A Reuters reporter was arrested by Israel for suspected terrorism and for carrying a hand grenade.
Reuters themselves reported this arrest, but left out the suspected terrorism and the hand grenade. Someone reading the Reuters report could only assume that this arrest was Israeli mis-behavior. Reurters said he was arrested “without charge,” which I presume is true – that is, without formal charge.
Reuters disingenuously wrote, “The Israeli army has not given Reuters an official explanation for the arrests.” Of course, Reuters must know unofficially that Jamal was arrested for suspected terrorist activity and carrying a hand grenade. They spare their readers those details.
Note also this quote, “Reuters Editor-in-Chief Geert Linnebank demanded that Israel either release Salem or produce details of evidence against him.” What arrogance! Why should Israel give Reuters anything? It’s apparent that Reuters is working against Israel’s interests. Shouldn’t Linnebank be appologing to Israel for putting Arab terrorists on their payroll, rather than making high-handed demands? What an asshole!
BTW it is Reuters policy not to refer to Palestinean suicide bombers as “terrorists,” even when they murder children at an ice-cream parlor, as was done yesterday.
No wonder so many Europeans are prejudiced against Israel, when they are fed a diet of such slanted news stories.
Despite the (ignored) rhetoric, I do find that media organizations seem to have a sense of immunity about the actions of their employees. Whenever something goes against them, the media organizations tend to play it up in a most slanted manner, portraying themselves as just seekers of the truth and everyone else as evildoers trying to hide information from the public.
I could be wrong, but a hand grenade (especially if that was his only weapon) doesn’t seem like a good personal defense (I’d listen to him though).
BTW, december, thanks - I’ve was wrapped up in other stuff this morning and forgot I hadn’t visited the WSJ today.
There was a time in this great country that some police men would carry a spare pistol, known as “a throw away gun,” which some suspect was left by the body of some citizen who had been shot just to make sure that there was a plausable explination for the incident. Same with little baggies of contraband substances. While I don’t want to disparage the men and women of the Israeli Defense Forces, when a bunch of soldiers who are armed to the teeth stop someone they might not want snooping around I would have some doubts about the source of any claimed grenade. It is one of those stories that can be filed under “interesting if true.” Given the present situation in the Middle East I have a tendence to regard everyone as a lying SOB until the contrary is demonstrated.
Spavined, cops still carry 'em. They’re called “back ups.” The reason the cops gave me for carrying 'em is so that if someone manages to snag their issued gun, they’re not totally helpless. Of course, that doesn’t rule out the possibility you mentioned. Especially since one of the cops told me that his back up piece was unregistered.
It’s obvious. He was on his way to cover a soccer match. Ever been to one of those where the spectators beat the crap out of each other. Sometimes have more casualties than Israel/Palestine. I’d want to be armed too.
Well, I’m sure he will as soon as Israel charges the guy and tries him and convicts him. Until then, what would you apologize for?
The previous photographer arrested by Israel has been held without charges and no lawyer for four weeks.
MY post in no way is meant to support Palestinian terrorist suicide bombers. But suspected terrorist in the US get a lawyer sooner or later.
Suspicions do not equate with fact. I can dream up thousands more heinous things that cops or soldiers could do… but such notions are all labeled under a single broad title: “Fiction”.
I also find it perfectly plausible that someone - who just happened to be a Reuter’s reporter - wanted to cause some trouble with a hand grenade.
What about all the citizens and non-citizens rounded up after September’s attack? THey weren’t given phonecalls or allowed to lawyer-up till well after the alotted timeframe, either.
So NO, suspected terroristas do not get lawyers or have charges brought against them in the US, either.
It seems odd to doubt the hand grenade, when it hasn’t even been denied. The type of case we’re both familiar with here in the US usually involve a dispute between the defendant and the police. (Provided there is a live defendant. :eek: )
Isreali soldiers would have less reason to perpetrate this sort of trick, because their civil liberties are different from ours. They wouldn’t need to find a weapon in order to Suhaib Jadallah Salem and hold him.
Sparc, if you can explain why it was appropriate for Reuters to omit mention of the hand grenade, then my hat will be off to you. However, if you seriously believe Reuters ought to have mentioned the grenade, then I hope you will say so.
Since Israeli officials refused to talk to Reuters, all Reuters can say is that the guy was arrested for reasons unknown, and that’s what their report does. Unnamed “military sources” told Ha’aretz - a different news organization - he was in possession of a hand grenade and was arrested for “suspected links to terrorist activities”. If unnamed military sources had told Reuters that, the news agency might have reported it, depending on their policy on quoting anonymous sources.
As for… No wonder so many Europeans are prejudiced against Israel, when they are fed a diet of such slanted news stories.
