Monday, July 8, 2013

One story on Egypt, two tacks -



Concerning pre-dawn/ dawn violence in front of the Egyptian Officers club where Morsi is supposedly being held.

The NYT story

Sanka Freeze-dried version:  Army fired first, MB sympathizers fought back. Army provides video evidence to back up its story, using video shot during daylight hours. We suspect they are not telling the truth.

The BBC story

The WAPO

and


SFD version of these:

MB says army started it, army says MB started it. Evidence is presented, including some that supports the army story, some that supports the MB story. We do not take a position as to whose version is closer to the truth, but we’re going to give you both.

Which is the more even handed approach?

Is the departure from the evenhanded approach by NYT justifiable?

Only if there is good reason to believe the army is being more deceitful than the MB. Then, and only then, is the NYT justified in departing from the even-handed reportage.

Indeed, it seems that there is no good reason to believe this. So, the BBC is taking the appropriate journalistic tack, as is the WAPO, while the NYT is engaging in something other than straight reporting.

More reporting on the clash, all of which take a more even-handed approach than the NYT:




Why is the NYT alone in this?

Sauce for the goose..







Never heard of this Jester guy before, but this story about his efforts vis Brave Sir Edward and Brave Sir Julian, brought to mind the cliché in the title along with this one: