Shooting Fisk in a Barrel

It seems almost trite to attack Robert Fisk for poor logic and unsupportable claims, but sometimes the need still arises. Shortly after the first reports of the flotilla clash, Fisk published an opinion piece that leaves me puzzled over his journalistic philosophy:

You only have to read the gutless White House statement – that the Obama administration was "working to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy". Not a single word of condemnation. And that's it. Nine dead. Just another statistic to add to the Middle East's toll.

It seems that in Fisk's world, waiting until one has the facts straight is an act of cowardice, while the brave are distinguished by their drive to speak and act in ignorance.

This attitude is a common one among Israel's knee-jerk critics—as opposed to its thoughtful critics, in which category I would like to think I fall—and has been cultivated extensively by the propaganda wings of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Palestinian advocacy groups are far better than Israeli ones at exploiting the 24-hour news cycle, ensuring that their version of any given event is the first people hear, and therefore the one deemed most trustworthy. Any variations on the original narrative become "spin" in the eyes of the consumer, even if the original narrative is thoroughly, factually debunked.

So, how exactly does one respond to a notable journalist's exhortation to ignorance and non-thought?