Eruction du soir

La plupart de médias occidentaux, à la solde de notre affreux président, ne cessent de nous cacher les informations qui pourraient nous faire enfin réaliser à quel point le monde occidental est égoïste (contrairement aux autres peuples, en plus)
C’est ainsi que si tout a été dit ou presque sur les causes prétendues du fameux printemps arabe, la principale raison n’a pas été évoquée, et ce sur aucun média je peux vous l’assurer.
Toujours à l’affut des informations secrètes permettant une meilleure compréhension d’une actualité parfois un peu confuse, je vous livre aujourd'hui ce qui est pour le moment un secret bien gardé mais ne manquera pas j’en suis certain de faire bientôt un véritable Buzz sur internet si aucun membre de la CIA ou du Mossad ne m’exécute avant même la parution de ce billet, bien entendu.

Les peuples arabes se révoltent, on le sait, mais connait-on véritablement leur revendication principale ?
Grace à mes envoyés spéciaux j’ai pu recueillir des témoignages, à priori surprenants, mais à la lecture desquelles, vous serez nombreux je présume à réagir en vous exclamant : " bon sang c'est trop injuste ! "

En voici quelques extraits :

Ecoutons Farid au Caire : il est désespéré par l’avenir pour son pays :
" Ici, 95% des gens sont Egyptiens, et De Souche, vous vous rendez compte " !
"Quand on voit qu'en Egypte : 93 % des gens sont musulmans sunnites ! C 'est moche quand même !"
"Tout ce qu’on a comme diversité c 'est un peu de coptes , deux ou trois protestants et un juif qui est resté parce qu'il a raté son avion".

Un discours bien attristé, repris presque à l’identique à Tunis par Djamel :
"Ici, 98 % des gens sont arabes ou en tout cas se considèrent comme tels... et, tous musulmans qui plus est"
"Quand on pense qu'en 1956 on avait 7% de représentants des autres religions... ils sont tous partis en nous plantant là, c’est pas très sympa de leur part"

Et oui, c’est bien leur problème : les pays d'où est partie la contestation arabe n’ont AUCUNE diversité, ils ne sont pas enrichis des apports des autres cultures, ils n’ont pas de société multiculturelle, riche de mélange et de métissage.

Quel avenir pour ces pauvres êtres quasi identiques, condamnés à se reproduire entre bruns plus ou moins bronzés et à musulmer de père en fils, sans jamais qu'une armée d’immigration massive de blonds ne vienne installer des quartiers germanophones pour égayer leurs cités, sans norvégiens pour demander la main de leurs filles, ni polonais qui agrémenteraient leurs paysages de quelques jolies églises.
Ils sont abandonnés à leur triste sort monoculturel...,et, comme le disait de sa voix caverneuse le grand Imam Al nelkon "comment céti qu ' vous voulez qu'on arrive à quoi ?"

Mais c’est un grand vent de révolte qui souffle soudain dans tous ces pays.
La population n’en peut plus et réclame enfin elle aussi son "droit-à-la-diversité", par simple esprit de survie, par reflexe.
La survie n’est possible que grâce à la diversité, c’est un FAIT (nous dit-on) Et visiblement alors que de nombreux pays ne disposent pas de réserve naturelle du précieux ingrédient,
L’occident en veut le monopole et est le seul à exploiter les mines de "l'ouverture à l 'Autre " pour profiter de ses pépites.
Laisserons-nous égoïstement tous ces pays mourir d'une carence de multiculturalisme devant nos yeux repus ?

Mais heureusement je crois que nous pouvons les aider : la diversité ce n'est pas seulement toutes les couleurs du monde (euh, en fait non, pas la blanche ni la jaune, allez savoir pourquoi), ce sont aussi les gays, les femmes, bref toutes les "minorités opprimées" par le mâle blanc occidental.Je crois donc qu'il est du devoir de nos ami(e)s de la LGTB, des chiennes de garde, du MLF et que sais-je encore de s'exiler volontairement de l'autre côté de la Méditerranée pour enfin déverser la pluie fertile de la diversité sur l'aride terre musulmane qui ne demande que ça.En tant qu'éminent représentant de la diversité et Tunisien lui-même il me semble d'ailleurs que Bertrand Delanoë devrait commencer par montrer l'exemple.Soutenez leurs revendications ! Le droit à la diversité pour tous !

Gaza roulée dans la farine à Boston

Martin Kramer vient juste de publier une petite enquête extrêmement intéressante et révélatrice.

Il relève une affirmation parue dans le Boston Globe et selon laquelle (je traduis)

Bien que Gaza nécessite 680.000 tonnes de farine par jour pour nourrir ses habitants,

Israël a restreint les fournitures à 90 tonnes par jour en novembre 2007,

ce qui représente une réduction de 99%.

Martin Kramer note que selon cette statistique, les gens de Gaza (env. 1.500.000 habitants) devraient consommer en temps normal près d’une demi tonne de farine par jour et par personne.

