http://www.fair.org/activism/nyt-iraq-airstrikes.html
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.) 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
