Newspaper frustrated, powerless

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am

“Who holds bloggers accountable when they get it wrong?” asks the Guardian’s Conor Foley, who believes an apology is owed from bloggers who exposed logical flaws in the Lebanese ambulance attack story.

Hey, Foley; ask your editors why they still haven’t corrected the Guardian’s plastic turkey invention of three years ago. Fix that bogus bird story, and then we might talk about more complex issues, OK?

UPDATE. Avi Bell in the New York Sun examines HRW’s report into the ambulance claims:

This time, Human Rights Watch is not being duped by a fabrication — it is the fabricator.

Posted by Tim B. on 01/03/2007 at 10:51 AM
    1. Human Rights Watch have also just published a report, The “Hoax” That Wasn’t, in which they reinvestigated the [alleged Israeli targetting of ambulances] incident and reaffirmed their original claim.

      Because, you know, no one doubts Human Rights Watch fairness and impartiality when it comes to Israel.

      Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2007 01 03 at 11:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Who holds bloggers accountable when they get it wrong?”

      Oh, just every other blogger.

      And, most importantly, we (most of us, I think) hold ourselves accountable and correct our mistakes in the record.

      Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 01 03 at 11:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Apology? ‘I’m very sorry you have squandered the tattered remnants of whatever credibility you once had pursuing a transparently obvious political agenda. Now bugger off.’

      Posted by Brentbo on 2007 01 03 at 11:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bloggers are the Media Watch of the mainstream media.  When they make a mistake, they almost always confess their mistake and apologize.  Tim here has done it several times, usually for small errors.

      Of course, you’ll never see Tim Palmer’s Media Watch confess to making an error.  Or the newspapers who reported that an Israeli missile struck the ambulance.  Or the photoshopped photos published by Reuters.  Or AP stories citing Jamal Hussein.  Or 60 Minutes, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes.  Or a zillion other false stories.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 03 at 11:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Who holds The Guardian responsible when they screw up?

      Nobody.

      The BBC still kisses its shiny arse and middle class anorak wearing Che wannabes still buy its copy.

      Posted by murph on 2007 01 03 at 11:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. I love how the guy writes “The Guardian subsequently carried out an investigation into their reporting of the incident, which rejected the claims of a hoax,” as if that just seals the matter.  Sure, nobody questions the integrity, agenda or veracity of what they read in that paper.

      Newspapers and journalists are held accountable for what they write by their readers.  Get it wrong often enough, and people stop reading (i.e. paying for) your paper.  You’d think they’d get it through their heads by now that the same principle applies to blogs.  The only difference is, most bloggers aren’t in it for the money or the job.

      Posted by EmilyJones on 2007 01 03 at 11:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. Good see technology, holding these ‘journalists’ (propagandists) to account. Its even better to see them squirm.

      Posted by BJM on 2007 01 03 at 11:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. The arrogance of the MSM is breathtaking. Or vomit-inducing. Either way, exposure to it is not healthy.

      Posted by SoberHT on 2007 01 03 at 11:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. The fact that Conor Foley asks that question betrays the fact that he just doesn’t “get it”.

      Which isn’t surprising. Must be tough to wake up one day and discover that you’re the old fogey.

      Posted by Korgmeister on 2007 01 03 at 11:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. … and even the Israeli armed forces have admitted that the story is probably true

      Have they? Where is the link to this admission? It’s not too much to expect one when he has linked to other reports.

      Also:

      … these types of claims do really place the lives of humanitarian aid workers in danger

      Um, exactly how does it endanger them?

      Posted by Burbank on 2007 01 03 at 11:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. #2, when bloggers get it wrong, someimes it’s not that easy to admit it so it’s easier just to change the entire post. You know, like most posters of high reputability.

      Posted by Ash_ on 2007 01 03 at 11:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Appropos of nothing much, Conor Foley’s facial expression makes him look like he’s having a serious gas attack.  I think if he tried the Compassionate Head Tilt™, his head would fall off.  Metamucil, guy.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 01 03 at 11:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Someone at the Grauniad has the gall to complain about “accountability”? He’s serious?

      Oh, that’s just too rich!

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 03 at 11:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. #11, hence my ‘most of us’ qualifier 🙂

      Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 01 03 at 12:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. Now, where did I put my horsewhip?
      I normally let it make this sort of apology.

      Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 01 03 at 12:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. just want to point out that the Grauniad is owned by the Scott Trust and despite wednesdays state non-jobs section manages to run at a loss!