Quel bel appétit. Mais il ne s’agit pas d’une simple erreur de virgule.

Les mêmes auteurs (une économiste et un psychiatre) ont déjà publié la même ânerie auparavant et l’avaient en fait trouvée dans un hebdomadaire égyptien en novembre dernier.

Une fois arrivée jusque dans les colonnes d’un journal tel que le Boston Globe, la fable des 99% peut faire le tour du monde avant qu’une «économiste politique» (le titre dont se pare l’auteure de la chose) ne puisse compter jusqu’à 1 tonne.

En fait, selon deux sources plus dignes de foi (NU et officiels palestiniens cités dans les médias), les Gazaouis consomment entre 350 et 450 tonnes de farine par jour.

Martin Kramer n’a trouvé aucune source confirmant la restriction à 90 tonnes par jour dont parle l’article (également copiée dans l’hebdomadaire égyptien).

En revanche, il a trouvé un article plus ancien de ladite experte dans lequel elle chiffrait à 275 tonnes cette même consommation quotidienne de farine.

La conclusion de Martin Kramer:

A-t-elle seulement lu sa propre tribune avant de l’envoyer au principal journal de Boston?

Si elle l’a fait, nous avons ici un cas d’école de la différence entre un/e «économiste politique» et un/e «économiste».

BBC Adopts Sharia Policies, Stones Gay Staff

The BBC has recently come out of the closet, admitting that its executives, reporters, analysts, directors, and even cleaning ladies, who are mostly young, urban, trendy, Left-leaning homosexuals, have been found guilty of mistreating the station's Muslim minority by virtue of being insensitive to their anti-gay cultural sentiments. A leaked transcript of a secret 'accountability summit' called by BBC chairman reveals that the BBC, while promoting sexual and ethnic diversity, has neglected to fully comply with the new multicultural order. These new standards prohibit anything that may be viewed as offensive to Muslims or the Koran, including engaging in homosexual acts.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/Islam.php

Faire plaisir a la presse...

A se demander si le hamas ne brule pas des drapeaux israélien seulement parce que ca intéresse les journalistes du monde entier...

Reuters/désinformation

On nous montre chaque jour des images de la ville palestinienne ressemblant à une ruine, presque complètement détruite.

Chaque jour nous lisons les témoignages des bombardements aveugles de l’armée libanaise sur tout ce qui bouge ou pas.

Chaque jour nous lisons des témoignages de civils, vivants avec leurs morts qu’ils ne peuvent même pas évacuer…

Reuters écrit CA aujourd’hui :

Reuters - L’armée libanaise, soucieuse de limiter les pertes civiles, fait probablement preuve de retenue face aux miliciens islamistes du camp de Nahr al Bared mais son échec à venir rapidement à bout de ses adversaires a révélé sa faible expérience et son manque de matériel.

No title

Rumeur du jour

Une rumeur circule comme quoi Bécassine Royale serait une des filles illégitimes de Mitterrand…