…huh? Please share with us your source of pure journalistic objectivity.
december why don’t you go fuck yourself with any device of your choice will ya! My point was not about Reuters. You have goddamned asked for it about a hundred and forty three times by now. My point was regarding yet another tiring EU bashing tendency that you display.
I couldn’t give one shit about Reuters or any other fucking news source you dig up.
Just fess up to it; you can’t stand Europe and your paranoid delusions make you think that all we want the destruction of Israel. Isn’t that so?
You’re about to convince me that we (the EU) need to focus our whole military power on the control of New Jersey. That might even help Israel, since it would bring to harbor at least one helper that they do not need.
Getting lost naked in the Queen nightclub on the Nile without a buttplug wouldn’t be good enough for you as far as I am concerned.
It’s standard policy of independent news agencies in general. AP made a special point out of it in September 2001 when they issued an official reminder to all their contributing journalist to not refer to the 9/11 terrorists with any other term than ‘alleged hijackers’. It’s not bias as you seem to think december it’s the opposite. The independent news agencies do not take sides as a matter of being unbiased.
Also: if you knew anything about the legal implications involved you might understand why they haven’t mentioned the grenade. If he hasn’t been officially charged, they can’t report what the “rumoured” charge may be, because it could libel him.
Credit to Reuters for not sensationalising their story by printing unofficial rumour.
december - I love how you choose to prefer believing “Israeli military sources” over an independent news organisation. Whether true or not, there is a certain way every story has to be handled.
Why don’t you ask yourself why this guy hasn’t been formally charged? What justifications have the army given for holding him without charge? How long are they allowed to hold him without charge?
Why don’t you wait until he is charged officially, and see if Reuters report that or not?
Until then, you’re just doing your one-trick-pony totally blindly-unquestioningly pro-Israel anti-everything-else paranoia act that is increasingly giving you the reputation of being a fuckwit.
You obviously care strongly about these issues, and you obviously take time and care writing your posts and responding. Credit to you for that. But you seem to be burning up inside with your hatred and fear and paranoia and I think it is distorting your logic and intelligence.
Having seen the pile of “alleged” rubble in NYC, and the “alleged” bodies of the victims, I really have to wonder if there is anything that will ever wake the vast, cowlike masses up to the fact that Mass Media has not only a bais, but a clear political message and agenda (Left, Right, or Radical Middle; it matters not - it’s all bad).
I think it’s really kewlies that AP felt so strongly that terrorist scum needed protection by them. Referring to a defendant in a criminal trial as an “alleged” perpetrator is fine and proper; referring to a Muslim terrorist scum who slaughtered thousands of people as an “alleged hijacker” is a cold slap across the face of the victims families with AP’s dripping dick. It’s a sick insult, and those who made the decision deserve public castigation, condemnation, and never to work again in any capacity that could put them in contact with the public. I only wish that the vast lowing herds of the public would have finally taken that as the clarion call to cancel all newspaper subscriptions nationwide that took stories from AP.
There was no “alleged” about it. You know it, I know it, and they knew it. You may as well refer to the moon landing as “alleged”, since there is about the same amount of proof that those happened as 9/11 (which is, for the truly dense out there, a whole fucking lot of proof).
I’m not an expert on the law of defamation, but I don’t see how it would kill Reuters to have stated the following:
“Israeli authorities have refused to provide an official explanation for the arrest, but Ha’aretz has reported that, according to unnamed military sources, the reporter was in possession of a hand grenade.”
Good journalism is about impartial evaluation of facts. I doubt AP gave a shit about the feelings of those involved - they were probably more concerned about sticking to the truth. So in the first few days, they referred to “alleged hijackers” - because that’s what they were.
And as for December’s OP, here we go again. December, what military sources are these that have been quoted? Why hasn’t he been charged yet? And more importantly, how the fuck did you manage to bring Europe into this one?
Reuters and the wire services have their own guidelines that they follow. One reason they have these guidelines is to protect their reporters from physical harm, endangerment and detention. I don’t know what those guidelines are, but I do know that Reuters typically would quote an unnamed military source. That is, supposedly Reuters is the first hand recipient of such information. Reuters typically does not print second hand sources, such as a newspaper that quotes an unnamed military source. I know reporters for Reuters, Bloomberg and other wire services, and they generally had a direct source of some sort or independant confirmation before printing a story.
One of the first cites had this
One of the other cites had this
This should at least be a warning indicator that Israel may not be following generally accepted international practice when it comes to independant reporting.
A somewhat confusing statement **Anthracite[/b, but I take it that you only meant that you beg to differ with AP and Reuter’s position on the matter. I might or I might not as well, but my position was not the point. Fact remains that what I posted is the official stand of the previously named organizations. Sure media is biased as we all are, but the fact that they have policies regarding name calling is not part of their bias. Should I understand from your post that you agree with december’s implication that through the policy of not calling anyone a terrorist Reuters is anti-Israel?
