New York Times reporter David Carr has responded to criticism from Contentions and elsewhere that he failed to identify several so-called “journalists” killed in Israeli strikes as terrorists in a recent article. BuzzFeed has the interview:
New York Times media reporter David Carr defended his Monday column accusing Israel of killing journalists in Gaza on Monday, after Israeli officials and their allies accused him of conflating Hamas operatives and reporters.
“The three men who died in missile strikes in cars on Nov. 20 were identified by Reuters, AP, AFP, and Washington Post and many other news outlets as journalists,” Carr told BuzzFeed in an email. “The Committee to Protect Journalists, which I treat as a reliable, primary source in these matters, identified them as journalists. (as did Reporters without Borders.)”
“I ran my column by reporters and editors at our shop familiar with current events in the region before I printed it,” Carr said. “And I don’t believe that an ID made by the IDF is dispostive or obviates what the others said. Doesn’t mean that I could not have gotten it wrong, only that the evidence so far suggests that they were journalists, however partisan.”
So because another news organization reported it, that automatically makes it accurate? Carr never even informs readers that he was relying on the reporting of other news outlets, and doesn’t attribute his information to the AP, AFP or the Washington Post (as the New York Times ethics policy requires). Instead, readers are given the impression that Carr verified the information himself.
Carr claims he used the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “primary source,” even though he didn’t cite the organization. The problem is, if you check the CPJ website, it never independently confirmed that the terrorists killed in the Israeli strike were journalists. It clearly noted that it was citing outside news organizations, which means it wasn’t a primary source in this case. Here’s the CPJ story:
Two Israeli airstrikes killed three journalists in the Gaza Strip today, according to news reports. The fatal attacks followed a series of Israeli strikes earlier in the week that injured at least nine journalists and damaged news outlets.
Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama, cameramen for the Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV, were covering events in the Al-Shifaa neighborhood of central Gaza when a missile hit their vehicle at around 6 p.m., according to a statement by Al-Aqsa TV. The statement said the journalists’ car was marked “TV” with neon-colored letters. The journalists suffered severe burns and died in a nearby hospital, the statement said. Ashraf al-Qudra, spokesman for the Gaza health ministry, confirmed the journalists’ deaths to Agence France-Presse.
A third journalist was killed when his car was hit by a missile this evening, The Associated Press reported citing a Gaza official. Initial local news reports identified the journalist as Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private Al-Quds Educational Radio. The reports said his vehicle was hit while he was driving in the Deir al-Balah neighborhood, but did not say whether Abu Aisha was reporting at the time. CPJ continues to investigate the circumstances of his death.
The CPJ posted this on November 20. That same day, the IDF publicly identified one of the “journalists” as Hamas military commander Muhammed Shamalah. Carr published his story six days later, yet does not cite the IDF’s identification of Shamalah at all. Carr is correct when he says the Israeli government’s ID of Shamalah shouldn’t necessarily “obviate” other information — it’s reasonable for journalists to be skeptical of information released by governments. The problem is, Carr’s “other information” came solely from other news organizations (and the CPJ citing other news organizations). The Israeli government is actually a primary source when it comes to identifying terrorists, while these other media outlets were not. It’s mind-boggling that Carr wouldn’t at the very least include the IDF’s statement.
Elder of Ziyon sums it up:
Real journalists are supposed to be skeptical. They are supposed to be spending their time uncovering the truth. They are supposed to be honest enough to admit when they are wrong, to revisit the story when facts indicate they are mistaken, because the real story should be more important than their egos.
This is not just an indictment of Carr. This is a systemic problem in the entire profession. The smugness that they are infallible, and the groupthink that they can rely on others’ work without double-checking it, all indicate that there is some significant daylight between how many journalists do their work and what the truth really is.
New York Times readers deserve a better explanation than the one Carr has given.
There is a much larger issue here — once something appears in the media — even if incorrect, even if the schmuck who wrote it ADMITS his/her/its error, with LEXIS/NEXIS it lives on indefinitely as absolute incontrovertible fact. And as Ms. Goodman points out, but correctly does not state, all the media outlets are quoting each other on this story, with none being the actual original source. n nMs. Goodman points out that reporters well may be skeptical of what they are told by governments — but I suggest we, the public, need to be even more skeptical of what we are told by reporters. The era of being able to trust either is long gone, it ended finally with Vietnam and the "Five-O'clock Follies" — the US Army lying to the media, and then the media flipping around and stretching mistruths as far as possible in the other direction — with the final outcome being that we really ought not trust either. n nI neither respect nor trust the media.
How's this for media bias — Dana Milbank of The Washington Post opens an op-ed on a UN treaty as follows: n n"President-unelect Rick Santorum made his triumphant return to the Capitol on Monday afternoon and took up a brave new cause: He is opposing disabled people." n nWow… "President-unelect" — does the WaPo have no ethical standards here?
Where's the ethical issue? That's clearly commentary, not reporting, and while snarky to be sure, it is gentle in comparison to the output of a great many others on both the right and the left. So what ethical transgression do you imagine? (Not only did Santorum not win his party's nomination, the "President-unelect" part, he probably also helped the person the party did chose as its flag-bearer, Romney, lose, doing what he did to cost votes in much the same way that Atkins and Mourdock cost themselves and Romney votes.)
IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME HOW THE "NEWS" HAS BECOME A BLOODY MESS…THEY DO NOT REPORT ANYTHING WORTH READING!!
For anyone undecided as to whether the “reporters” at TNYT or WAPO deserve more of your hard-earned money, this should settle the matter.
Just another brickbat from a family of Holocaust ignorers, the Sulzbergers. Shame that another Kennedy is now on the Federal payroll–I can't any longer write that with the demise of the Kennedys the Sulzbergers are the most evil family in America, but it's a close call. Read Laurel Leff's, "Buried by the Times" about how the first Sulzberger publisher relegated stories about the treatment of Jews in Germany to the back pages and you'll see how this punk "Pinch" carries on that tradition.
New York Times readers deserve a better explanation than the one Carr has given. n————— nTimes readers are getting the level of journalistic integrity and objectivity they have bargained for. I remember when the Times rightly claimed (much to the consternation of the Herald Tribune) to be "the newspaper of record." Now it is cat box liner.
"All The News That Fits The Spin"
” u201cThe three men who died in missile strikes in cars on Nov. 20 were identified by Reuters, AP, AFP, and Washington Post and many other news outlets as journalists,u201d Carr told BuzzFeed in an email. “r nr nA JournoList agreement on what the news would be?