NP dishonest journalism

[Doug Millison]

A good example of journalism that might actually match  the 
description:  "The equation is in the dishonesty, the insidious 
motives, the manipulation of public sentiment, the rhetorical 
exploitation of actual suffering, the incitement to hatred and 
persecution."  Of course, it serves to bolster the Bush 
Administration, not attack it.  Check the business pages of your 
favorite mainstream newspaper for equivalent cream-puff treatment of 
IBM without mention of its unsavory business relationships.


ACTION ALERT:
New York Times on Iraq Airstrikes: Zero Dissent Allowed

February 23, 2001

Despite the chorus of international condemnation that followed last week's
large-scale airstrikes on targets in Iraq, not a single word of criticism or
dissent could be found anywhere in the New York Times' February 17 coverage
of the attack. U.S. and British planes struck five Iraqi air-defense targets
February 16 while patrolling their self-declared, internationally
unrecognized "no-fly zone" over the south of the country.

The Times ran four articles dealing with the raid-- a news article, a news
analysis, an unsigned editorial and an op-ed. None featured any criticism of
the airstrikes whatsoever. The lead story on the front page quoted seven
sources; all seven were government or military officials, all of whom
supported the attack-- a Pentagon spokesman, a "senior Pentagon official," a
"senior defense official," a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President
Bush, and a Republican and a Democratic senator.

David Sanger and Frank Bruni's accompanying news analysis, "The World Stage,
Act I," mused emptily about what kind of "statement" Bush was making in
authorizing the strikes, concluding that Bush had "arrived on the world
stage," that "despite his inexperience" in foreign policy, "he was a
player." No dissenting views were included.

Official Iraqi media reported 2 civilians killed and 20 injured in the raid.
But in the Times' 1,600-word news story, the subject of civilian deaths and
injuries was brushed off in two sentences: "Iraqi television reported
numerous civilians had been wounded" but "Pentagon officials said they have
no evidence of civilian casualties."

The Times appears to have great confidence in the sincerity of official U.S.
statements on Iraqi casualties. However, when former U.N. Humanitarian
Coordinator in Iraq Hans von Sponeck independently investigated civilian
damage from several U.S.-British airstrikes in 1999, finding 144 people
killed and 446 injured that year, the Clinton administration tried to have
him fired and he soon quit in protest. ("U.N. resignations point to failure
of U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq," Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service,
2/26/00). His replacement, Tun Myat, has no plans to investigate the damage
from the latest bombing, a U.N. spokesperson in New York told FAIR.

In announcing Bush's arrival on the world stage, the news analysis article
quoted his explanation of the attack-- "Saddam Hussein has got to understand
that we expect him to conform to the agreement he signed after Desert
Storm"-- but refrained from pointing out that Bush had made a gaffe: The
post-war agreement with Iraq contained no mention of no-fly zones, dealing
only with Iraqi withdrawal and compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unlike the
Times, the Washington Post pointed out the mistake in a Feb. 19 article,
"Bush on Stage: Deft or Just Lacking Depth?"

The Times' opinion pages kept up the cheerleading, with a lead editorial
judging the airstrikes "justified" and "timely." Instead of printing a
balancing view, the facing op-ed page ran a piece by military hawk Anthony
Cordesman headlined "No Choice But To Strike" that declared the bombing a
"necessary if not vital" step. Cordesman was condemned by Amnesty
International last year for a report he authored for the Center for
Strategic and International Studies proposing the use of "interrogation
methods that border on psychological and/or physical torture" against
Palestinians as one viable method of enforcing a peace agreement. (See "ABC
News Analyst Advocates Brutality," 11/21/00,
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-cordesman.html .)

The total absence of criticism in the Times stands in marked contrast to the
outpouring of criticism around the world.  In the days that followed, one
country after another, including key NATO allies, lined up to condemn the
attack. Several said the bombings were a blatant violation of international
law. France expressed "incomprehension" and "disappointment" (AFP, 2/17/01);
the Italian prime minister called it "counterproductive" (ANSA, 2/21/01);
the German foreign minister, though publicly circumspect, protested the
bombing in diplomatic meetings in Washington (Agence Europe, 2/19/01).
Turkey, Jordan, and Iran-- three of the neighboring countries supposedly
being protected from Iraqi aggression-- denounced the strikes, later joined
by even Saudia Arabia (London Guardian, 2/22/01), while the other Gulf
states "maintained an embarrassed silence" (AFP, 2/17, 2/18/01).  None of
this was reported by the New York Times.

All of this raises poignant questions about the Times' journalistic
priorities. Instead of printing a windy disquisition on Bush's "arrival" to
the world stage, the paper could have dispatched a reporter to Baghdad to
check on Iraqi reports of U.S.-caused civilian deaths.  Rather than invite
Anthony Cordesman to make exactly the same pro-bombing argument on the op-ed
page as the editorialists did on the facing page, the editors could have
published an opposing view.


ACTION: Write to the New York Times and tell them to report on criticism of
U.S. policy toward Iraq and not just quote U.S. officials. Ask them to do
original reporting on the effects of U.S. airstrikes on the ground in Iraq.
Remind them that balance in news reporting is essential.


CONTACT:
New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
mailto:nytnews at nytimes.com
Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS

As always, please remember that your comments will be more effective if you
maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair at fair.org with your correspondence.

                                ----------


                                   FAIR
                              (212) 633-6700
                           http://www.fair.org/
                           E-mail: fair at fair.org

-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>