets the tone:
“The Israeli military suspended a soldier who was captured on
video this month firing his rifle at protesters in the occupied West Bank.
Video evidence showed that the soldier fired his weapon within seconds of a
Palestinian boy’s collapsing to the ground with what proved to be a fatal
gunshot wound.”
That assertion links two untruths. Only at the end of seven paragraphs does the
reader realize that what the soldier fired was claimed not to be a lethal
bullet but a rubber-coated pellet, which, at the range fired, could not have
been fatal. In addition, since we do not
know, even after several days of discussions and news reporting, who fired the
bullet, not to mention that over an hour separates two different shooting
incidents, the deaths of two Arab youths would seem to warrant focusing on
investigating the reporting on the issue.
That goal, usually to theme of Mackey’s blog, of reviewing how various
media outlets and formats deal with news reporting is absent. Mackey has a very narrow circle of sources,
rather than “open”, when it comes to Israel.
Blogs that have analyzed, using sophisticated synchronized
comparison viewing of the various video clips are ignored. Pro-Israeli sites are non-existent whereas
quite often, such pro-Arab sites, such as Electronic Intifada and BDS-promoting
NGOs, appear with ever-increasing regularity.
Mackey’s "a Palestinian boy’s collapsing to the ground with
what proved to be a fatal gunshot wound" is not proven, at least by
acceptable standards of proof such as a court of law, a scientific lab or a credible
expert. All is conjecture. Indeed, he is following his previous post on
the matter which is headlined "Video Shows Killing of Palestinians on Nakba
Day". That headline is not
supported as when one does read the text, one learns that "Security-camera
footage obtained by the rights group Defense for Children International appears
to show the fatal shooting of two young Palestinians on
Thursday...”. The headline is not only unethical but inflammatory. Truth was obfuscated, which is not what the
NYTimes should be doing.
He also informs us that a doctor said that the protestor's heart
was "destroyed." If a bullet destroyed a heart, would it exit? It seems that any outlandish anti-Israel
claim are readily and uncritically accepted, rarely treated to an analysis and
challenged whereas pro-Israel claims are quite often doubted and
qualified. Moreover, the official Israeli responses are couched in
language that leads the reader to doubt but sources, such as a Richard
Silverstein or Ali Abu-Nimah, who engage unabashedly in propaganda, are put on
stage-front in his columns.
There is another narrative out there but Mackey ignores it. The possibility, as far-fetched as Mackey
personally regards it, is that the "shootings" filmed by the security cameras would/could appear
to be staged events, set-up by people. A “victim” shot from in front falls forward (not
backward) and holds out his arms to break his fall. A person who was shot through the heart does
not exhibited significant bleeding. A
bullet that supposedly entered a body and backpack and books does not have the
form of what a bullet should look like if so.
A still that shows an apparent pellet indentation of a victim’s
trousers is ignored. Mackey’s only
independent contribution is negative to any pro-Israel story.
Insisting, as Mackey does, that what appear would seem to favor
Israel are simply ‘allegations’, should be a matter that demands the same
treatment for other, different sources.
Awarding the same level of believability to a newspaper whose editorial
line is stridently opposed to the IDF actions in the territories as to official
spokesmen is another failure on his part.
Mackey’s relationship with the news from the territories
administered by Israel has been colored, normatively tendentious and displays a personal
unprofessional involvement with the issue.
Can I
suggest a review of his posts on the theme Israel’s administration over, say,
the past two years which would analyze his sources (quantitatively as well as
qualitatively), the amount of stories vis a vis similar themes outside the
Middle East, and other elements that could contribute to a biased result, one I
suspect is the reality.
In any
case, both what I and Mr. Mackey are doing is presenting elements surrounding
the reporting of an event. We should be
raising doubts, suspicions and dealing with various theories. The two Arab youths could have been killed by
an Israel security person and they could have been killed by others. The two bodies claimed to have been killed
and buried could have been who they claimed they were and also, the two persons
seen in the videos could have been there for a staged reenactment. In any case, the number of odd scenes shown
do warrant at least a mention and discussion and not a summary exclusion or
minimalization while, at the same time, one side receives an overwhelming
amount of attention.