      It is kept in business by the profits from the car mag Auto Trader.

      Posted by Rob Read on 2007 01 03 at 01:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. Here is zombietime’s response to HRW’s ‘report’.  It is completely devastating.  It makes HRW look even more ridiculous and the ‘attack’ even more suspect.

      Posted by nobody important on 2007 01 03 at 01:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Who holds bloggers accountable when they get it wrong?”

      The answer would be Jamil Hussein.
      -if you can ever find him.

      Posted by Bob in Feenicks on 2007 01 03 at 02:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. First Law of MSM:

      If at first you don’t succeed, keep on lying until they start to believe.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 01 03 at 03:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Correct me if I err, but is that pose of Conner Foley, a UK head tilt?

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 01 03 at 03:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. OH my…apologies to Connor. Only one n, is the boys name….see Connor, we do apologize.

      And for Christ Sakes, fix your name Connor…be a man!

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 01 03 at 03:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wrongly spinning a visit from the prez into a nothing more than a cheezy bad attempt at propaganda: Good.

      Lying about implausible attacks on ambulances to paint overly restrained attacks on a terrorist infastructure as overly agressive: Good.

      Awe.  Poor wittle guy.  News is just too straight forward for you, huh.  The big bad reader won’t let make things more interesting, huh?  Awwwe.  Don’t worry, one day, when you’re all grown-up, you’ll realize just how un-important you are… Wait, that wasn’t very reassuring, was it? Well, one day you’ll grow up.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2007 01 03 at 03:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’“Who holds bloggers accountable when they get it wrong?” asks the Guardian…’

      My irony-meter just melted down.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 01 03 at 03:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gee, where else do I know the Guardian from?  Oh yeah,here:

      A great example is this post, where John Quiggin is taken in by the Guardian’s hatcheting of comments made by Brigadier General Ed Butler. While it can’t be confirmed, the Brigadier’s follow-up letter to the Guardian gives weight to my hypothesis that the Brig. meant to insult the reporter.

      It’s like CrookedTimber and the Guardian are written just to prove Arnold Kling, Tyler Cowen, Robin Hansen, etc right.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2007 01 03 at 04:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Funny thing about the HRW report proving that original account was true is that it doesn’t have any evidence that 1) the amulances were targeted by IDF, or 2) were damaged by direct IDF munitions fire [or even indirect], or 3) present any evidence that contradicts the believed evidence of a hoax.  Their proof of non-hoax is the speculation that people speculating are too far away to be taken seriously, no matter whether true or not.  Funny.

      Tell me now, where is the benefit of the doubt supposed to lie here?

      But hey, if Hezballa or Hamas say it happened… They even have a guy without a leg.  Must be true.

      Even if the Israeli targeted the abmulance, all bets were off once their enemies started using the rules and civilians as shields.  Want to blame someone, blame the agressors here.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2007 01 03 at 04:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Coincidentally, the day before the article was published, the Israeli army admitted that the ambulances “could have been struck by our mortar or artillery”. A spokesman said: “We (Israel Defence Forces) certainly do not target ambulances but in a combat zone, we cannot always co-ordinate their safety. There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure.” This is probably as close to an admission as we are going to get.

      (snip)

      The Guardian subsequently carried out an investigation into their reporting of the incident, which rejected the claims of a hoax. Human Rights Watch have now done the same and even the Israeli armed forces have admitted that the story is probably true …

      The Israelis stated that it’s possible they hit an ambulance.  Since it was a war zone, they simply stated the obvious.  This is not an admission that they, in fact, did hit the ambulance.  Conor stating that it was an admission is “advocacy journalism”.  It has no place in professional journalism today.

      The problem that bloggers have is that several newspapers including The Guardian did not simply report that it was possible that Israeli hit the ambulances.  Rather they reported that it did happen.  As in it was a fact.  Notwithstanding the strong possibility that the persons they consulted fabricated this story.

      Conor screwed up royally when he wrote this column.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 03 at 05:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Conor screwed up royally when he wrote this column.

      No, not at all: he wrote exactly what he meant to write, whether it was shameless anti-Israel and anti-“bogger” propaganda is irrelevant.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 03 at 05:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. Foley seems to believe that you have to be there and see the evidence yourself. If you do this you have authority and readers must believe you. You don’t have to do any logical analysis and ask “Does this make sense?”.

      People who look at your photographs and say that they contradict your story have no authority. It does not matter how logical their analysis is or what knowledge they bring that the reporter didn’t have. We must turn off our bullshit detectors in the face of such authority.

