It is an outrage that the Nasty Left-Wing Liberal Mainstream Media (GULLIBLE FOOLS!) accepted that ambulance story at face value (GULLIBLE FOOLS!) on the mere word of partisan sources (Palestinians).
Without having the faintest idea (GULLIBLE FOOLS!) about what damage Israeli weapons could cause, they assumed that photographs of those ambulances were proof of the attack (GULLIBLE FOOLS!). They couldn't be bothered (GULLIBLE FOOLS!) doing their own independent fact-checking. They just reckoned (GULLIBLE FOOLS!) it looked all right, and that was sufficient for them (GULLIBLE FOOLS!).
That story was a hoax (GULLIBLE FOOLS!), which I accept at face value (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!) on the mere word of a partisan source (a blog by someone calling themselves "Zombietime").
Without having the faintest idea (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!) about what damage Israeli weapons can cause, I assume that photographs of those ambulances are proof there was no attack (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!). I can't be bothered (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!) doing my own independent fact-checking. I reckon (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!) it looks all right, and that's sufficient for me (COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!).
Remember, hypocrisy is a virtue.
* * *
UPDATE 1/9: Blair and Bolt and Downer (and everyone else who's relied so heavily on the "zombietime" blog entry), might like to read this piece by the original (and acknowledged, and much-cited) progenitor of the conspiracy story, right-wing blogger Dan Riehl.
As the originator of the Red Cross Ambulance story, I would urge the elements of the blogosphere still running with the story to at least slow down, if not back up. They are increasingly looking like the very drive by media against which we so often rant, running the risk of being exploited by propagandists on another side of an issue. And no matter how much many of us may support that side, propagandists on both sides do exist. For the record, I'm guilty, too.
The fact is ZombieTime's post does not do what it claims, proving the ambulance attack demonstrably false. And if they had operated the way bloggers should, by co-operating and communicating, instead of taking another's story and making it their own, perhaps they would have held back from making some of the unprovable claims they do. As I said, I am no innocent here. Most likely, being frustrated at how some have co-opted much of the work I did is certainly part of why I backed off and started to take a clearer view.
They should probably read it carefully. Every. Single. Word. Particularly the bits about not jumping to conclusions.
And particularly this bit:
There was some incredibly sloppy reporting by the MSM media around the ambulance incident. Kevin Sites claiming someone lost two legs comes most to mind. But what I was doing a month ago was asking for someone who could to follow up. Now it has become a larger news story with blogs asserting it never happened. Blogs do not know that to be true and haven't come close to proving it. Right now blogs run as much risk of damaging their credibility by acting as propagandists with this story as they do delivering a big scoop.
As I said, I'm not innocent. Today on my second anniversary, I have to cop to being as caught up as everyone else. While I moderated my posts, apparently some juvenile posting board member was impersonating S R Sidarth and, frankly, I got duped. Last night I went to jump into the Reuter's vehicle story against my better instincts and made a gaffe.
Sadly, it wasn't just bloggers who jumped into this new game of chinese whispers.
Oh, Tim. Oh, Andrew. Are you guys going to print a little mea culpa now, or keep running the increasingly amusing "we're better journalists than the others but WE don't need to check OUR sources" line? You might at least consider pulling your heads in a little. (I predict you'll suddenly both get a little tired of the story.)
(Apologies from my more abusive Blairite visitors on Friday night for my daring to express some need for caution, can be left in the comments below.)
UPDATE 2/9: I see Tim Blair is suggesting (in his usual, civilised, non-personal way) that I've missed a wonderful opportunity to bag News Ltd's The Australian.
But you see, Tim, my consistent position of sensible caution means I get to criticise both you AND The Australian at the same time! Isn't it wonderful? I get to excoriate The Australian and its journalists for not bothering to check up the story before reporting such serious allegations. And I get to excoriate you and Andrew Bolt for not bothering to check up the story before waffling on about how a "fraud" and a "hoax" had been "proven" by an unverified blog post - and, even better (worse), being so astoundingly hypocritical about it, since you were attacking other "journalists" for the same level of lazy credulity at the time.
Cautious scepticism is a wonderful thing. You get to sanctimoniously laugh at gullible idiots as they make fools of themselves - in this case, supposed professional journalists on both sides of the issue.
Don't you wish you'd tried some cautious scepticism yourself?
