In every detail? Certainly not. Overall? Very occasionally, but it happens—and is therefore possible. It would happen a lot more, of course, if journalism’s consumers held the product to higher standards than they do.

In this particular example it was wartime. The israeli government hasn’t been able to get the details of the story right in 6 weeks, why would you expect the press to get all the details right quickly?

They obviously can’t have been expected to “get all the details right quickly”. They can, however, be expected not to pass on as their own on-the-scene reporting an obviously bogus story handed to them by Hezbollah flacks. (Or by Israeli flacks, for that matter—although I certainly haven’t seen them do that very often.)

Which is worse?

It’s not clear that the WMD fiasco should be described as a failure of journalism. One can certainly fault the NYT’s coverage for becoming overly enamored of its not-entirely-trustworthy sources—an endemic and important journalistic sin, to be sure, and one people should definitely worry about. (One could in fact argue that the Lebanese ambulance story is a variation on that theme.) But had the coverage been better, it’s hard to see how it could have presented a more accurate picture—after all, pretty much all of Western intelligence had reached a consensus that Iraq had WMD to some degree, and it’s not clear to me how journalism could have improved on that mistaken perception.

In the Lebanese ambulance case, on the other hand, it’s obvious that some basic competent journalism would have resulted in a much more accurate, trustworthy story.

In this particular example it was wartime. The israeli government hasn’t been able to get the details of the story right in 6 weeks, why would you expect the press to get all the details right quickly?

They took reports from people who were there, and the people who were there didn’t know all that much about what was going on. It tends to go that way when you’re getting shot at.

So anyway, you want to complain about the press, how about all those stories about the WMDs in iraq before the war. A lot of the press uncritically took that lying disinformation without a second thought. The NYT pushed it like a dealer giving out free methedrine samples.

And look at the consequences. The media got some details wrong about a minor israeli war crime. Net effect—a bunch of wingnuts invent a giant conspiracy theory and get in a tizzy over it.

The media backs administration lies about iraqi WMDs. We wind up in a tarpit of a war.

Which is worse?

The issue here isn’t Israel or Hezbollah, it’s the press. Frankly, I have no idea why so many people in the US and Europe care in the slightest about what’s basically a tiny little regional conflict that’s dwarfed by probably dozens around the world. But I also have no idea why so few people care that they have to rely for information on the kind of lazy, propaganda-parroting pack journalism represented by this story.

I understand why it’s reasonable for zionists to continue it. While people are distracted by stupid claims about how maybe the israelis didn’t attack two ambulances after all, those people are not considering evidence about significant israeli war crimes. OK, that makes sense. But why are the supposedly rational people falling for it?

Just suppose that the israeli report comes out and it says that yes, a couple of israeli drones did it, they are going to court-martial the three technicians responsible, it was against orders and such things have always been against orders. And imagine that after that happens the israel-apologists here say “OK, yes, it really was an israeli strike that did it, we see the truth now.” What’s the big deal? Every now and then soldiers disobey orders and mess things up. It happens. It’s not a great thing that it happened to israel once, but how could it possibly be worth the amount of attention it’s gotten?

The blockade of all of lebanon was official israeli policy. The cluster bombs were official israeli policy. The invasion was official israeli policy. How did you let these idiots sucker you into a 6 day PU239 discussion—239 comments and counting—about two ambulances?

No, it isn’t any such admission at all—let alone an admission that it was shooting at those particular vehicles. It’s simply a recognition that according to reports coming out of Lebanon, “vehicles were hit”.

In the Gaza beach incident, in which it was recognized immediately that civilians were killed, it was later concluded that the civilians were killed by Palestinian munitions (probably a mine). In the Qana case, in which it was again immediately recognized that a building had collapsed, killing civilians, “senior IAF officers” speculated that “the explosion could have been caused by an unexploded missile or by a Hizbullah-planted explosive device.”

Of course, we don’t have to rely on this pattern to infer that the IDF did not mean to admit responsibility for hitting the ambulances, because the IDF has explicitly made it clear that they didn’t.

