Q: How does the Age apologise for allowing a racist attack on one group of people to be published in its pages?
A: By placing the most obscure, mealy mouthed excuse for an apology in an even more obscure part of the newspaper and then, a day later, publishing another blood libel against the same people.
Days after the International Red Cross confirmed that Israel fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip but said "it has no evidence to suggest that the shells are being used improperly or illegally. They are used to illuminate targets at night, or to create a smoke screen for day attacks," the Age published an article from AFP reporting that Amnesty International "has said that Israel's use during the Gaza offensive of white phosphorus — banned under international law for use near civilians — was 'clear and undeniable'."
It's those sinister Israelis again.
The problem is that nobody's denying its use by the Israelis (although there's a cover up under foot to suppress the fact that Hamas uses phophorous in shells uses to attack Israeli civilians) but everything else underlying the article is either false or downright misleading including the suggestion that Israel breakes the rules about its use and, as usual, it fails abysmally to tell Israel's side of the story.
More evidence of the rancid culture pervading this formerly respectable newspaper.