Back to Messageboard | Home | Site Map  
 

Medialens on the defensive  
Posted by Russ Bridger on October 30 2007, 08:04 » Uploaded 30/10/07 08:30  

I see that Medialens are accusing Peter of "more smears" for expressing his doubts on this board over their version of events. That's not a smear. A "smear" is when you accuse anti-war volunteer activists of "actively aiding and abetting in war crimes" with zero evidence. That's a smear.

I'm surprised Medialens didn't quote my comment rather than Peter's, as it was much more outspoken and direct than Peter's polite expression of his doubts. Maybe they were uncomfortable with its implications:

Apparently momo's post was the first that Medialens heard of Herold's correction to their ZNet article. That post was made at 1.32pm. The Medialens editors reply (saying that they'd be posting a response early in the week) was made at 1.39pm.

That means that from a position of complete ignorance on the matter, it took them just 7 minutes to notice and read momo's post, to read and digest the Media Hell post it linked to, to check that post's link to the ZNet article, to decide what their response would be (possibly involving discussion between Edwards and Cromwell - they signed their post "Eds") and to write and post their reply.

I think they are telling porkies.

It's actually a rather trivial matter - a little "white lie" on their part, I think, made on the spur of the moment - which makes me wonder why they are getting so defensive about it.

http://www.mediahell.org/community/07102801.htm

COMMENTS Post comment

 

Comment 01 – Peter October 30 2007, 09:03

It's not conclusive, but it does add to my doubts over Medialens's version. And I stress that I've only expressed doubts. The overreactions to my remarks from Medialens ("smears") and David Wearing ("bad faith") seem silly.

And if Medialens wish to avoid this kind of criticism they only need to stop using every opportunity to attack IBC with their weak and error-ridden points (eg subjective, changing context-dependent meanings of "vast").

Comment 02 – Mordecai October 30 2007, 09:21

I must say, I find this whole business started by Medialens to be pathetic. They have only one point of substance and they made that a long time ago - that the media reporting of deaths in Iraq is terrible. It's not an original point, and it doesn't apply just to coverage of IBC. Their constant moaning about IBC clearly comes from some grudge they have.

Comment 03 – Stephen October 30 2007, 09:23

Russ Bridger writes:

"Apparently momo's post was the first that Medialens heard of Herold's correction to their ZNet article." [italics added]

Apparent to you, perhaps.

What Medialens said was:

"Peter talks about sloppy research and errors, and yet claims our failure to respond to a comment that was not sent to us and that we've only just learned about, 'says a lot about [our] commitment to open debate'. "

You've assumed "we've only just learned about" Herold's intervention refers to momo's post of 7 mins previously. But Medialens didn't say that, did they? So it's a rash assumption on your part. It doesn't even make much sense, for the reasons you gave. But rather than think it through, far less establish the facts, you've launched straight into the "lies" lingo spun here by the likes of ALP.

Comment 04 – Mordecai October 30 2007, 09:46

Incidentally, who is going to do IBC's job on future occasions when the US and UK start wars? Who would want to be labelled an "apologist" for war criminals? Should we not be recording details of the dead? Epidemiology doesn't do that.

Comment 05 – Russ Bridger October 30 2007, 12:45

Stephen wrote:
You've assumed "we've only just learned about" Herold's intervention refers to momo's post of 7 mins previously. But Medialens didn't say that, did they? So it's a rash assumption on your part. It doesn't even make much sense, for the reasons you gave.

LOL. I was wondering how apologists for medialens - such as Stephen here - would respond to this. You're right to say it "doesn't even make much sense, for the reasons you gave" - I'll give you that.

Your implication, however, is desperate. What could "only just" mean? A few hours? A day? And why wouldn't they immediately notify their readers (which was Peter's point) - in the same way that they immediately responded to momo's post? Their wording "only just" is intended to negate Peter's point, but the implication of what you are saying confirms Peter's point, that they had to be prompted before they'd mention it.

Look, it's a fairly trivial matter. No point tying yourself up in knots over. I think they told a little porkie. Get over it.

Comment 06 – Several Famous Epidemiologists October 30 2007, 13:32

Stephen, you make a weak case. The "we've only just learned about" comment was posted by Medialens over an hour after momo's post (in their second post). In our scientific opinion, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we think one must conclude they are referring to momo's post (or that they wish to give that impression). In which case... "draw your own conclusions".

Comment 07 – Woofles October 30 2007, 16:30

"What could 'only just' mean? A few hours? A day? And why wouldn't they immediately notify their readers (which was Peter's point) - in the same way that they immediately responded to momo's post?"

What could "vast underestimate" and "very, very conservative" mean? 50%? 30%? Less? :o)

The thing on not notifying readers has been raised before with ML: it's not a bad idea to post the response together with the "correction", rather than post the "correction" unanaswered on your own message board. Happens quite often in newspapers and magazines, doesn't it?

W

 

Post comment

   
Name:
Email:  
Display email
address?
  Don't display    Display
Lifespan of comment   Delete after 3 weeks    Keep permanent if post is permanent  

Comment:

 
Optional link URL:
eg "http://mediahell.org"
 
Optional link text:
eg "Media Hell"
 
 

 

  Messageboard Back to top