Can’t you frickin’ read?

Statement A is not of type R

you do not advance the discussion by replying:

Statements of type R are very commonly made by party I.

On the other hand, if someone says:

Statement A by party I has properties S and T, and is therefore not of type R

Then a response like:

Statements with properties S and T are very commonly made by party I, and in every other case is demonstrably of type R

should at least give “somebody” a hint that maybe their reasoning is ever-so-slightly flawed.

I understand that you don’t follow arguments as closely as some of us, so you probably don’t see very clearly when your proposed response is completely beside the point.

Exactly the same to you, only even more rudely and condescendingly.

Reporter: The Red Cross says two ambulances got hit near Qana. What can you tell us?

IDF: Lots of missiles were being launched from that area.

Now, clearly the IDF is not confirming that they hit the ambulances. The reporter wouldn’t expect that. They are confirming that the story is plausible, because the IDF was striking targets in the area at the time. Since the Lebanese witnesses are pretty credible, the story goes to print.

Dan Simon,

…I’ve already wasted far too much time….

You surely have. In the hope that you will waste less time in future, please note that when somebody says:

Statement A is not of type R

you do not advance the discussion by replying:

Statements of type R are very commonly made by party I.

I understand that you don’t follow arguments as closely as some of us, so you probably don’t see very clearly when your proposed response is completely beside the point. The trick is to read what the other guy has written and work out where the difference of opinion lies. Once you have done that you will often find that you can respond quite briefly and waste less time – your own and the reader’s.

Like this: “oh, you know, that general area where two ambulances were hit last night – it’s known to be one of the main sources of the launching of hundreds of missiles! What a coincidence; weird, uh?”

Is that it?

Of course not—only that the initial statement was boilerplate, and didn’t imply a confession of responsibility.

The referent of “it” here can only be “the ambulance having been hit by a missile”, which is the event that was reported.

The referent is clearly “what happened”, which they make clear is unclear to them and “under investigation”. And they explicitly refuse to accept responsibility for it. Can’t you frickin’ read?

the IDF and civilian government stories differed in the crucial regard that the IDF one said that they did not believe they had shelled the Gaza beach at that time.

No, the IDF didn’t say anything of the kind at the time of the initial statement of regret. They later denied responsibility, following an investigation, adding that their initial expression of regret did not mean to imply an admission of guilt. However, they never said anything in or about their initial statement of regret that in any way suggested the slightest difference between it and the civilian government’s version. Can’t you frickin’ read?

The “initial doubts” here were expressed by wingnut websites

….And by the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Air Force. Can’t you frickin’ read?

(Yes, the investigation eventually pointed to an IDF strike. Regardless, the IDF expressed regret—without admitting or denying responsibility—immediately following reports of the event, and while the head of the Israeli Air Force was still expressing skepticism about their own involvement. The statement of regret included an explanation of why the IDF was firing in the general area—even though the IDF wasn’t yet certain that it was even responsible. Does this pattern sound just a tiny bit familiar to you?)

So the claim is now that the ICRC and the news media in August should have foreseen that there would be another statement along in a couple of weeks’ time? Also note that:

We are not saying it was an accident or that we take responsibility.

The referent of “it” here can only be “the ambulance having been hit by a missile”, which is the event that was reported.

In related news, you have not “proved me wrong on the Gaza beach incident”, and the IDF and civilian government stories differed in the crucial regard that the IDF one said that they did not believe they had shelled the Gaza beach at that time.

Here’s another example: despite initial doubts (which I believe were later resolved), the IDF immediately expressed regret for the civilian casualties caused by the building collapse in Qana.

The “initial doubts” here were expressed by wingnut websites (and the Volokh Conspiracy IIRC; but here I repeat myself) and they were “resolved” by everyone saying “don’t be a fucking idiot, of course the IDF bombed it, they’ve admitted they bombed it, stop blethering on about this stupid conspiracy theory that Hezbollah faked the whole thing”. As far as I can see, this supports my case, not yours.

Btw, it’s been, what – about 2 weeks now? How’s investigation going?