A
newspaper, even if now a news web site, should deal less in unproven and surely
unsupported speculation and more in balancing the sources from which a media
consumer can draw his own conclusions.
Sincerely,
Yisrael
Medad
_____________________________
*
In his post today, [Mackey] quotes the Haaretz newspaper regarding a soldier suspended due to firing his rifle and connects it to the death of two Arab youths.================================================
But Mackey neglects to quote the source indicating the rifle was outfitted with a rubber-bullet attachment.
Here is Mackey:
The Israeli military suspended a soldier who was captured on video this month firing his rifle at protesters in the occupied West Bank. Video evidence showed that the soldier fired his weapon within seconds of a Palestinian boy’s collapsing to the ground with what proved to be a fatal gunshot wound.
As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Wednesday, the suspended soldier, seen in video recorded by a CNN producer, was a member of a communications unit assigned to document the work of combat troops and border police deployed to contain a demonstration in the West Bank town of Beitunia, near Israel’s Ofer Prison, on May 15. The CNN video appeared to show that another shot was fired by a police officer who was standing near the soldier on a hillside above the protesters.
Here is Haaretz:
A probe into the deaths of two Palestinians killed in the West Bank village of Bitunia during a Nakba Day demonstration earlier this month took a dramatic turn on Wednesday, when a CNN video clip showed a non-combat soldier, who had accompanied his comrades on the mission, firing what appeared to be a rubber bullet during the incident.
The soldier, a member of an IDF communications division, apparently fired his bullet at around the same time that one of the Palestinians, Nadim Nuwara, 17, was killed. However, the IDF has found no evidence proving that this soldier's bullet caused Nuwara's death. The details of the case are under a military court gag order.
The highlighted section is missing from Mackey.
This is unethical, an act of malfeasance and purposefully biasing his account.
The reply:
Dear Mr. Medad,
Thanks for following up. I appreciate your response and will keep it in mind going forward, particularly when evaluating stories covering this sensitive topic.
Best,Jonah BromwichOffice of the Public EditorThe New York Times
On that security camera issue: when were they installed? Were they installed by the owner of the business to catch break ins? Or did someone ask him to install those cameras and pay for them? Obviously this is something that could be very difficult to find out. The shop owner wouldn't spill the beans if he were encouraged to install them.
^
Posts
5 comments:
btw, this:
From Amos Harel in Haaretz:
"Even the Palestinian Authority, despite its declarations, is not hastening to assist in finding out the truth. After two weeks, the Palestinian security forces have yet to hand over to the IDF the bullets removed from the bodies of the two young men during the autopsy in the Ramallah hospital."
and this
But it was clear all along that the Palestinians have the crucial evidence -- and it was clear all along that they would prefer to keep it...
For the Palestinians, it's obviously good enough that it has been reported all over the world that Israel again killed two innocent Palestinian "children." IMHO, if the evidence they hold clearly supported the story -- and Israeli culpability -- they would happily hand it over and say: you see, those evil Israelis, not only did they kill our children, but then they tried to pretend that they were innocent. The fact that they are so reluctant to hand it over clearly shows that they worry that what they have may not quite be good enough to make their case...
and I was sent this from someone who received this response;
"After having looked into this article, we see that Mr. Mackey engages in reasonable discussion of the ammunition the soldier used in the incident."
(Cont'd)
So, there’s nothing particularly significant about his not making clear that a) the soldier was shooting a rubber bullet, and b) if that were the case, then there’s no way this soldier shooting was responsible for a Palestinian boy’s collapsing to the ground with what proved to be a fatal gunshot wound.
