Al-Dura case overturned on appeal (Truth wins over Palywood)

Karsenty also called on French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who Karsenty sees as "ultimately responsible" for the publicly owned television station, "to take responsibility for the French state's defense of the worst anti-Semitic lie around. It's time to apologize to the world for broadcasting a fake news report that has inflamed the Muslim world and endangered world peace."

Is that a cheap shot at Sarkozy? Make the 'journalists' apologize on the publicly owned station.

No, it is is not a cheap shot directed at Sarkozy. But it is quite self-evident that the ultimate responsibility for a state run TV-channel lies with the state, and the Sarkozy is the head of state.

The journalists will never apologize, but they should be kicked out.

Thanks Fred Nerks.

Thanks C from E and FN. :’)

Just call Al-Dura to testify. I heard he’s not really dead.

Thanks.

Last I’d seen Enderlin had edited the original footage he was ordered to produce. Don’t they have contempt of court in France? Enderlin is sure contemptible in my book.

WSJ has a very interesting editorial about the reaction of French media to this court ruling. Just like American media = dead silence when news is unfavorable to their “world view.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121183795208620963.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

A Hoax?
By NIDRA POLLER
FROM TODAY’S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
May 27, 2008

-—snip-—

The landmark ruling closes with an eloquent affirmation of the right of citizens to criticize the press freely, the right of the public to be informed honestly and seriously, the right of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a right that applies not only to inoffensive ideas but also to those that are shocking, disturbing, troubling.

The media that dramatically reported the killing of Mohammed al-Durra are deathly silent today. They didn’t inform the public about the ongoing controversy, didn’t attend the trials and have apparently decided to place this story into an artificial coma. As if this judgment against a colleague who placed blind trust in his Palestinian cameraman and, when called to clarify his report, attacked the questioner instead of questioning his own competence were not newsworthy?

The press corps has consistently closed ranks with Charles Enderlin. One week before the verdict was announced, pay-to-view TV station Canal+ aired a documentary seemingly concocted for the purpose of branding Philippe Karsenty — and anyone who challenged the al-Durra story — as conspiracy-theory crackpots.

Mr. Enderlin is the dean of French Middle East reporting. On France 2, he has full latitude to present his editorializing as factual news. Pointedly ignoring the al-Durra controversy, France 2 continued to give Mr. Enderlin — in tandem with cameraman Talal Abu Rahma — high-profile status on primetime news. Every few years Mr. Enderlin collects his material into another “authoritative” book on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mr. Enderlin has been the driving force in convincing French public opinion that Israel was to blame for the breakdown of the July 2000 Camp David talks. Further, Mr. Enderlin argues that the “Al Aqsa” or second intifada turned violent because of the disproportionate repression of civilian protest by uncontrolled Israeli military personnel.

Mr. Enderlin claims ultra-Zionist Likudniks want to prevent him from reporting objectively on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is now replaying the Karsenty case on his French state-TV blog where, in the absence of the wise Judge Trébucq, he wins hands down. He claims the al-Durra controversy was fomented in response to the publication of “Le Rêve Brisée” (Shattered Dreams), where he pinpointed Israel’s responsibility for the collapse of the peace process. (http://blog.france3.fr/charles-enderlin/index.php/2008/05/25/72983-quelques-verites-sur-la-campagne-de-desinformation-et-de-diffamation-contre-france-2-et-moi-meme)

France Télévisions director Patrick de Carolis and the CSA — roughly equivalent to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission — have been repeatedly called by media watchdogs to intervene in the al-Durra controversy. Can they all remain deaf to the wisdom of a courageous judge who has reasserted the journalist’s responsibility to serve the people and account for the way he does his job?