Topic: NewsBusters
In a July 12 NewsBusters post, Ken Shepherd wrote about an Israeli Defense Force internal investigation of the incident between IDF troops and a flotilla of ships bringing supplies to Gaza, in which IDF troops killed several people. Shepherd's opening statement is, "The Israeli commandos who intercepted a flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip on May 31 were cleared of wrongdoing by a military inquiry into the matter," and he goes on to complain that some news reports on the investigation "focused on the negative" and downplayed "the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing by the Israelis in the now infamous raid."
Another internal investigation, however, got quite a different reception.
A July 8 NewsBusters post by Jeff Poor begins:
Surprise - a British panel ruled that the scandal known as ClimateGate that supposedly revealed the manipulation of certain data strengthen the case of manmade global warming was much ado about nothing. But, The New York Times in a July 7 story called these findings of an inquiry led by Muir Russell, a retired British civil servant and educator, "a sweeping exoneration" of the ClimateGate scientists in question.
Poor went on to insist that "there are still some serious and legitimate concerns to be raised about what ClimateGate reveal despite the findings" and that "ClimateDepot.com's Marc Morano has compiled a list of the various concerns about the Russell report that has supposedly exonerated these ClimateGate scientists."
In an extremely long July 15 NewsBusters post (and MRC Business & Media Institute column), Julia Seymour further attacked the veracity of the investigation: "The Post and many other outlets didn't mention crucial indications that the so-called 'independent' investigations were a 'whitewash.'" Among other things, Seymour complained that the investigation was "commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation."
Seymour failed to mention that many of those complaining about the exoneration are the very same people who push exaggerated claims about what "climategate" meant. For instance, Seymour cited an op-ed by Patrick Michaels attacking the report, but Michaels also claimed that the stolen emails that formed the basis for the investigation "have dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions." That means Michaels has a vested interest in discrediting the invesigation -- something Seymour does not note.
To repeat: An internal investigation of a cause NewsBusters likes is perfectly legitimate and should not be questioned, while an internal investigation of something NewsBusters hates must be discredited at all costs.
