dilluns, de febrer 07, 2005
El contraataque mediático en Iraq: decapitadores ante cámaras
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fac12/fac12c6c0f48a8058b45d0e7144115bc3af9baa0" alt=""
La reportera del New York Times, CHRISTINE HAUSER, comenta sobre la legalidad de tal táctica. Puede ser que se esté violando algún tratado sobre cómo los "luchadores" (sic) deben ser interrogados y cómo sus confesiones deben ser hechas públicas. Lo fantástico del comentario es que la reportera no indaga sobre qué tratado se está violando: como se pasa por televisión una confesión de este tipo, algo debe estar mal. Así lo hace notar, acertadamente, Rantingsprofs:
Why, they're showing videos! Who care's if it might work! Surely there's some treaty out there somewhere this might violate! (The Geneva conventions prohibit photographing Prisoners of War, I forget the phrasing, essentially for propaganda use, exploiting them.)
But of course one could argue that these are Iraqi cops, dealing with kidnappers. Domestic crimes. Which would make international treaties pretty moot, unlike the situation when these same men are in American custody.
...
Listen, if you're going to give a story this kind of placement, and therefore attention, you ought to be prepared to specify which treaties and laws the practices might violate and explain why. You're the New York Times, for God's sake. We expect actual arguments, not just assertions. We aren't supposed to be taking claims on faith because the Times said so, we're supposed to be believing things because the Times provides more information than any other paper.
Tiene toda la razón. Las especulaciones no tienen cabida en la prensa seria. Que dejen eso para reporteros del nivel de l'Eusebi Val....
|