al-Guardian & the Brotherhood

Over the last couple of days there's been a huge surge of traffic to this blog, thanks in large part to kind words over at LGF and Jihad Watch. A couple of essays restored from the archive have subsequently reached a much wider audience and have apparently struck a chord with readers. With that in mind, I'm posting another offering from the vaults which may also be of interest. First published over at Butterflies & Wheels, the following article outlines how the mainstream organ of the British left has given a sanitised promotional platform to the Muslim Brotherhood.
At the time this piece was written, the Guardian's comment editor was Seumas Milne. When not promoting obnoxious Islamist mouthpieces and calling 9/11 a "self-inflicted wound", Milne felt obliged to praise Stalinism for, among other things, its "genuine idealism." However, as noted over at Harry's Place: "the real source of Milne's disgrace is that he... is responsible for making fascism respectable on the left." Milne was replaced in December by Georgina Henry. It'll be interesting to see whether Ms Henry will steer a saner course and perhaps undo some of the damage done by her predecessor. Watch this space.
"One has to wonder how contempt for pluralism and free speech, along with the theological mandate of arbitrary murder, have become such obvious causes for a 'progressive' newspaper. Granted, the Brotherhood shares with much of the left a hatred of U.S. ‘imperialism’, which is, allegedly, the cause of all evil in the world. Though, again, I’m not sure how these anti-imperial credentials sit with the slogan that still adorns the Brotherhood’s literature and website: 'Islam will dominate the world'..."
In his Guardian columns, Faisal Bodi, a news editor of the Islam Channel TV station, has said many strange and wonderful things. In March, during the Abdul Rahman apostasy case, Bodi championed the orthodox punishment for those who leave the Religion of Peace™ – despite it being rather permanent and involving ritual murder: “It is an understandable response from people who cherish the religious basis of their societies to protect them… from the damage that an inferior worldview can wreak.” In a climate of cultural equivalence, it’s somewhat refreshing to hear a Guardian columnist openly refer to an “inferior worldview.” Though I suspect one might disagree with Bodi’s estimation of which worldview is less enlightened.
Taken in isolation, Bodi’s advocacy of Islam Taliban-style might seem little more than an attempt to be contentious. But in matters of Islamist zeal a remarkable pattern of endorsement runs throughout the Guardian’s commentary. It began, more or less, in January 2004, when the paper published a speech by Osama bin Laden in the form of a regular opinion piece, prompting waggish comments about the al-Qaeda figurehead being “recruited as a Guardian columnist.” Dubious humour aside, at least readers were clear about the author’s political affiliation. However, the Guardian has subsequently published no fewer than 14 opinion pieces by members of, or advocates of, the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical group whose militant ideas directly inspired bin Laden. Curiously, the commentators’ links with the group were not disclosed to readers.
One recent example, a piece by the Brotherhood’s Egyptian vice-president, Khairat el-Shatir, is the first to acknowledge the writer’s membership of this illegal organisation. In Shatir’s article, titled No Need to be Afraid of Us, we were, improbably, told: “The success of the Muslim Brotherhood should not frighten anybody: we respect the rights of all religious and political groups.” Shatir’s reassurances are at odds with comments by the Brotherhood’s president, Muhammad Mehdi Akef, who last year told the Egyptian newspaper al-Arabi: “Islam will invade Europe and America because Islam has a mission.” Speaking in December, Mehdi described the Holocaust as “a myth” and insisted that, when in power, the Brotherhood would not recognise Israel, whose demise he “expected soon.” Mehdi views "martyrdom operations" in Palestine and Iraq as a religious duty and has described all Israelis – including children - as “enemies of Islam.” And yet Guardian readers are assured that the Brotherhood “has long espoused non-violence.”
In January, the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yusouf invited Ragab Hilal Hamida, a Brotherhood MP and former member of the jihadist group Jama'at al-Takfir Wa al-Hijra, to clarify earlier comments expressing support for bin Laden. Hamida promptly obliged: “'Terrorism' is not a curse when given its true [religious] meaning. From my point of view, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists... I support all their activities.” When asked if such statements might reflect badly on the public perception of Islam, Hamida replied, “Islam does not need improvement of its image.”
The Guardian’s comment editor, Seumas Milne, is apparently unfamiliar with the Brotherhood’s less conciliatory statements to non-Western journalists, including the group’s ambitions for “the widespread implementation of Islam as a way of life; no longer to be sidelined as merely a religion.” Nor, it seems, is Milne aware that the Egyptian Brotherhood’s own website directs young Muslims to a website for children that celebrates jihad, racism and homicidal ‘martyrdom’, albeit with child-friendly cartoons.
It isn’t clear why Milne continues to give a platform to the Brotherhood and its affiliates. Like many other refugees from the Communist Party of Great Britain, Milne may be vicariously titillated by the revolutionary intent of Islamic fundamentalism. Though one has to wonder how contempt for pluralism and free speech along with the theological mandate of arbitrary murder have become such obvious causes for a “progressive” newspaper. Granted, the Brotherhood shares with much of the left a hatred of U.S. ‘imperialism’, which is, allegedly, the cause of all evil in the world. Though, again, I’m not sure how these anti-imperial credentials sit with the slogan that still adorns the Brotherhood’s literature and website: “Islam will dominate the world.”
Guardian readers are, however, spared such troublesome details. It’s not entirely obvious whether these omissions are a result of Milne’s ignorance, or of some deeper sympathy with delusional bigots. Either way, I’m inclined to wonder if the Guardian would publish a regular series of propaganda pieces by members of Stormfront or the BNP, championing the benign ambitions of white supremacist groups, without reference to the writers’ membership of those groups, and without any subsequent challenge or contrary point of view.
Here’s a small taste of the views that go unchallenged in the Guardian’s comment pages. In July 2004, Sohaib Saeed, a spokesman for the Brotherhood affiliate, the Muslim Association of Britain, generously suggested that criticism of Islam could be raised “in appropriate times and places.” Alas, Saeed neglected to specify which times and places might be permissible. We were, however, informed that the Brotherhood's foremost cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is a “shining example of moderation” and asked whom British Muslims should follow if not the Brotherhood’s “esteemed” spiritual leader.
The following month, Anas Altikriti - whose father happens to be the head of the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood - warned of “catastrophic consequences” if the right continued to “smear and demonise” Islam. That these “smears” are very often statements of fact passed without comment. And labelling as “rightwing” anyone who asks inconvenient questions is itself a form of demonisation, if only to Guardian readers.
And let’s not forget the Guardian’s former trainee journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, whose youthful exuberance for radical Islam will, of course, be sorely missed. Readers may recall that Aslam is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a supremacist movement banned in Germany and much of the Middle East – chiefly for circulating the kind of xenophobic literature that one would think is at odds with the Guardian’s multicultural ethos. The Hizb newsletter proclaims a “clash of civilisations is not only inevitable but imperative” and in October 2002 the group’s Danish representative, Fadi Abdelatif, was prosecuted for distributing an anti-Semitic leaflet titled And Kill Them Wherever You Find Them.
Many of the Guardian’s non-Muslim contributors also seem determined to sanitise Islamic radicalism for purposes of their own. Last September, Natasha Walter downplayed Hizb’s anti-Semitic hysteria and stressed the group’s “espousal of decent things like women’s rights.” But according to Hizb’s own on-line draft constitution, those “women’s rights” would involve compulsory segregation of the sexes, limited voting and enforced “modesty.” Evidently, Ms Walter was too busy describing Hizb as an “alternative to capitalism” to actually read what these anti-capitalist revolutionaries wish to bring about.
One month later, Madeleine Bunting conducted a bizarre Hello-style interview with the Brotherhood’s moral compass, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In it, she enthused about his “horror of immorality and materialism”, his “independence of mind” and his mastery of the internet. However, Bunting was careful to skip over the actual content of Qaradawi’s website, which propagates the cleric’s “problematic” endorsement of suicide bombing, executing homosexuals and the beating of disobedient women. One wonders if Ms Bunting chose not to question Qaradawi’s beliefs for fear of receiving similar chastisement.
Elsewhere in the Guardian, Milne has argued that extremists should be given a voice within the media, rather than being driven underground. Well, a public testing of ideas is one of the virtues of democracy, and even the most poisonous views can be countered with contrary facts and a healthy dose of ridicule. But a public testing of Islamist ideology is precisely what is missing from the left-leaning press and from the Guardian in particular. What we see instead is an unchallenged platform for those who don’t wish their ideas to be tested at all.
This unilateral concession and failure of courage should concern everyone, irrespective of their politics and religion. As Islamic zealots invariably claim to speak on behalf of “all Muslims”, it’s imperative that their beliefs are challenged unapologetically. Yet what we find in the Guardian is a non-debate between advocates of the Brotherhood like Azzam Tamimi, who defends suicide bombing as a measure of pious “desperation”, and those, like Iqbal Sacranie and Karen Armstrong, who disingenuously deny terrorism has anything to do with conceptions of Islam and the teachings of its prophet.
Unfortunately, this denial of reality sidelines Muslim reformers and serves the cause of extremists. Whether through ignorance or embarrassment, moderate believers say 'Oh, terrorism is nothing to do with Islam.' Then the jihadists prove them wrong by pointing out the relevant verses from the Qur’an and Sunnah, using Muhammad’s own instructions and example as their mandate. Consequently, it is the jihadists who gain kudos as more knowledgeable and "authentic." As Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in her book, The Caged Virgin: “The central figure in this struggle is not bin Laden… or Sayyid Qutb, but Muhammad.”
Any realistic response to the Brotherhood and its affiliates must include a frank discussion of the theology from which they claim legitimacy. Yet the prevailing climate remains one of deference, evasion and blatant double standards. Islamists may well react to any questioning of their beliefs with umbrage, threats or howls of impropriety. But what is more troubling is that the mainstream organ of the British left is giving a preferential platform to fascistic ideas, shielded from any meaningful opposition or factual correction, at least in its print form. Perhaps this bias and timidity is part of an attempt by the Guardian to siphon readers from Q News or the Muslim Weekly. But a fear of offending any strand of Muslim opinion – no matter how bigoted and grievous it may be - has left the Guardian critically hamstrung on a defining issue of our time.
© David Thompson 2007 http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/02/alguardian_the_.html
A version of this piece was published by Butterflies & Wheels, July 24, 2006
With thanks to the Daily Ablution and Harry’s Place for archived links

