NOP: US bombed the chinese embassy (long)

[Spencer Thiel]

>From today's FAIR-L:

****
>                                 FAIR-L
>                    Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
>               Media analysis, critiques and news reports
>
>
>
>
>ACTION ALERT:  U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing
>
>October 22, 1999
>
>A detailed investigative article in the October 17 London Observer reported
>that NATO deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last May,
>after discovering that the embassy was relaying Yugoslav military radio
>signals.
>
>The report contradicted the public assurances of NATO leaders that the
>missile attack had been an accident. The Observer's sources included "a
>flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring
>Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior [NATO] headquarters
>officer in Brussels."
>
>So far, the reaction in the mainstream U.S. media has been a deafening
>silence. To date, none of America's three major network evening news
>programs has mentioned the Observer's findings.  Neither has the New York
>Times or USA Today, even though the story was covered by AP, Reuters and
>other major wires. The Washington Post relegated the story to a 90-word news
>brief in its "World Briefing" (10/18/99), under the headline "NATO Denies
>Story on Embassy Bombing."
>
>By contrast, the story appeared in England not only in the Observer and its
>sister paper, the Guardian (10/17/99), but also in their leading rival, the
>Times of London, which ran a follow-up article on the official reaction the
>next day (10/18/99). The Globe and Mail, Canada's most prestigious paper,
>ran the full Reuters account prominently in its international section
>(10/18/99). So did the Times of India, the Sydney Morning Herald and the
>Irish Times (all 10/18/99).  The prominent Danish daily Politiken, which
>collaborated with the Observer on the investigation, was on strike, but ran
>the story on its website.
>
>The difference in perspective with which American journalists have greeted
>this story can be observed by comparing the headlines over several
>international news agencies' dispatches about the Observer expose:
>
>Reuters (U.K.): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately--UK Paper"
>(10/18/99).
>
>Agence France Presse (France): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately:
>Report" (10/18/99).
>
>Deutche Presse-Agentur (Germany): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately,
>Observer Claims" (10/18/99).
>
>Associated Press (U.S.):  "NATO Denies Deliberate Embassy Hit."
>
>The U.S. media may today be uninterested in evidence that the attack was
>deliberate, but they had no trouble last May accepting NATO's explanation
>that the bombing was a mistake. Even before U.S. officials emerged with a
>full account of how the embassy could have been "mistakenly" targeted--an
>"outdated map" of Belgrade played a prominent role in the official
>explanation--the U.S. media began regularly referring, without evidence, to
>the "accidental bombing" of the embassy.
>
>When Chinese officials disputed the U.S. account, protesting that the attack
>could not have been a mistake, establishment journalists immediately took
>sides in this debate. New York Times diplomatic correspondent Jane Perlez
>(5/10/99) referred to "the accidental bombing, portrayed in China as
>deliberate." A Washington Post editorial (5/17/99) that discussed China's
>reaction to "NATO's unintentional bombing of China's embassy" was indignant
>that the official Chinese press was "milking the bombing for propaganda
>value" by reporting that the missile strike had been intentional. USA Today
>continues to refer to the "accidental bombing" of the embassy (10/20/99).
>
>Since the New York Times hasn't published the new information about the
>embassy attack, it's unclear whether the paper stands by its earlier
>reporting. Since May 7, the Times has referred to the "accidental bombing of
>the Chinese embassy" a total of 20 times. The last reference was in its
>October 17 edition--the day the Observer published its report. Since then,
>the Times has run an AP article on the Chinese president's visit to London
>(10/19/99), which mentioned only that "China broke off talks with Washington
>and the European Union after NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in
>Yugoslavia"--taking no stand on the intention behind the attack.
>
>Even before the Observer's expose, there was no lack of evidence that
>China's suspicions were correct. A few days after the bombing, German
>Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder took the highly unusual step of publicly
>questioning NATO's explanation of the attack. "The explanation given by NATO
>on the tragic incident so far is far from enough and the Chinese government
>has every reason to demand a comprehensive, thorough, and in-depth
>investigation into the incident  and affix the responsibility for it,"
>Schroeder said in Beijing (AFP, 5/12/99).
>
>The London Daily Telegraph reported in June (6/27/99) that NATO's
>precision-guided missiles "carefully singled out the most sensitive section
>of the embassy complex for attack"--the intelligence directorate. "That's
>exactly why they don't buy our explanation," a Pentagon official was quoted
>as saying.
>
>In July, CIA director George Tenet testified in Congress that out of the 900
>targets struck by NATO during the three-month bombing campaign, only one was
>developed by the CIA: the Chinese Embassy (AP, 7/22/99).
>
>What is perhaps most baffling about the major news outlets' indifference to
>the Chinese embassy story is that the same outlets regularly devote a great
>deal of attention to other stories concerning China and its relations with
>the U.S. Elite media report extensively on China's possible entry into the
>World Trade Organization, the political struggle between its "reformers" and
>conservatives, and allegations of Chinese nuclear spying and electoral
>influence-buying in the U.S. The op-ed pages abound with debates about
>China's intentions toward America: Is the country a threat to be contained
>or an opportunity for trade and investment?
>
>The Times of London noted in an October 21 book review that "the bombing of
>the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade might yet turn out to be an important
>episode in a new Cold War." One might think that a well-sourced
>investigative article in a respected foreign daily providing evidence that
>the bombing was deliberate would be viewed by editors in the United States
>with the same interest they have shown in other aspects of China's relations
>with the West.
>
>ACTION: Please call national and local media and ask them to follow up on
>the Observer's investigation of the China embassy bombing. Mention that news
>outlets should present the idea that the embassy was bombed by accident as a
>claim made by NATO, not an objective fact.
>
>New York Times
>Andrew Rosenthal
>Foreign Editor
>mailto:andyr at nytimes.com
>
>Washington Post
>Jim Hoagland
>Chief Foreign Correspondent
>mailto:hoaglandj at washpost.com
>
>USA Today
>Douglas Stanglin
>World Editor
>mailto:dstanglin at usatoday.com
>
>
>Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair at fair.org ). We can't reply to
>everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
>documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
>'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
>
>Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
>responses, to us at: fair at fair.org .
>
>Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
>where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
>out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
>
>Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
>
>You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
>http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
>Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
>command to LISTSERV at AMERICAN.EDU.


-
st.
-