      Blogers don’t have to gather evidence to disprove the ambulance hoax. HRW has already gathered the evidence for us. Before their report I believed that it was probably a hoax but just might have been collateral damage or friendly fire. Their report just gave me more reason to believe that it was a hoax. (How else do you explain the holes in the ground that look so unlike a projectile impact crater?)

      Posted by Lloyd Flack on 2007 01 03 at 05:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. It’s more than that, wronwright.  The claim was that Israel deliberately targeted the ambulances using attack helicopters fighter jets] drones with magical ordnance that perfectly penetrated the red cross on top of the ambulance.

      That is a hold order of magnitude over “could have been struck by our mortar or artillery…..There was (Israeli army) shelling in the vicinity of the ambulance so we cannot tell for sure.”

      Posted by entropy on 2007 01 03 at 05:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. or even a whole order of magnitude.

      Posted by entropy on 2007 01 03 at 05:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. Who holds The Guardian accountable when it bolsters a vicious lie that places lives in danger with a string of equally dangerous lies?

      Posted by geoff on 2007 01 03 at 05:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. False claims can place the lives of those in war zones in danger.

      This is true. One day there will be tallying of the lives lost due to the false claims of The Guardian and the rest of the depraved wing of the UK media.

      A reckoning.

      Posted by geoff on 2007 01 03 at 05:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Who holds bloggers accountable when they get it wrong?”

      I thought there was a simple answer.  They can always sue if they think they have been defamed and test their case in a court of law.

      Woops – sorry, won’t stand up in a court of law?  I rest my case.

      Or, they can use the interweb thingy known as “comments” and argue their case in public.

      Woops – sorry, don’t know how to use the interweb thingy?  Can’t access it via your selectric typewriter?  Not used to having people argue back in real time, rather than a few days later via the letters page?  Might induce a heart attack?

      Deary me.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2007 01 03 at 05:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Isn’t it obvious, the Israelis were testing out their new high-density, precision-guided, non-propelled, non-explosive ICE bombs.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2007 01 03 at 05:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Entropy, please use the proper weapons terminology – it’s “magical JEW ordance”, aka M.J.O.

      Thank you.

      Posted by der FRED on 2007 01 03 at 06:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #29 entropy

      Yes, you’re correct.  That’s what I meant to say.  Thank you so very much for finishing my comment for me

      (and making me look like a complete ass).

      ~ grumbles ~

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 03 at 06:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. What in the hell is wrong with these people?  Rocket attacks on civilians, suicide belts with shrapnel dipped in rat poison and using ambulances to smuggle munitions are all okay, I guess?

      Apparently so.  They must instead latch onto the most asinine fakery this side of Bigfoot.  Forget blogs; they’ve got checks and balances built in.  The ones who need accountability are the starry-eyed do-gooders with an agenda.

      Posted by Secundus on 2007 01 03 at 06:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, and did Islamic Reuters report the Indonesian plane crash and it’s survivors?

      Question:Who holds bloggers accountable when they get it wrong?”

      Answer: They’re not paid, that’s Islamic Reuters job!

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 01 03 at 07:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. Targetting of civilians, their neighbourhoods, and yes, their ambulances, would not be so likely if the evil ones would stop using them as cover, and fight in uniform.
      Steer the blame to where it belongs.
      In this warfare there are no rules for them, and there should only be rules for Israel and the West when that situation is corrected.
      International Law is a horse’s arse until then.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 01 03 at 07:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. p.s.

      Blair news, it’s gutsy and it’s good!
      Tonight 6.30 p.m. “Tim B. weather and news”
      7.30 p.m. “Ferret racing”

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 01 03 at 07:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. The secret Jewish ambulance frisbee has joined the plastic turkey as a “fact” among the anti-American, anti-Semitic left. It’s Foley who should apologise to his readers for his stupidity in continuing to say the ambulance was hit by anything other than a spray of machine gun bullets from Hezbollah’s PR people.

      Foley should acquaint himself with the Arab term Al-Takeyya, which perfectly fits the ambulance hoax. Al-Takeyya is the Muslims’ legitimate, in their eyes, practice of lying to non-Muslims to protect Islam. But it is used more commonly to justify any lies told to non-Muslims, such as Guardian reporters. It must be like shooting fish in a barrel for Hezbollah and their ilk. Unlike the Israelis, who know that everything told to them by the Arabs is a lie, the Guardian reporters believe them unquestioningly and utterly

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 01 03 at 08:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. Re: Takeyya (or Taqiya, however you spell it)

      This sort of lying isn’t to protect Islam but to advance it.  It is a weapon.  Propaganda, agitprop, call it what you will; these people are aiming at our high moral ground warm fuzzies with the aim of using them to conquer us.