Ils osent encore !

La mauvaise foi idéologique des (trop) fameux « Guignols de l’info », unique source « d’analyse » politique pour une part non négligeable de jeunes incultes auxquels la formidable marche du progrès a accordé le droit de vote, est absolument sans limite.

Ce n’est certes pas un « scoop » mais cette évidence se confirme chaque jour avec un peu plus d’indécence à l’approche des échéances électorales de 2007.
Ainsi, récupérant à leur profit l’un des nombreux dérapages de l’histrionnesque ministre de l’Intérieur (en l’occurrence la surmédiatisation des opérations de police en banlieue) les marionnettistes de Canal+ tentent d’expliquer à leurs spectateurs et téléspectateurs que cette stratégie publicitaire du petit Nicolas a pour but, non pas, comme il est évident pour tout observateur un tant peu soit honnête, de donner l’illusion à l’électorat que ledit Sarko est un « dur » qui mène une politique énergique et efficace contre l’insécurité que subit de plus en plus douloureusement le peuple français mais plutôt de créer artificiellement un « sentiment d’insécurité » exacerbé à quelques mois des élections.
Ainsi, pour les doctes auteurs des « guignolades », 200 policiers qui descendent, sous l’œil vigilant des caméras, dans une cité pour ne parvenir à appréhender qu’un seul voyou ce n’est pas la démonstration de la nullité sarkozienne et de la faiblesse insigne des forces de l’ordre face à la racaille banlieusarde qui envoie chaque semaine plusieurs de leurs membres à l’hôpital (en attendant pire…) mais la preuve de l’extrême tranquillité bienheureuse des banlieues, seulement troublées par les gesticulations du ministre-candidat et de ses troupes qui ne cessent de « harceler » ces pauvres jeunes déjà honteusement discriminés.

