|
|
 | | From: | \(¯`·..Yaacov ...·´¯\) | | Subject: | Le Wall Street Journal accable France 2 et Charles Enderlin tout en citant Media-Ratings | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:55:39 +0200 |
|
|
 | http://m-r.fr/danslesmedias.php?id=21
More About France 2
10 December 2004
Two weeks ago on this page, Stephane Juffa, editor in chief of the Israeli-based Metula
News Agency, accused French state-owned television channel France 2 of the most serious
crime a news organization could possibly be charged with: He said France 2 journalists
aired a false a report and that the TV channel refuses to publicly acknowledge the
deception. He was referring to TV images that showed a young Palestinian boy, Mohammed
al-Durra, allegedly being killed by Israeli soldiers in September 2000.
On Tuesday, we published a letter by Charles Enderlin, the Jerusalem correspondent of
France 2 and one of the two accused journalists. But his 560-word rebuttal never addressed
the actual charges leveled against him, his Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma or his
employer.
Mr. Juffa accused Mr. Enderlin of having falsely claimed that additional film material
exists that shows the child's death throes. Mr. Juffa also says that France 2 admitted
that Mr. Abu Rahma, the sole witness to the alleged crime, has retracted his accusations
against Israel. Yet, France 2 has not made a retraction public. Instead of trying to
refute the charges that the images were faked or misrepresented, Mr. Enderlin cites other
evidence seemingly in support of his case. But we are unable to corroborate his claims.
Mr. Enderlin wrote that France 2 "has filed several libel suits against Web sites and
individuals accusing us of having participated in the staging of the video." But we have
contacted Mr. Juffa as well as Serge Farnel and Philippe Karsenty, two Frenchmen who have
also taken up the al-Durra case. None of them are the targets of any lawsuits, they told
us.
We asked France 2 about this and were sent a list of several lawsuits the channel said it
has filed. However, they were not against "individuals" or "Web sites" but against "X,"
parties that are as yet anonymous. When we inquired why France 2 wasn't charging
individuals directly, we were told: "From a legal perspective, it is false to say that `we
know exactly' who Messrs. Juffa, Farnel or Karsenty are."
But that really shouldn't be so difficult, one would think. Mr. Farnel, a Frenchman
residing in Paris, is one of those accusing France 2 on his website ( www.truthnow.org )
of having staged the al-Durra scene. He challenges France 2 to sue him: "I will fully
avail myself to the station in order to give it the elements necessary to take legal
procedures against me," he writes on the site. He is still waiting.
Mr. Karsenty, the president of a French media-rating agency, offered to donate 10,000 to a
charity of France 2's choice if the channel can prove that the pictures depicted a real
event. His firm, Media Ratings, also challenged France 2 to file suit, displaying the
company's address prominently on its Web site. Media Ratings also is still waiting to hear
from France 2. Their reports in French can be viewed at: www.m-r.fr
Aude Weill Raynal, Mr. Juffa's lawyer, believes the real reason for France 2's cumbersome
legal procedure, which can take months and might not result in an actual lawsuit, lies
elsewhere: "This procedure allows France 2 to tell everyone we are suing `them' for
defamation without anything necessarily happening."
Mr. Enderlin quotes Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland who said on Oct. 3, 2000 that the boy was
probably killed by Israeli fire. Mr. Enderlin also included as "proof" that his story was
correct the fact that the Israeli authorites supposedly never complained and that "France
2's bureaus in Jerusalem and Gaza are functioning normally."
All the second point proves is that Israel is a functioning democracy where even reporters
suspected of violating normal journalistic standards can operate freely. As to the first
point, Mr. Enderlin was rather selective with his quotes. The Israeli government told us
that Gen. Eiland long ago retracted his original statement, which in itself was based
purely on the France 2 report. Since then, an inquiry commissioned by the Israeli
military, which Mr. Juffa cited in his article, has argued that the boy could not possibly
have been killed by Israeli soldiers.
"It is misleading, disingenuous and unprofessional to quote Gen. Eiland on what he said
back then," Daniel Seaman, director of the Israeli government press office, told us.
Finally, Mr. Enderlin claims France 2 has produced all relevant evidence to "professional
journalists," most recently at a press conference last month in Paris. This event, though,
had some shortcomings. France 2 denied access to anybody who accused the channel of any
wrongdoing. Even the French audiovisual trade union was outraged: "The station thus
avoided any questions concerning this controversy either about the topic at hand, or about
the station's respect of its own charter."
"It is more than time to get to the truth," the union said in its statement. It would seem
so, wouldn't it.
|
|
|
