Dear csteele,

I've just come across the following site that may
be of interest:

http://www.care2.com/causes/rare-books-burn-in-egypt.html

I like the last statement:

"The continued loss of life due to civil unrest in Egypt
is truly heartbreaking. And the latest news of all the
historical treasures that have been lost adds to the
country's grief."

A reader also pointed out that the misguided molotov cocktail that
started the fire was thrown by an army officer. They apparently
have photographs of the event.

Dear Lexi,

Thanks for your post. The burning of the Institute was certainly a loss not only to the Egyptian people but to the rest of the world and indeen we should not forget that 14 Egyptians lost their lives on that day in a struggle for freedoms and democracy that we take for granted.

However I would not be true to the sentiment of this thread if I didn't point out the fact that in your post you quoted an anonymous poster on an agenda driven site, even though the agendas mentioned do resonate with me. There is numerous footage of security forces and regime supporters both sniping and throwing fire bombs onto the protestors during the unrest, and also of those same protestors using firebombs to attempt to dislodge them. Unless we have strong evidence to the contrary the laws of physics dictate that it was probably one of the latter that caused the inferno. What we can be sure of is that it wasn't an Islamic Mob!

It is something innate in all of us including myself and it is perfectly understandable to champion our causes, trusting and disseminating far more the supporting information than negative. 

However while our missives have little impact those purely agenda driven organizations who have the resources can often step in front of the news and grab our attention. 

It is for this reason the demise of traditional news gathering is so worrying. Less trained reporters on the ground means less depth of reporting and therefore more gaps where opinion and manipulation can proliferate. Imagine if Chris Masters had given us an eyewitness account.

There are some very worrying agents trying to fill those gaps. Israel Today is just one example. We will need to be vigilant.

Dear csteele,

I agree. That is why it is important to do
one's research from as many sources as possible.
Especially from more reliable sources such as -
the Lowy Institute, Reuters, NY Post, New York Times,
to quote just a few. Instead of Israel Today - have you
read what the more moderate Tel Aviv newspaper, "Haaretz"
had to say?

Dear Lexi,

I possibly needed to be clearer. My issue isn't so much that Israel Today wrote such a biased, factually incorrect, piece, rather that when I typed "egyptian institute book burn" into google it was the first cab off the rank. It's position has since slid to sixth but it is still on the first page. Actually at forth is a site that quotes the Israel Today piece but attributes Jihad Watch, so therefore second hand. This is how pervasive disinformation can be.

It is the usurping of accounts from more trusted sources that is the worrying aspect.

Haaretz which you mentioned, was not as bad but hardly good. Zvi Bar'el's piece said "The loss of historical manuscripts in a Cairo research institute, amid clashes between Egypt's military and revolutionaries, is reminiscent of the looting of Baghdad's national museum after U.S. troops entered the city in 2003."

No it isn't, not even close, and it is a perversion of the available facts to have said so.

But what is very interesting is I think the article has been altered in the last few days. When I first read it I could have sworn it blamed the inferno on a deliberate arson attack.

It now reads "The research institute, which was founded by Napoleon in 1798, was not torched in a deliberate arson attack on government offices perpetrated by opponents of the old regime. The fire resulted from a loss of control, mixed with feelings of frustration and rage, especially against the army."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/even-the-military-can-t-protect-egypt-s-historical-treasures-1.402204

Lol!

I think dear Ziv may have been scolded and his defense was 'Oh I had meant to put "not" in there, sorry.' Ziv my friend, I'm afraid it reads ludicrously when taken with the rest of your piece.

Well hats off to the editor.

I wish to withdraw the accusation that Zvi Bar'el added the word 'not' to his article. I have found a copy of the piece I had taken when I first read it and the word was included.

Further, on closer reading, I think the passage works, though possibly clumsily.

I stand by my judgement on its merits.

"... it is perfectly understandable to champion our causes, trusting and disseminating far more the supporting information than negative."

This is known as "confirmation bias" - a recognised psychological condition. Those who fall within this state only recognise "facts" that support their particular prejudice.

Lexi is absolutely correct. If one is really interested in the truth of an issue one has to make the effort of verifying it, and not just from one source - and hopefully, proven impartial sources.

Perhaps a series of references in footnotes would be appropriate.

Unfortunately, one must be also cautious of photographs. All journalists know that these can be cropped to present an entirely different "reality" ... and then we have photographs dredged up from media morgues which have absolutely no relationship to the news issue in question. A couple of years ago Reuters was in the unenviable position of having to admit (after investigation on their part) that a number of photographs released had in fact been doctored.

I recall journalists coming to Malaya during the Emergency and "choreographing" images to send back home. A picture may be "worth more than a thousand words" but unfortunately, may have little or no truth to it.

The above comments are Journalism 10