Le 21 avril n’a décidément rien apprit du tout à ces grandes consciences de la gauche médiatico-ludique qui osent encore tenter de faire croire aux gens qui n’y sont pas encore confrontés concrètement et quotidiennement (il y en a de moins en moins…) que l’insécurité est avant tout un phantasme nourri par des politiciens populistes et retors.
Or s’il y a en effet de nombreuses tentatives d’instrumentalisation des phénomènes criminels en France, cela n’implique aucunement, comme feignent de le croire les salariés de Vivendi Universal – Canal Plus, l’inexistence ou la virtualité de l’objet manipulé à telle ou telle fin.

Ainsi, contre toute évidence, contre tout bon sens et faisant fi de la plus élémentaire retenue à l’heure où la situation réelle n’a jamais été aussi paroxystiquement violente et proche du basculement dans le conflit ouvert de type guérilla civile, les bouffons canalplusesques continuent à mentir à jets continus et a patauger crapoteusement dans leurs illusions idéologiques.
Et au final, la négation du réel par ces amuseurs grassement payés rejoint la gabegie démagogique du ministre de l’Intérieur dans la grande entreprise de destruction des vestiges de ce qu’était la France.

Pierre Chatov pour Novopress

Enderlin-France 2

« L'affaire Al-Doura refait surface et six ans après les faits, les langues se délient.

De hauts responsables israéliens dénoncent en exclusivité devant les caméras d'Infolive.tv une manipulation médiatique qui avait fait beaucoup de tort à Israël. »

Pour voir le reportage en français, cliquez ici.
Pour voir le reportage en anglais, dont le sous-titrage est plus précis, cliquez ici.

Ce reportage a été réalisé lors de la conférence d’Herzliya, le 18 décembre 2006. Lors de cet événement, Philippe Karsenty, président de Media-Ratings, a présenté l’affaire Enderlin – France 2 aux officiels israéliens.
Dans ce reportage, vous pourrez notamment voir Daniel Seaman, directeur du Bureau de Presse Gouvernemental israélien, s’exprimer ainsi :
« Cette histoire de Mohamed Al Doura ne repose sur aucun des critères requis en journalisme professionnel.
Les images ne corroborent pas ce que le journaliste français [Charles Enderlin] dit. C’est-à-dire qu’on ne voit pas de soldat israélien tirer dans la direction de l’enfant.

Les seules balles que l’on voit dans le film partent dans la direction opposée à celle où se trouvent les soldats.
Plus grave encore, le journaliste français ne se trouvait pas physiquement sur les lieux où se seraient déroulés les actes qu’il impute à l’Etat d’Israël.

CAMERA's 2006 Year In Review

CAMERA's vital work is surveyed in our 2006 Year in Review video (click the viewer below then click the play button). Media myths about the Middle East are both common and pernicious, and for the last 25 years only CAMERA has been devoted 24/7 to refuting these myths and getting out the real story. Please help us increase our effectiveness and reach with the most generous donation you can make. (And if you have problems using the Flash video player click here for the video in Windows Media format.)

http://www.camera.org/

Enderlin/Al Dura

Charles Enderlin et France 2 sont mis en cause de tous cotés, pour la fabrication et la diffusion d’un faux reportage aux conséquences gravissimes. La mort du petit Mohamed Al Dura a été diffusée dans le monde entier, l’enfant est devenu le symbole du "martyr de la cause palestinienne".De nombreux kamikazes se sont fait exploser dans des autobus, des restaurants et des cafés bondés de civils en son nom.

Dans ce dossier spécial sans cesse mis à jour, Acmedias résume les 10 points clés qui permettent decomprendre la polémique, et analyse la qualité de l’information fournie par les organes de presse.Nous appelons de tous nos voeux la diffusion publique des rushes de France 2, la mise en place d’unecommission d’enquête et l’établissement de la vérité.

http://www.acmedias.org/B418.asp

2006 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award

Foreshadow of the Year: Zoran Bozicevic
This National Post photo editor anticipated ?fauxtography? days before war exploded in Gaza and Lebanon. As one dubious photo after another crept into the mainstream coverage, Jules Crittenden, a Boston Herald editor, validated Bozicevic. Crittenden's blunt assessment:

Everyone in the news business gets taken for a ride sooner or later.

It's an occupational hazard. What is surprising is the scale of it in Lebanon.

And what is tragic about this is, as a Boston Herald photo editor noted, editors everywhere can no longer trust the pictures from Lebanon.

The public cannot know what is staged and what is real.

