Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Does Israel attack journalists in occupied Palestine?

Is the bear a catholic? Does the pope defacate in woodland areas?

Writing the letter I had published in the Guardian yesterday was simple enough. Lorna Fitzsimons, CEO of the "Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre", had claimed that Reporters Sans Frontières contradicted John Pilger's damning assessment of the way Israel treats journalists in illegally occupied Palestine. I looked up what Reporters Sans Frontières had actually said on the subject (which confirmed, not contradicted, Pilger's article) and quoted it. This difficult bit of research took at least 15 minutes. Pathetic that this is the best Israel's apologists can manage.

Of course, I only went as far as to show that the apologist's representation of Reporters Sans Frontières' assessment was a false one. But a man with the courage, strength and indefatigability of Jamie SW can be relied upon to go that one stage further. With this excellent piece of research, drawing from press reports and applying some straightforward but perceptive reasoning, he demolishes the lie that Israel has some proud record on journalistic freedom, and exposes Fitzsimons sad effort for what it was: a cynical apologia for wanton brutality. Hats off then to Jamie, whose blog, by the way, is top drawer.

Labels: ,


Anonymous JamieSW said...

"a man with the courage, strength and indefatigability of Jamie SW..."

You know that quote's going to come back to haunt you. Better say you were actually talking about Jamie SWs as a whole, not this particular specimen. That'll fool 'em!

11:31 PM  
Anonymous JamieSW said...

btw, the most difficult thing I had writing that post was working out how to do the bloody apostrophes.

First you've got Fitzsimons - is that Fitzsimons' or Fitzsimons's? I picked the latter eventually, but only after changing my mind about three times and having to go through what I'd written so far altering everything accordingly. I see you've gone for the easy strategy of not including an apostrophe at all - tsk, tsk.

Then there's 'Reporters Sans Frontières'. In your last post you did a cop out again by going for "the NGO's" - oh yes, I noticed - although in this one you went for Reporters Sans Frontières'. I was going to do that because it clearly looks right, but then there's a problem - if it's Frontières' why, then, should it not be Fitzsimons' as opposed to Fitzsimons's? Does Fitzsimons have grammatical rules all of her own?

Got me right worked up, it did. Had to go have a lie down. When I came back I just went for RSF's, and I've never looked back.

11:42 PM  
Blogger David Wearing said...

yes, clearly I was saluting the courage strength etc of bloggers in general, not you in particular, since you're clearly a madman

I believe the grammatical rule is that if it ends with an s you just put an apostrophe after it and don't add another s.

6:41 AM  
Anonymous JamieSW said...

OK, I've looked it up. It's true that when a word ends in 's' you usually just put an apostrophe after it to make it possessive, but there are exceptions. Ahem:

'There's also the opposite case: when a singular noun ends in s. That's a little trickier. Most style guides prefer s's: James's house. Plain old s-apostrophe (as in James' house) is common in journalism, but most other publishers prefer James's. It's a matter of house style.'

So it looks like Fitzsimons does in fact get her own grammatical rules. Lucky moo

11:12 AM  
Anonymous mary said...

She (LF) is not worthy of your grammatical care.

10:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home