| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |
| War mongering Iranian flotila to divert UN vote over sanctions | |
| 2010-06-09 | |
| |
| Posted by:Elder of Zion |
| #9 The salt comment is mine. I do not make it for articles posted from the Jerusalem Post (my personal favourite of the Israeli news sources) or even Ha'aretz, although I think they equate to the New York Times in entirely too many ways. logi_cal, if you are accusing me of bias against Israeli sources, I think you will find that difficult to prove. Likewise Rantburg as a whole, although I've gotten quite tired of the "What is the matter with American Jews?!?" discussions. However, there have been frequent discussions here at Rantburg about Debka's sources, purpose for individual articles, and relative accuracy. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-06-09 19:40 |
| #8 If RBers & mods are going to preface 'one' site when there's a whole LOT worse (AP, Reuters, etc), and the same measure isn't being applied to those, then it suggests a bias. As stated, IMHO (which obviously differs for 'compelling reasons' on both sides). |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-06-09 18:57 |
| #7 DepotGuy - I think that description can be assigned to a lot of the modern MSM - MSNBC for example (except for the thought-provoking insight - MSNBC's insight is more thought-killing IMHO). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-06-09 13:14 |
| #6 Iranian subs in the Suez Canal? That doesn't compute. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-06-09 13:08 |
| #5 It's an unfair distinction for Debka...there are worse out there. logi_cal, Your comparison is valid but there is a clear distinction. Debka is a good Propaganda site. “Good” in the sense that much of their reporting is timely, exclusive, and often turns out to be factual. However, their regular technique of presenting insinuation as fact should give any discerning reader pause. And repeatedly they are flat out wrong and never bother with a correction. Also, Their Op/Eds are frequently insightful and thought provoking. Still, all too often it’s clear that the intent of Debka’s analysis pieces is to assign motivation regarding particular events. Maybe in the age of modern “journalism” a dash of sodium is always recommended. Yet, IMO, there are compelling reasons to continue the obligatory Debka disclaimer. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2010-06-09 12:12 |
| #4 We will live and see |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2010-06-09 10:19 |
| #3 Footnote at the end of every post & article on the web & MSM: "Salt as indicated" It's an unfair distinction for Debka...there are worse out there. I didn't see qualifying remarks for the news posted here. By the logic suggested here, every AP post should have the same disclaimer and 48-hr rule(among a LOT of others, too many to list). That stated, I did preface my comment appropriately. |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-06-09 09:57 |
| #2 logi_cal, DEBKA does have good sources and they do get a lot right. But they often publish material from second-hand sources and rumors which turns out to not be right - and generally don't distinguish between the two. Rantburg would typically apply '48 hour rule' to stories that seem optimistic, undersourced or premature - publish with caveat. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-06-09 09:01 |
| #1 Imho, it's a mistake to preface Debka in such a fashion, based on what I know of their sources & their staff. Their 'news/reports/opinion' are much more accurate on ME issues than any other publication and those interested in ME issues, especially related to Israel, should bookmark Debka; their non-subscription site has very good articles. |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-06-09 07:55 |