Worst Director: Salem Daher, a.k.a. Abdel Qadar, a.k.a. "The Green Helmet"
Though Daher insisted to AP that he?s just a Lebanese civil rescue worker, the German TV show ZAPP caught him directing other cameramen, posing for photos with casualties and having a body unnecessarily loaded into an ambulance a second time for better footage. ZAPP accused the ubiquitous Daher of abusing the dead. (Wikipedia clarifies the confusion over his name.)

Worst Caption (newspaper): NYTimes
The NY Times was caught up in the fauxtography scandal thanks to a break down in the caption-writing process. This caption in a slide show suggested the man was dead. Bloggers wondered how a man killed in the strike could look so very much alive in the slide show?s other images. Ironically, the Times had Hicks' correct caption for the same photo in a separate report on July 27. The Times issued a correction and apologized to Hicks for the bungle. In October, Hicks explained to Photo District News his view of the affair.

Worst Caption (magazine): Time
When a Hezbollah gunman was photographed near a billowing pillar of smoke, Time wrote a caption stating the fire was started by a downed Israeli jet.

But Israel didn't lose any aircraft over Lebanon. In fact, the fire was started by exploding Hezbollah rockets destroyed in an air strike.
As other questions threatened to stain the reputation of photographer Bruno Stevens, he posted the story behind the photo on Lightstalkers.
He included other notable facts and photos from the scene.

Worst Use of Props: BBC
In this photo, a Lebanese child stands next to an unexploded Israeli shell. Is the child or the bomb the prop? BBC's Martin Asser explains that it was the boy:
When Um Ali Mihdi returned to her home in the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil two days ago, she found a 1,000lb (450kg) Israeli bomb lying unexploded in her living room.
The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.

Worst Buzzword: "Disproportionate"
Although Israel?s air strikes were limited to Hezbollah targets, the word "disproportionate" became the standard catchphrase of criticism. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen debunked the disproportionate use of that buzzword. After the war, it became clear that Israeli strikes were anything but disproportionate.

Retraction of the Year: Kofi Annan
The outgoing UN Secretary General, who joined the global chorus unfairly blaming Israel for the Gaza Beach incident, to his credit, retracted criticisms of the IDF, saying he had responded to "media speculations." We await retractions from those media speculators.

Canard of the Year (USA): Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post
Ricks accused Israel of deliberately leaving Hezbollah rockets intact for P.R. purposes. Appearing on CNN's show, Reliable Sources, he said:
"Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon?. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."

Canard of the Year (Europe): Robert Fisk of the Independent
Rushing to judgment, Fisk declared Israel guilty of using uranium-based shells in Lebanon, though UN tests of soil samples were still in progress. The tests didn't detect any unusual traces of uranium, but Independent buried the findings. We await a retraction.

Sympathy for the Devil Award: CBC
When the CBC aired a sympathetic interview with the family of Samir Quntar about the possibility of the Lebanese terrorist's release in a prisoner swap (watch the interview here), they all but ignored the brutal attack that landed him in an Israeli prison, and didn't bother interviewing any relatives of his victims. After HonestReporting-Canada took action, the CBC followed up, interviewing Smadar Haran Kaiser, the woman whose family Samir Qantar murdered (watch the follow-up interview here).

Worst Cartoon of the Year: Martin Rowson of the Guardian
The day after publishing this nasty cartoon, The Guardian apologized, but only because the Jewish stars in the illustration "might have been interpreted as implicating Judaism rather than the Israeli government in the present conflict."

Worst News Executive: Dr. Snuki Zikalala of the SABC
Dr. Zikalala, the news director of the South African Broadcasting Corp., gets this award for blacklisting various reporters, commentators and analysts. Though most personalities were banned for their views on South African politics, Paula Slier found herself blacklisted because her coverage of the Mideast conflict crossed Zikalala's red lines. He wrote in a memo:

From the movement where I come from, we support PLO. But she supported what's happening in Israel?. I said no, you can't you can't undermine the Palestinian struggle, you can't. For me it's a principle issue.

Worst Tangle of Media, Political & Judicial Interests: The French "Establishment"
French media analyst Philippe Karsenty was found guilty of defaming France-2 TV and reporter Charles Enderlin for criticizing the network's footage of Mohammed Dura. Karsenty, the founder and president of Media-Ratings discussed in an exclusive interview with HonestReporting how the trial touched on larger issues of anti-Zionism in the French media, the icon status of Mohammed Dura, Israel's response to the affair, the disturbingly close relationship between French media and political elites, the fairness of French justice, even the role of the new France 24 international news station.
A parallel suit against Pierre Lurcat was dismissed on technical grounds. A third suit against Charles Gousz is yet to begin.

Worst Hypocrisy: Arab Cartoonists
We were struck by the Islamic rage over the Mohammed cartoons, while Arab cartoons are rife with demonizing anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial.

Most Consistently Manufactured News Event: Bil'in
Broadway would envy the longevity and theatrics of the scripted clashes at Bil'in each Friday at the site of the security fence. One week, the "media event" even included Reuters' participation.