      Which is what that woman was doing when she made a big fuss out of being sacked from the CofE school for wearing a veil that shows nothing but her eyes.  Anyone who clicked on the link I provided here would have had the pleasure of seeing her caught out in her lies.

      Posted by Janice on 2007 01 03 at 09:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. this cartoon is rather appropriate in this instance

      Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 01 03 at 09:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hoax Report no Hoax!

      In finding no verifiable evidence of an Israeli attack on the ambulance we propose that a weapon that does not exist was fired from a drone that was not there and caused the damage to the ambulance that could not have been caused by a missile.  A vehemently anti-Israeli newspaper backs our version of events therefore it must be true.

      Regards,

      Non-Jewish Humans Rights Watch
      Now supporting your local anti-Jewish genocidal murderers – contact us for more details on supporting the killing of Jews in your area today!

      Posted by bondo on 2007 01 03 at 09:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. The HRW report is a bad joke; Foley’s article is even worse. The question he should be asking is why are bloggers providing more logical, researched and comprehensive analyses than mainstream journalists, whose reports are littered with factual errors and opinion passed off as truth.

      And those wet, dopey oh-so-concerned faces they adopt for their photographs simply serve to make them appear even more ridiculous. Foley looks like he’s about to cry. Maybe he’s read the counter-arguments.

      Posted by Dminor on 2007 01 03 at 09:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. This cretin is apparently unable to realise that even in his one story it changes from artillery and mortar fire to a drone missile in a couple of paragraphs.

      Posted by McAnzac on 2007 01 03 at 10:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. I used to have a Human Rights Watch and the damned thing lost about two minutes a day.

      A real two-bob watch!

      Posted by Bonmot on 2007 01 03 at 10:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. Who holds bloggers responsible? Well, um, the Guardian apparently. This is of a peace with lefties screaming from the rooftops that they don’t dare whisper evil of the government. If there was really suppression of dissent there would be less of a fuss about it. If there was really no accountability for bloggers, you wouldn’t hear the fact bemoaned in a widely read newspaper.

      Posted by Nathan on 2007 01 03 at 10:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. New York Sun Oped –

      The report presents nothing more than its conjecture that Israel possesses and used unspecified new “limited impact missiles designed to cause low collateral damage” fired from drones. It points to the existence of holes in the roadway, which it asserts — without forensic or any other evidence — were caused by the conjectured missiles.

      Conjecture?  The MSM did not mention conjecture.  They stated that it was a fact that Israel fired missiles at the two ambulances.

      Someone is doing a fairly botched up job of reporting the news.  It is high time that the MSM begins cleaning up its act.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 03 at 11:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. wronight
      It is high time that the MSM begins cleaning up its act.

      Mate you’re eiher joking or the world’s greatest optimist. It’s not the MSM per se, at fault – it’s the baised and morally bankrupt journos who write for them….

      Posted by Bonmot on 2007 01 03 at 11:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. Is Blair.

      Is news.

      Is good.

      (With apologies to Don’s Smallgoods)

      Hey, anyone got an email address for this twit of a Guardian reporter?

      MarkL
      Canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2007 01 04 at 01:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. This has got to be the last nail in the coffin for Human Rights Watch. They managed to barely preserve a grain of credibility when they eventually and grudgingly admitted that the “Jenin massacre” was a crock. It was like pulling teeth from a rhino.

      The disappointment they suffered when it slowly dawned on them that there were no murdered kids or firing squads or crushed bodies under bulldozed rubble would tear your heart out. Even worse, there was no simple way they could just lie about it. There were too many others sniffing around, and who knows? Any one of the unreliable buggers could tell the truth and prove it.

      The poor bastards.

      Posted by geoff on 2007 01 04 at 01:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. As someone who has been in the middle of nationaly reported incidents a number of times I can quite confidently say bias is king.
      You would think our ABC would be interested in a “horses mouth” report from a detention officer involved in multiple riots and other incidents?
      I contacted radio national, JJJ, and the ABC news room on a number of occasions after a number of blatant lies they reported and NEVER recieved even an email in reply. I offered reports, and other officers testimonies including (ahem! “found”) internal documents any journo worth their salt would give their eye teeth for. I even had another officer who had a (ahem! “found”) videotape of over an hour of riot footage, the censored 5 minutes which were released by DIMIA previously caused a small storm.
      I wonder why that would be?
      Indeed if Tim would like to cause a stir and is prepared to let a good journo follow up on some others I could put him in contact with he might get an interesting series of Sunday features out of it!!

