Saturday, June 18, 2005


To hide, or not to hide...

UK Indymedia goes out of its way to demonstrate that an article has been hidden, using garish backgrounds and explanatory notes detailing why a particular article was considered unworthy of its newswire. One example here. Their editorial policy which quite reasonably prohibits (for starters):
  • Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
  • Inaccurate : posts that are inaccurate or misleading.
apparently doesn't apply to posts critical of Israel, howsoever inaccurate or misleading.

A piece, entitled Internationals Abducted by Israeli Security Forces is a textbook case in distortion, bias and flat out old-fashioned BS. I will provide an executive summary:

  1. Tourists overstay their Visa
  2. Israeli police arrest law-breaking tourists and release them on conditional bail pending deportation (some "abuduction"!)
  3. Tourists are not beaten, tortured or subject to anything other than due process
  4. Article written on Indymedia implies heavy-handedness, makes allusions to torture (screams) and suggests covert spy activity for what is ostensibly a simple case of law-breakers who resent being arrested for... Breaking the law.
The article was thoroughly fisked by commenters so I do not need to repeat why it is completely wrong. However, was it hidden? Of course not! I mean that would just be responsible wouldn't it and responsible reporting of Israel just isn't acceptable.

Their irish buddies are at the same game:
Not only was it not hidden, but a previous comment and my own were both deleted. Meanwhile 2 other like minded comments were put up, so that's OK - this time.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? .