I pointed out yesterday that the Guardian wrote an execrable biography of Dalal Mughrabi that took the Palestinian Arab narrative of her terror attacks at face value.
Today, they issued a slight correction, changing the words "Israeli soldiers" in the sentence "On the coastal highway, Mughrabi's team hijacked two buses full of Israeli soldiers" with the words "civilians." But that was hardly the only problem with the article:
* Referring to the 18-year old as a "girl," making her sound like an underaged hero, especially by referring to hijacking a bus of unarmed civilians as "daring."
* Not mentioning the earlier murder of American photographer Gail Rubin by her gang.
* One bus was hijacked, not two.
* The story of her raising a Palestinian flag is almost certainly apocryphal.
* The terror group's intent was not Israel's Ministry of Defense but rather a Tel Aviv hotel filled with civilians.
* To even report with a straight face the idea that Israeli helicopters would fire from the air into a bus filled with Israeli civilians wavers between truly stupid and purposefully malicious.
* To give any credence to the Palestinian Arab boasting that they killed 70 people, when the names and ages of the victims are public record, betrays an equal amount of stupidity to which no real reporter would ever admit.
* I have not found any of the supposed pictures of Barak shooting Mughrabi's dead body and it strains credulity that he would have done that. If the Guardian knows that "the media" captured such images, it should at least say who took them.
In other words, these two short paragraphs were not factual at all. The Guardian's credibility should be severely damaged by this sloppy, poor excuse of a biography. If there are this many mistakes in this case, how can anyone trust anything the Guardian ever says?