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 01 04 at 03:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Poor Conor has probably realised that the profession of journalist is rapidly losing its cachet and he may find himself a mere reporter.
      What’s the difference?
      Reporters do the who, what, when and how.
      Journalists engage in a bit of channelling for the why.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 01 04 at 05:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Now, what will politically correct reporters make of this?
      (dite moi pork-quoi, tu ne m’aime)

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 01 04 at 07:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. HRW @rse-covering following those with a smidgeon of teknic pointing out to them the demerits of the “holey” ole rustbucket ambo’s they’d been duped with?

      I’m sure most Defence Dept’s would have got a chuckle out of the photographic “evidence” (our ‘Foreign Minister’ advised so).

      Poor, sad, Conor … conned.

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 01 04 at 07:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think an apology is in order.
      I hope Foley makes it.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2007 01 04 at 08:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. aha! This explains a lot…

      Conor Foley is a humanitarian aid worker. He has worked for a variety of human rights and humanitarian aid organizations, including Liberty, Amnesty International and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He currently lives and works in Brazil, and is a research fellow at the Human Rights Law Centre at the University of Nottingham.Conor’s books include Combating Torture: a manual for judges and prosecutors (2003), which was published by the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and A Guide to Property Law in Afghanistan (2005), which was published by the Norwegian Refugee Council and UNHCR

      Posted by carpefraise on 2007 01 04 at 08:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. here’s a link to the manual he wrote.
      http://www.essex.ac.uk/combatingtorturehandbook/manual/

      His “Fair Trial” chapter seems not to apply to Israel.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2007 01 04 at 08:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. To paraphrase a commenter on another blog:

      “The Israilis are working on secret weapons that minimize collateral damage.  Those evil Joos!”

      Posted by nobody important on 2007 01 04 at 10:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. When the original report is proven correct, how about we’ll help get you a job at a real newspaper Connie.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2007 01 04 at 10:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. Er… Israelis.  Hey, I said I was paraphrasing.

      Posted by nobody important on 2007 01 04 at 10:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. ” “” “”;’;’ ::” ‘;’;’; “” “” ; ‘;’;;’ ;’”

      “Ambulance bomb” by 1.618

      For Sale: $ 76,900

      Remember, today’s harvested delusion has been sponsored by Blair news. Blair News, it’s gutsy and it’s good!

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 01 04 at 05:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. p.s. send the cheque to andrea@admin ta.

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 01 04 at 05:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Australian owes Tim copyright on intellectual property. Leaks cartyoon is AL Gore and the weather.

      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,20671,7583,00.html#

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 01 04 at 05:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Story full of holes by Conn’er Foolly

      and the sequel:

      No smoking gun

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 01 04 at 10:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. I have left a comment over on the Guardian web site to try and edumacate some of those dumb schmucks, but I doubt it will work.

      It would be nice if someone with more experience of ordnance could chip in.  The only experience I have had with a UXB was at Lancelin.  My platoon was digging in on a hill and the guys digging the pit next to mine unearthed a bomb – can’t remember if it was a 500kg or 1000kg bomb, but it was big.  And it was only a few inches underground, and it was pretty much horizontal and in one piece.

      I was away at the time of the unearthing, but when I returned, the entire section had chipped in with their entrenching tools and dug it up completely.  They were standing on it, taking photos of each other “windsurfing”.  My errand had been to collect the RSM.  He saw the bomb, went white, and then bellowed like I have never heard anyone bellow before.  Within a minute, everyone was off that hill.

      Made a nice big cloud when the engineers blew it up.  I drove back up there the day after and parked my Landcruiser in the crater.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2007 01 05 at 04:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. “The Guardian subsequently carried out an investigation into their reporting of the incident…”–Foley

      That’s funny.  I lowered my standards and actually read The Guardian article Foley linked to (don’t worry, I took a shower afterwards), and it doesn’t look like they conducted any kind of investigation into their reporting at all.

      Unless you think that a Guardian “reporter” saying:  “I remain confident that the story was true.” is an investigation.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 01 05 at 01:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Isn’t the Guardian the same agitprop 5th column propaganda organization that hired this piece of shit?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 01 06 at 05:37 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.