Post by Teddy Bear on May 16, 2007 17:37:57 GMT
One can be sure that if any government, company or organisation was as corrupt as the Independant is as shown here, the media would make it a major scandal. Not so, of course, when the media themselves do it.
HonestReporting UK called on The Independent to retract a cover story by Robert Fisk accusing Israel of firing depleted uranium shells at Lebanon during last year's war. Despite the fact that a UN team and, later, Lebanese experts themselves put the canard to rest, The Independent never retracted its coverage.
HR UK subscriber Gavin Gross lodged a formal complaint against The Independent with the Press Complaints Commission, which issued a woeful response (click here for full text in pdf format):
The Commission therefore considered that the article had clearly presented the allegation that Israel had used uranium-based weapons in Lebanon as such. Readers generally would - in the Commission's view - be aware that the article represented the speculative views of the journalist and experts quoted, and would not be misled into believing that the allegations had been proved, or that Israel definitely used uranium weapons.
That said, the Commission was pleased to note that the newspaper had published a follow up article reporting that the UN Environment Programme had "failed to find any evidence that Israel used depleted uranium, enriched uranium, or any other radioactive material in bombs dropped on Lebanon…"
Notwithstanding the complainant's concern that the newspaper had failed to afford this article sufficient prominence, or indeed report the expert panel’s subsequent unanimous rejection of the allegations, the Commission was satisfied that the publication of the follow up piece was sufficient remedial action….
The remedial "follow up" the PCC found pleasing to note is based on a mere two sentences buried in a November 2006 report about phosphorous shells. It hardly balances out The Independent's sensationalised front page.
A surprising decision? Not necessarily. According to another PCC ruling, journalists may call Israel an apartheid state, while the same organisation saw nothing wrong with The Independent's infamous cartoon depitcting Ariel Sharon biting off the head of a baby.
HR UK subscriber Gavin Gross lodged a formal complaint against The Independent with the Press Complaints Commission, which issued a woeful response (click here for full text in pdf format):
The Commission therefore considered that the article had clearly presented the allegation that Israel had used uranium-based weapons in Lebanon as such. Readers generally would - in the Commission's view - be aware that the article represented the speculative views of the journalist and experts quoted, and would not be misled into believing that the allegations had been proved, or that Israel definitely used uranium weapons.
That said, the Commission was pleased to note that the newspaper had published a follow up article reporting that the UN Environment Programme had "failed to find any evidence that Israel used depleted uranium, enriched uranium, or any other radioactive material in bombs dropped on Lebanon…"
Notwithstanding the complainant's concern that the newspaper had failed to afford this article sufficient prominence, or indeed report the expert panel’s subsequent unanimous rejection of the allegations, the Commission was satisfied that the publication of the follow up piece was sufficient remedial action….
The remedial "follow up" the PCC found pleasing to note is based on a mere two sentences buried in a November 2006 report about phosphorous shells. It hardly balances out The Independent's sensationalised front page.
A surprising decision? Not necessarily. According to another PCC ruling, journalists may call Israel an apartheid state, while the same organisation saw nothing wrong with The Independent's infamous cartoon depitcting Ariel Sharon biting off the head of a baby.