Most Improbable Question of the Year: Is the BBC Pro-Israel?
Read Martin Walker's commentary to find out why the answer is no. If you?re still in doubt, consider the following: the BBC rejected key proposals put forward by the independent commission of inquiry, it stonewalls on Freedom of Information requests for the Balen report, and high level figures admit the Beeb is out of touch with viewers.

Dishonest Reporter of the Year: Adnan Hajj
Working for Reuters, Hajj was caught poorly altering one photo of Beirut destruction and another of an Israeli jet firing flares. The doctored images - first spotted by Mike Thorson and blogged on Little Green Footballs - suggested a greater extent of Israeli destruction than really existed. Unlike other "fauxtographs," the sloppiness of Hajj's work suggested not a breakdown of procedure but deliberate doctoring.

Hajj claimed he only used Photoshop to remove dust marks, but Reuters severed all ties with the photographer and removed all 920 of his photos from its database. The furor touched off the heightened scrutiny that led to our other ignoble honorees.

* * *

Hopefully, we'll see in 2007 better safeguards preventing another "Photoshop of Horrors," tighter caption-writing procedures, and clearer and enforced standards addressing posed photos. We also hope that the speed of digital photography and the rush of deadlines don't rush past the needs of fact-checking.

We covered a lot of ground in 2006, and with the help of readers -- our eyes and ears -- we'll continue monitoring the media in the coming year.

Via HonestReporting. com

Petite victoire contre l’empire du mensonge

En 2000, France 2 et son correspondant permanent en Israël,

Charles Enderlin, lancèrent sur les ondes télévisées du monde entier ce que tous les éléments de preuve coucourent à considérer comme une pure calomnie.

Une calomnie, c’est-à-dire un propos malveillant dont l’auteur le sait mensonger, qui allait donner naissance à la principale icône de l’intifada et grossir la vague d’antisémitisme d’origine islamique de notre époque.
Quelques années plus tard, un collectif d’associations décerne un Prix de la désinformation très mérité à France 2 et à Charles Enderlin.

Tous deux portent plainte pour diffamation contre Pierre Lurcat, l’un, pourtant modeste, des participants à l’événement (voir l’image ci-dessus, tirée de cette collection).

Il y a quelques jours, la justice a débouté France 2 et Enderlin.

Mais les médias français se taisent, alors qu’ils avaient repercuté à loisir la condamnation de Philippe Karsenty, attaqué par France 2 et Enderlin pour des motifs similaires.

Le paysage médiatique français ne s’améliore toujours pas.

Via AJM

Painted from picture?

FAMOUS PAINTERS COPIED PHOTOGRAPHSNo invention of the Industrial Revolution influenced Impressionism more than the camera. Most of the Impressionists had cameras and experimented with their new images.Photography inspired impressionists to capture the moment, but did you know that some of the most famous paintings of Van Gogh, Toulouse Lautrec or Paul Gauguin were inspired on an original photograph?

Ed Koch: "Rational People Will Say No"

An excellent piece by former New York mayor Ed Koch, on the incident in which Palestinian women came to the aid of terrorist gunmen holed up in a mosque, and were fired upon by IDF soldiers: Israel Must Defend Itself. (Hat tip: Newsbeat1.)
This is what’s at stake, in a battle with an enemy that is willing to violate all norms of civilized behavior, including the de facto, harshly pragmatic rules of war, because they feel nothing but contempt for the West’s ability to respond to their power play. They do it in the open and even tell our media about their plans, knowing that it won’t affect their ability to operate.
On my radio program last Friday night, a caller denounced the Israeli military for shooting Palestinian women who sought to shield the holed-up gunmen occupying the mosque.
The Arab world and others hostile to Israel have already denounced the Israelis for shooting at these women. The Times reported, “Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, angrily called for the international community to ‘come here and witness the daily massacres that are being carried out against the Palestinian nation.’”
The obvious purpose of the confrontation between the women and the soldiers was to create Palestinian propaganda that could be used to discredit Israel. On my radio program I asked what are the Israeli soldiers to do, stand there and be killed?
Are the militants to be allowed to escape and engage in terrorist actions on another day, killing Israeli civilians and soldiers?
Are Palestinian women to be allowed, because of their gender, to help the Palestinian terrorists with impunity?
I think rational people will say no.
I believe rational people will agree with an Israeli spokesman quoted in the Times. “‘The fighting around the mosque is not something we wanted,’ said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry. ‘But international law is clear: when combatants take control of a religious site and begin firing, it becomes a legitimate target. They broke the sanctity of the site.’”
Similarly, as the Times reported, “One marcher, Suhad el-Masri, 28, said she and several of her relatives had been carrying abayas and scarves to give to the men. ‘We took them so they could disguise themselves as women and escape,’ she said. Her sister, Hiba Rajab, 20, was shot in her legs and left arm; her wounds were considered serious.”
These women broke the commitment that women will not participate in acts of violence and thus not be fired upon. As recently as Nov. 7, the Times reported that in Gaza, “Mervet Masoud, an 18-year-old Palestinian woman, blew herself up near several [Israeli] soldiers, killing herself and slightly wounding one soldier . . . [She] said in a video released by Islamic Jihad after her attack, ‘Consider me a martyr . . .’”
There will undoubtedly be continuing efforts to delegitimize the very existence of the state of Israel by supporters of the Palestinians. While some decent people decry the shooting of Palestinian women, they are silent in the face of the horrendous carnage inflicted by Islamic suicide bombers in Iraq who are killing and maiming innocent Iraqi civilians every day, many women shopping at local markets.
The explosions are the handiwork of Iraqi Sunni and Shia militants engaged in their escalating civil war.
I asked my radio caller what would he do in this Gaza event. He said he didn’t know and had no suggestion other than not shooting the women.