As Mr. Mackey pointed out to us:
“As you know, any reporting on this subject is contested, and I've heard from both supporters of Israel and the Palestinians on this column, that doesn’t mean the truth is anywhere but where empirical evidence leads. but this specific point seems completely absurd to me and not in need of anything like a correction. I did not cite Haaretz on the claim from Israel's military that the soldier fired plastic-coated bullets because a spokesman for the military made that same claim directly to my colleague in Jerusalem, Isabel Kershner, and I included that in what I wrote.”
his colleague rudoren was talking about in general and was vague:
Colonel Lerner said that the “edited few minutes” of video did not capture the “atmosphere of violence” during the demonstration, and he noted that it does not show who fired the shots or whether they were rubber bullets or live ammunition.
“So what caused the deaths,” he said, “is a question mark that needs to be answered.”
so Mackey's claiming “i already said that” because he quoted this is rather disingenuous. the soldier he’s identifying as the “shooter” is shooting rubber bullets at a long distance. there’s no way he’s doing a through and through into a backpack. and his NYT readers don’t know that, unless they’re otherwise informed. pretty crucial piece of info, i’d say. indeed it’s about the only thing that makes the story interesting: did the israelis do it? (people don’t want to hear that the two boys were killed by fellow Palestinians.)
He also notes that this article is part of the “Open Source” blog series, the purpose of which is to gather and present material from other sources online on subjects in the news. It points readers to other sources rather than trying to summarize each source.
one wd presumably want the NYT to pay and feature someone who does that job less tendentiously, someone who provided his or her readers the most important elements of information, while sending those further interested on to other sources. that would show a journalistic merit that the NYT has too often lacked in this internet age of crisis of trust in news media.
if it’s not fit to print the simple and impt observation that since the “shooter” was shooting rubber bullets, he cd not have done what the Palestinians claimed happened to this boy, but the headline is "Video Shows Killing of Palestinians on Nakba Day” then the NYT is once again turning its back on its motto, and reviving one of its most shameful legacies.
We do, however, believe that the article would have been clearer if it had made a mention, within the first few paragraphs, of the plastic-coated bullets and if that information had been specifically mentioned in the first iteration of what was an evolving blog post.
such a kind concession at the end there. sort of, “look i know your getting the raw end of the stick and it makes me feel uncomfortable, but not nearly as uncomfortable as standing up for you would be.”
this is a pretty amazing letter. a dishonest, lethal-advocacy journalist gives a shabby answer to your reasonable objection and the omnibudsman responds by backing Mackey, with a small concessive clause at the end. given that the independent evidence for the Palestinian narrative in this incident is extensively uncertain if not contradictory to it, the way Mackey continues to extend this lethal narrative's life rather than to expose his readers to the real problems, is evidence of an inappropriate manipulation of news to serve a personal (ideological?) agenda. he is a classic lethal journalist.
NYT should be ashamed to be paying someone to do such shoddy if not, malevolent work.
NYT shows once again, as it has been doing for many years, that it is driven not by journalistic ethics but by bilious hatred of Je... err, Zio... err, Israel. No news there.
Yoni
You have written: From Amos Harel in Haaretz:
"Even the Palestinian Authority, despite its declarations, is not hastening to assist in finding out the truth. After two weeks, the Palestinian security forces have yet to hand over to the IDF the bullets removed from the bodies of the two young men during the autopsy in the Ramallah hospital."
I wish to say that the bullets exited from the bodies of both Palestinian teenage boys, (there were exit wounds)so the bullets were not inside the bodies, and so could not be recovered. One of the bullets, however, that exited Nuwara's body, then entered his backpack, where the books in the backpack trapped the bullet. This bullet was retrieved by the boy's father, Mr. Nuwara and it was shown on CNN by a CNN reporter covering the case. It was a 5.65 metal bullet of the type used by the IDF soldiers to fire in their M16 rifles. This information from the CNN.com website: The metal slug appeared to be from a 556 NATO round, the standard ammunition used by M-16 rifles carried by Israeli security forces.
Yesh Prabhu, Bushkill, Pennsylvania
Post a Comment