Mark Weisbrot and Robert Naiman:
Ghost of Judith Miller: NYT Drinks the Kool-Aid
on Claims Iran is Behind Attacks on U.S. Soldiers in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070201/cm_huffpost/040120
If there's something you were thinking of apologizing
for, but you were holding back on the grounds that
apologizing might be taken as an implicit commitment
not to make the same mistake in the future, I can now
reassure you.
No less venerable an institution than the New York
Times has shown the path. You can apologize, be
contrite, tear your hair, rend your garments, and then
do the same damn thing again.
This is what the New York Times wrote in May 2004
about its pre-war reporting on Iraq:
"information that was controversial then, and seems
questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or
allowed to stand unchallenged...Articles based on
dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display,
while follow-up articles that called the original ones
into question were sometimes buried. In some cases,
there was no follow-up at all."
Today the New York Times, on page A10, informs us
that "Iran May Have Trained Attackers That Killed 5
American Soldiers, U.S. and Iraqis Say"
Note that:
- the claim that Iran "may have" trained attackers gets
the headline and the lede. Of course, green Martians
"may have" trained the attackers. The key question is:
is there real evidence?
- there is not a single named source in the article.
- there is no rebuttal, no point of view different
from the allegation, even though plenty of
knowledgeable analysts (Juan Cole, Gareth Porter,
Trita Parsi, for starters) could have easily been
found to give a contrary view. A recent Los Angeles
Times piece found "scant evidence" for the claim that
Iran was behind attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
- no "direct evidence" exists, as the article
acknowledges (further down.)
- the only "evidence" given is that the attack was
sophisticated (what are they saying - Iraqis are too
dumb to do this by themselves ?!) and that Iran has a
motive for retaliating against the U.S. Which is no
evidence at all - lots of folks have a motive for
retaliating against the U.S.
In no way did this unsourced, unsubstantiated
speculation deserve this article and this headline.
This is a dangerous development. Just as before the
Iraq war, much of the media is drinking the Kool-Aid.
That the New York Times is again drinking the Kool-Aid
is particularly worrisome, given its (undeserved) role
as a leader for other media.
This article linked from: antiwar.com
(as are many posts seen in this NG)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070201/cm_huffpost/040120
.
|
