S. Times forced to correct smear of HRW
I’ve written a few times about the willingness of certain commentators to smear human rights agencies because they’re critical of Israel. Most recently this has been happening with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The Sunday Times has been a key player here – running hatchet jobs on both.
Last week it ran a hatchet-job on HRW here.
Yesterday, it was forced to issue this correction.
A Magazine article, “Explosive Territory” (March 28) by Jonathan Foreman, mostly about Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) work on Israel, requires clarification and correction.
The magazine said that HRW had not published any report on the post-election abuses in Iran when in fact the organisation published one in February this year. Marc Garlasco, the former senior military analyst for HRW, was not the only person in the organisation who had military experience; a number of the HRW staff have military expertise.
In the 20-year Kashmir conflict HRW has published nine reports, not four as the article stated.
One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission but was not directly employed by that group, as the article suggests.
Although HRW never produced a full report about the shelling at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in 2007 it did write three press releases, not one as the article stated.
We regret the errors.
Mr Foreman quoted a critic of HRW saying the group “cares about Palestinians when mistreated by Israelis but is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arabs”. In fact Human Rights Watch has reported on abuses of Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan.
Mr Foreman cited unnamed sources that said Mr Garlasco resented what he felt was pressure to sex up claims of Israeli violations. HRW and Mr Garlasco both say HRW never pressured Mr Garlasco to change his findings. We are happy to clarify HRW’s position.
In other words Foreman didn’t really do his research properly and ran a hatchet job that smeared HRW. If he approached HRW in advance with these points that could have been corrected.
So why didn’t he? Why did it require HRW to contact the Sunday Times after the article had been published?
via Ben White
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by Sunny Hundal
Story Filed Under: News
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Israel makes people write stupid things, I’m glad that The Times has been caught out.
People are so convinced their “side” (its a bit peep show at times) is right that they have to look for malfeasance in their opponents. Although I’m quite content to see some Tories as nice but wrong, when it comes to Israel and Palestine that option is rarely employed, they’re not only wrong, but wrong because they’re bastards. [1]
I saw this this weekend.
Here’s a pop quiz that I’m sure nobody will have a hard time passing: Which of the following two stories made it into the New York Times?
1. One of the top leaders of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar, a man who has been written about on hundreds of occasions in the Times, responded to the dedication of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem by delivering a viciously anti-Semitic rant in which he promised the annihilation of Israel and said that the Jews “killed and murdered your prophets” and “have always dealt in loan-sharking” and are “destined to be destroyed.”
2. A Vatican preacher compared condemnation of the Church over its sex-abuse scandal to the persecution of Jews, remarks from which Church officials immediately distanced themselves.
The first story, of course, was not covered. The second was not just covered, but given above-the-fold, front page treatment. Why is this?
Is it because this is Easter weekend? This fact probably elevates media interest a little bit — but enough to land the story on the front page? Maybe it’s because Jewish groups complained about the sermon? Sure, but Jewish groups routinely complain about anti-Semitism and incitement and are routinely greeted with yawns from the press. So why the different treatment?
The reason, I think, is because the Times is a left-wing paper and adheres to one of the central tenets of enlightened progressivism: people who can be identified as Third World, or who are not members of the Judeo-Christian/European world, must not be held to the same standards to which white, First World people are held. This double-standard — it is the racism of the enlightened — pervades the treatment of different cultures and religions in the strongholds of Western liberalism, that is, in the media, academia, and the “human rights” community.
The insinuation here is a bit mad. The obvious view, that the Vatican story is simply more news worthy, is ignored and evildoing is suspected.
Israel; making people think the worst of others since 1948.
@1, the mag from which you quote, Commentary, is a neo-con publication. Hence it drones on about “progressivism” in a similar way to the increasingly erratic Glenn Beck, “star” of Fox News Channel (fair and balanced my arse).
The bottom line with the Times, as with the rest of the Murdoch press, is that it’s having to produce more content with less resources over time, as a read of Nick Davies’ excellent Flat Earth News will show. Far easier not to bother with the research and do a cheap hatchet job and then, if the subject bites back, consider a correction (or if they haven’t got any money, maybe not, as they won’t be suing any time soon).
And this is a publication that is about to charge for its content. Arianna Huffington was right when she said that the Murdochs don’t get the New Media.
A Murdoch piece of trash attacking anyone who is criticising Israel.
I am shocked, shocked……….
that anyone thinks that right wing pro Zionist Murdoch is a reputable media outlet.
Commentary mag – urgh.
. Tim Fenton
‘… increasingly erratic Glenn Beck ‘
The man is self-described borderline schizophrenic. The most amazing thing is Faux Snooze gives him a platform and people actually pay attention to his bizarre rants.
Times and ST are sending their journalists to the Sun school of journalism!
Just waiting for the hordes of Harry’s Place commenters to flood this thread with their nonsense…
@blanco
yeah – i’m just waiting for HP to post the correction, or perhaps this “blockbuster” correction…
Just saw this:
“Some international rights groups that have been critical of Israel, like Human Rights Watch, have said Israel’s government was “waging a propaganda war” to discredit them. A senior Netanyahu aide affirmed in an interview last year that Israel was “going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups.” ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06israel.html
Israel makes people write stupid things
Painfully, painfully true that and I really wish it wasn’t that way.
Pathetic — the implication that Garlasco is a nazi-sympathiser due to his hobby is also revolting.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
S. Times forced to 'correct' smear of Human Rights Watch http://bit.ly/cN6eQV
- Malky Muscular
RT @libcon: S. Times forced to 'correct' smear of Human Rights Watch http://bit.ly/cN6eQV
- Gareth Winchester
RT @libcon #SundayTimes forced to ‘correct’ smear of Human Rights Watch http://bit.ly/cgzmwl #media
- Mel P
RT @libcon SundayTimes forced [by the Chattering Classes] to ‘correct’ [totally justified] smear of Human Rights Watch http://bit.ly/cgzmwl
- TenPercent
RT @dnotice: RT @libcon #SundayTimes forced to ‘correct’ smear of Human Rights Watch http://bit.ly/cgzmwl #media
- Brontides » Blog Archive » Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UK’s fear of internationalism
[...] Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy” reports on The Times’ humiliating climbdown over its attack on the Human Rights Watch, an [...]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
|
28 Comments 72 Comments 21 Comments 49 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 22 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » john b posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » john b posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » So Much For Subtlety posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan » Jack C posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » bluepillnation posted on The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think » P Ve M posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » BenSix posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem |










