Saturday, November 04, 2006

Law Through The Looking Glass

The finding by the court against media watcher Philippe Karsenty and in favor of France 2 over their handling of the Al-Dura gin-up signals on simple thing to John Rosenthal:

...the court's judgment is largely devoted to citing opinions hostile to the Shahaf/Mena hypothesis and calling into doubt the credibility and "seriousness" of the Mena and its collaborators, who -- despite their plurality -- are stylized into the "sole source" of Karsenty's claims. The court thereby manages to evade the primary evidence upon which the controversy -- though not the court's judgment -- in fact hinges: namely, the video evidence. The ultimate "source" of this evidence is not, of course, the Mena. It is France2, with crucial supporting evidence being provided by the rushes of the other news organizations.
As for Enderlin, France 2’s “star reporter” in the near east, a kind of character with the stature and the stuffing of Robert Fisk:
The litigious texts concern France2's famous and by many accounts -- not only Philippe Karsenty's -- infamous news report of Sept. 30, 2000, apparently showing a defenseless Palestinian boy being shot dead in a hail of Israeli fire. This is at least how viewers would have been led to interpret the scene by the voice-over of Enderlin:

Three PM. Everything has begun to degenerate near the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have fired with live ammunition. The Israelis respond. Ambulance teams, journalists and simple passers-by are caught in the cross-fire. Here Jamal and his son Mohammed are the target of fire coming from the Israeli position.
All of which turned out to be dead wrong and maliciously staged to the extent that stage management by ringers working for France 2 created the conditions which led to the death of a child.

One can’t but help to sense that JayBean, a delightful blogger has. It is one of little surprise and great disappointment.
Most of her speech was ad hominem; it had to do with who Enderlin is, not with refuting anything that had been said in court against him. Her stance: how can they say these horrible things about a man so great? One must make a serious investigation before saying something against such a renowned journalist!
She cites a well known story which could very well be the court’s transcription:
If any one of them can explain it, said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn't a bit afraid of interrupting him,) I'll give him sixpence. I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it.

The jury all wrote down on their slates, She doesn't believe there's an atom of meaning in it, but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

No comments: