More on the al-Dura affair
Just to keep you updated…
[the] full transcript of HonestReporting’s interview with Mideast analyst and media expert Tom Gross about the Mohammad al-Dura affair. Click to view the interview.
A little boy was supposedly shot and France 2, a state-owned French TV channel, got hold of some film and not only broadcast it, they took the highly unusual step of making copies and handed video cassettes to rivals like CNN and the BBC. France 2 correspondent Charles Enderlin said that, first of all, the boy had died and secondly, that Israel had killed this boy. In fact, it later transpired that Charles Enderlin had not even been in Gaza that day – he was in Ramallah, and a freelance Palestinian cameraman had given Charles Enderlin the film.
Almost immediately there were questions about who shot this boy. Later on, there were questions about whether the boy had actually been shot at all. The angle the boy appeared to be shot at did not come from the direction of where Israeli soldiers were stationed. How could Israeli soldiers be responsible for shooting this boy when they weren’t positioned in the line of fire, people asked?
And whether the boy had actually been shot at all is not clear. It soon transpired that the Palestinians that day deliberately play-acted many other scenes for the cameras. We know that because film taken by Reuters cameramen shows various such scenes: for example, Palestinians being carried into Red Crescent ambulances looking like they were seriously injured and then, minutes later, getting out of the ambulance laughing and so on. So it is known that other scenes were staged at the Netzarim Junction that day. The film France 2 provided was very inconclusive.
A court action has been going on for some time in Paris that will hopefully be resolved soon.
Others will go further than me and say that they’re sure they’re staged. I’ve looked at the pictures, examined the case carefully; I’m not a forensic expert, and I’m not working as a lawyer. But as far as I can see, there are very reasonable doubts that the film footage is authentic, and even if the boy died there are very reasonable doubts that Israel was responsible for his death.
So, for France 2 to tell the world that Israel, in effect, murdered a helpless child, and then provide film footage to international TV networks when it wasn’t true, is very inflammatory. (source)
-
Previous Posts
Thanks for brining this to light. During the Lebanon war there was so much inaccurate reporting it was almost hard to believe.
Israel is not perfect. But I know they don’t want to harm anyone unless they have too. Israel has been very restrained considering all the recent terror and rocket attacks.
No problem Mike, thanks for commenting.
Vee
PS from memory I think it is the 27th of this month that there will be a ruling…
That’s tomorrow!
I have made refferance to this post on my blog.
Thanks for the link Mike! Hopefully this news gets spread about the internet and heard.
The al-Dura affair has been used shamelessly by the Palestinian Government which line their own pockets with the blood of their own people.
The main stream media (MSM) have not reported this trial — I wonder if they will even report the courts finding? — although they were quick to show the footage from France 2 without question.
Vee
The hearing on Wednesday Feb. 27 lasted over six hours, but the court adjourned its decision to May 21.
Quick recap of the story: in 2000, France 2 diffused coverage obtained from a local camera man, and voiced over by Enderlin, of the death of a Palestinian boy, allegedly killed by Israeli fire, an iconic image which was widely reproduced thereafter and used as a symbol by pro-Palestinian propaganda.
In 2004, Karsenty’s Media-ratings company accused France 2’s coverage of being a hoax - for a plethora of reasons. Karsenty was subsequently taken to court and found guilty in October 2006 of defaming journalist Enderlin and his outlet, public broadcaster France 2. He appealed the decision and during the new hearings on Feb. 27, a lot of time was spent reviewing and discussing the video footage and images. And as a Weblog exclusive, you can read the ballistic report, which was commissioned by Karsenty.
In fact, the France 2 camera man’s footage was offered to CNN, which refused to initially air the report because it didn’t obtain the guarantees of authenticity it was asking for.
Whether these media practices are widespread internationally Karsenty didn’t say, but he argues they correspond to the media’s situation in Palestine, “a situation where the media bends over to the rules of Palestinian authorities,” he says (see here about the monitoring of coverage of the Oct. 12, 2000 lynch).
There is another intriguing issue in this affair: in the years since this controversy has started, few French traditional media have openly taken Karsenty’s defense or been willing to place it high in the news agenda.
Blogs and independent media have increasingly covered the story, many of them outside of France though. According to Karsenty, a similar affair would have never dragged on as long in the US, because bloggers and truly independent media would have long dug out the truth (evoking Dan Rather and the Killian documents controversy).
What the Al Dura affair also shows is that France is (still) a “system with dominating media that don’t recognize their mistakes,” says Karsenty. He points out that of the few established blogs and ‘independent’ news outlets in France, those that are considered legitimate by traditional media, all are held by professional journalists and former journalists who have worked within traditional media.
(source)
[...] More on the al-Dura affair [...]