[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Miscellaneous See other Miscellaneous Articles Title: Out of facts? Stick to cats: Examiner's pitiful attempt at dissing RT RT... For an investigative reporter, the Examiner’s Julia Davis seems to lack one basic professional skill: fact checking. Or perhaps it's a lack of attention to detail that sees her repeatedly ignoring simple facts, particularly where RT is involved. First, Davis slams Newsweek for “parrot[ing] RT’s false narrative” and misreporting on a new Ukrainian law by erroneously stating that commanders can use force against servicemen who drink alcohol while on duty (in fact the law imposes administrative punishment for alcohol consumption). There’s one problem with that ‘line’ though – never does the RT story in question say such a thing. In fact, RT’s story doesn’t discuss any kind of punishment for alcohol consumption at all. But facts are clearly irrelevant for Davis when she is set on bashing RT. She is incensed by yet another “blatant lie disseminated by RT” – that, according to the aforementioned law, “deserters will be shot on sight.” Except that this statement ALSO never appeared in RT’s article. This is what RT wrote: "The new article 22(1) added to the charter regulating service in the armed forces of Ukraine states that commanders ‘have the right to personally use physical force, special means and weapons when in combat’ against soldiers who commit ‘criminal acts’.” That statement agrees with the letter of the law. In her exposé Davis seems to fail to do the one thing that separates a ruthless truth-seeking reporter from an angry blogger with an inflated sense of self-worth. That trait is the ability to accept one's mistakes – whereas Newsweek editors have conceded the fact that they misread the law, neither Davis nor the Examiner responded in kind when RT pointed out their fact fails. On the contrary, the website continues to accuse RT of knowingly and purposefully posting false information on it. In her latest foray into journalism, Julia Davis criticizes Russian media for basing its reporting about Ukraine on Ukrainian sources. Davis alleges the National Guard website was hacked to display a message from the leader of the Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, with a statement regarding his intentions to continue fighting, ceasefire notwithstanding. The link she provides as evidence of the hacking only raises more questions: why are there no posts whatsoever from February 15 – the date that marked the beginning of ceasefire and the day when Yarosh may have made the statement? Screenshot from Ukraine's National Guard website (www.gov.ua) Screenshot from Ukraine's National Guard website (www.gov.ua) For an investigative reporter, the Examiner’s Julia Davis seems to lack one basic professional skill: fact checking. Or perhaps it's a lack of attention to detail that sees her repeatedly ignoring simple facts, particularly where RT is involved. Davis goes on to say that “RT falsely claims that the said news appeared on the National Guard’s website on February 15th,” and not the day prior, before the ceasefire was announced, despite the cached version of the supposedly planted post indeed being date-stamped with 15.02.2015. Some false claim indeed. Strangely enough, just over a year ago, Davis didn't seem to exhibit any of her current aversion to RT, when she appeared on one of the channel's shows. Abby Martin invited Davis on her program ‘Breaking the Set’ to tell her story as a whistleblower about an alleged breach of security committed by the Department of Homeland Security. Davis, along with her husband, has actually cranked out an entire documentary on the subject. In the film, a Hollywood star (Brittany Murphy) falls prey to the big bad brother (Dep’t of Homeland Security) for having the audacity to stand up for a former security officer (Davis), who proudly calls herself a whistleblower. Blockbuster stuff. When she is not busy whistleblowing, Julia Davis sticks to calling herself as an investigative journalist. However, her oeuvre of investigations seem to be limited to reusing posts from Ukrainian social media, with "photographic" evidence of alleged Russian takeover of Ukraine – and, at times it seems, the world. Investigative journalist Julia Davis doesn't shy away from making statements like this one: For some reason, the list of Russia's numerous annexations (or mass murder cases) isn't presented to support the above statement. Davis gleefully reposts photos of President Putin breaking a pen – which were later proven to be fake, concocted by the Ukrainian social media warriors. Davis doesn't shy away from posting pictures out of context, failing to explain what Ruptly news agency does and what's shown in the picture. Neither does she provide the link to the source. She simply makes a statement. A potentially-libelous statement. But an investigative journalist, a whistleblower - heck, a maverick! - doesn't concern him/herself with such minute details. For all her efforts, Julia Davis should really be given a pat on the back. After all, it takes time and dedication to sift through all anti-Russia nincompoopery out there and combine it tastefully with cute pictures of cats and squirrels. Those fuzzy creatures are such effective click-bait. But continuing to spew slanderous accusations at major news sources and organizations clearly tickles Davis much more. Irina Galushko, RT Poster Comment: Looks more like a dog than a cat... Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||