Via http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

ap/afp/reuters/yahoo-news-at-it-again

http://verbalcaricature.com/2006/11/10/apafpreutersyahoo-news-at-it-again/

En revanche, on ne verra sans doute guère d’images de la maison d’un membre du FPLP totalement détruite aujourd’hui à Gaza à la suite d’une explosion accidentelle. Et il faudra fouiller les blogs israéliens pour découvrir l’une ou l’autre photo d’amateur des 14 (quatorze) roquettes palestiniennens qui tombèrent aujourd’hui sur le territoire d’Israël.

Pictured from painting?

painted from picture?

Les bonnes femmes de Gaza

La version du Monde:
Des dizaines de Palestiniennes ont été la cible de tirs israéliens, alors qu’elles défilaient, vendredi 3 novembre, à Beit Hanoun, dans la bande de Gaza, pour protester contre l’offensive israélienne lancée depuis mercredi. Ce groupe de femmes se rendait à la mosquée où 60 hommes, auxquels elles souhaitaient porter secours, étaient détenus par Tsahal. Le bilan est de trois tués, dont une femme, et de 25 blessés.
La version du quotidien palestinien Al Hayat Al Jadida (fournie par pmw.org.il):
Des centaines de femmes parvinrent, au terme d’une mission dangereuse, à rompre le siège imposé à la mosquée par les blindés de l’occupation, au centre du village de Beit Hanun, après que des douzaines de résidents, certains armés, s’y soient réfugiés. (…)
Les femmes passèrent devant plusieurs véhicules blindés stationnés à la porte ouest de Beit Hanun, sous le feu des hélicoptères de combat israéliens. Quelque 200 femmes traversèrent le village avec leur enfants jusqu’à la mosquée Al Nasr assiégée, s’introduirent à l’intérieur et y délivrèrent quinze hommes armés de différentes factions [terroristes]. Pendant cette mission, deux femmes périrent en martyrs (…).
Iman Al-Yaziji, qui était accompagnée de son fils unique de 13 ans, déclara à l’Agence France Presse que les femmes tentèrent «en vain» à plusieurs reprises de pénétrer dans l’aire de la mosquée et ajouta (…) «Finalement, nous avons décidé d’entrer en dépit du fait que certaines d’entre nous étaient mortes en martyrs ou avaient été blessées, et nous sommes entrées dans la mosquée et nous avons avons libéré les résistants [terroristes].» Et de poursuivre: «Les balles tirées depuis les blindés et les hélicoptères sifflaient au-dessus de nos têtes et ont tué deux d’entre nous, sans pitié.» (…)
Muhammad, des Brigades Al Qassam Brigades, la branche militaire du Hamas, était parmi les assiégés. Il déclara à l’agence de presse française: «L’important est que nous ayons été libérés.»
Sa mère, Um Muhammad (…) déclara que les femmes agitaient des drapeaux blancs «mais les blindés continuaient de tirer sur nous. Tous ce que nous voulions, c’était libérer nos fils, même au sacrifice de notre vie (…) Les femmes accoururent, puis escortèrent les combattants épuisés, apparemment non armés, vers les ruelles plus sûres de Beit Hanun.»
Le reste de la fouchette. Et les explications de Palestinian Media Watch:
Le week-end passé, les organisations terroristes palestiniennes utilisèrent des femmes et des enfants pour sauver des terroristes retranchés dans une mosquée de Gaza. Le groupe de terroristes était assiégé et Israël exigeait leur reddition. Alors, les Palestiniens organisèrent un bouclier humain composé de femmes et d’enfants qui entourèrent les hommes et les escortèrent en lieu sûr.
Comme PMW l’a déjà relaté, ce n’est pas la première fois que l’AP appelle des civils à pénétrer en zone de combat. C’est devenu un comportement systématique depuis le début de la guerre terroriste qui a éclaté en octobre 2000. À une occasion, l’AP appela «les femmes, les enfants et les vieillards» à se tenir devant les engins de chantier des FDI qui cherchaient des tunnels de contrebande d’armes entre Gaza et l’Égypte, en mai 2004.[Al Ayyam, 17 mai 2004]

Et là-dessus, Annan se dit
profondément préoccupé par l’escalade constante des violence et par les pertes en vies humaines causées par les opérations militaires israéliennes au nord de Gaza.

Via AJM