Ynet covers the great Reuters airstrike controversy (Update: As does Arutz Sheva)
posted at 11:42 am on August 31, 2006 by Allahpundit
The bad news: His article couldn’t be more one-sided than if Olbermann himself had written it. Bob linked my post in the post that Lappin cites, too, so presumably Lappin was aware that experts were making counterarguments. The link was in an update, though, so maybe he just missed it.
Ah well. Noted for the record. At least they’re covering this.
Update: Heh. The Ynet article has since been updated to say:
Other blogs have discussed other possibilites, with the Hot Air site writing:”The leading alternate theory is that it was shrapnel. And yes, that’s an important distinction, although not as important as some might think. If a rocket hit the van, it proves that the IAF was aiming at it. If it was shrapnel, it suggests that they were aiming at something else, which would put the kibosh on hysterical claims that Israel is targeting the media.”
Allah’s whining gets results, baby. Thanks to Ynet for addressing this.
Update: Arutz Sheva also has an article citing Bob’s experts — and not citing any of the counterarguments.
The Israeli press is not acquitting itself well here.