How’s this for sourcing (flagged by a tipster) in the New York Times’s A1 story today, “Turkish Funds Helped Group Test Blockade of Gaza:”
The Turkish group [Insani Yardim Vakfi] is a charity, members said, but the Israel Project, a private nonprofit advocacy group, sent an Internet link to journalists with references to what it described as the group’s “radical Islamic, anti-Western orientation.” The link alleges that the group supports Hamas, in part through a branch it opened in the Gaza Strip, the charity it sends them, and in meetings and speeches by Bulent Yildirim, its leader, and Hamas officials.
Say what? So many questions. Can an “Internet link” “allege?” Isn’t it the author of whatever appears at the link’s landing page who is alleging? Who is the author in this case? The Israel Project? Some other group or entity? A random guy on the Internets? Why isn’t that made clear here? Is this the “link” that “alleges” (linked to, as it is, from The Israel Project’s Web site)? Why make readers guess? Is this just a clumsily-written paragraph or…what?
In other flotilla news, the Economist’s Newsbook blog has a round-up of “what Arab and Israeli papers say about the raid.”
The NYT does not want the reader to focus on the make-up, history, mission, and politically connected status of the Israel Project, and for darn good reason. That there are credibility issues afoot would be Understatement of the Month.
#1 Posted by D.A., CJR on Fri 9 Jul 2010 at 09:08 AM