Newsbusters takes the NYT to task for ignoring the result of the Enderlein-Karsenty case. (Newsbusters acknowledged that the result was covered half-heartedly in the NYT’s blog.)
Newsbuster’s author Warner Todd Huston asks:
So what gives, New York Times? Why the reluctance to cover this new twist in the al-Dura story that you have used so many times in the past to support Palestinian terrorists? You have used this tale to beat the Israelis up for 8 years, now. But, we have final proof that this is a faked video. The Jews didn’t kill little Muhammad al-Dura.
( via memeorandum )
Instapundit answers (with a question):
Because it opens the door to suggestions that this wasn’t an aberration, but the norm in Mideast coverage?
It’s a topic I wrote to the Times’s public editor about two months ago. At the time I wrote:
As I’ve shown above the Times accepted a narrative that shaped a lot of its reporting at the time. One piece of that narrative was exposed quickly. In another case a Times reporter used a highly suspect statement of an interested party to support the narrative. Now another part of the narrative has been shown to be suspect. At least in the name of accuracy one would hope that the Times would look into the case and what it implies.
In addition to the immediate issue of the origins of the “Aqsa intifada”, the case calls into question the widespread use of local stringers who may be more interested in promoting an agenda than in accuracy. The Times’s lack of curiosity in this case reflects poorly on its commitment to getting the story correct.
I still have not received a response from Clark Hoyt. I don’t think that accuracy is the main goal of the NYT.
This failure doesn’t just apply to the NYT but to nearly every major media outlet in American.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
