Qana, Plame and karma

Many of the mainstream media apologists have conceded — and they had little choice but to do so — that many of the photographs of the Israelis' response to Hez b'Allah's act of war, were staged. The evidence of staging and Photoshopping is too public.

The media allowed itself to be used to defame Israel, stir up sympathy for Lebanon and halt the advance into Lebanon. But the concessions of wrongdoing stop short with digital alterations. Media spokesmen are still in denial about the biggest media fraud of all: the dramatic dead baby display at Qana.
 
EUreferendum has not given up investigating the incident.

Using the evidence we and our readers have gathered, and our collective analyses, we have learnt that, at the assembly area, there was a macabre selection process going on. "Normal" or unsightly corpses were marked up for despatch (sic) straight to the waiting ambulances. Those which were especially photogenic or with dramatic potential were sent to this "staging area". From there, the media circus was organised, and the "props" issued to the actors, for the displays of theatre that we have already recorded(and have more to come). 

The blogsite has now obtained a satellite shot of the village involved (which is not, in fact, Qana, but rather the hamlet of Khuraybah, one mile to the north of Qana which is quite small but nevertheless rather mysteriously contains a very large mosque. The mapped picture, makes even clearer that the entire incident was staged, but EUreferendum has in addition carefully documented this through a meticulous review of the video taken there and the photographs and news reports.

The refusal of professional journalists to seek or conduct a detailed investigation of the way in which its colleagues  obviously served as  willing handmaidens to Hezb'Allah , opens them all up to the perfectly reasonable charge that such mendacious behavior is so common it bothers them not at all.

But this kind of behavior has a way of backfiring. The New York Observer recently noted that the New York Times demanded a full investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor over Valerie Plame being named, and succeeded only in setting a precedent for compelling reporters' testimony. That very precedent has now twice bitten the paper which led the charge to utilize every legal means to uncover the source of the Plame "leak."  Those media members which behave dishonestly create problems for themselves and others in the business.

The New York Times assertions about Plame and the release of the N.I.E. were false and one—sided.

It is increasingly apparent that no crime was committed in the course of Ms. Plame's identity being revealed. Moreover, the leak exposed a fact of legitimate public interest' that Ms. Plame had played a significant role in sending her husband, Joseph Wilson, on his now—infamous trip to Niger.
 
Similarly, the partial declassification of the N.I.E. added to public knowledge about a matter of vital importance.
 
On the question of where responsibility really lay for the erroneous predictions about Iraqi W.M.D., it was germane to know the general tenor of a document that purported to represent the best thinking of the intelligence community.
 
The October 2002 N.I.E. expressed 'high confidence' that 'Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs.'
 
The problem with these leaks, for at least some in the media, seemed to be that the information they revealed favored Mr. Bush.
 
In an October 2003 column about �£�Plamegate,�£� Maureen Dowd made the blanket assertion that 'The issue is the administration's credibility, not Joe Wilson's'
 
But if the subject under debate is the White House's alleged mendacity, why is the honesty — or otherwise — of its accuser not relevant?"

In any event, the NYT's overplayed its hand and in the process opened up a judicial sluice gate which is likely to imperil many media outlets and reporters.

The subject now is the media's alleged mendacity and complicity with terrorists. Why does it think after its behavior in Plame or Rathergate or the leak of the NSA program,  it has enough residual good repute  to avoid  either serious inquiry or our contempt? 
 
Clarice Feldman   8 17 06