EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
On Iran IAEA Reporting Complaints, NYT Public Editor Rules for the Plaintiffs
Responding to complaints over a New York Times report that purported to cite "a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective," New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane has written that the complaints were just, and that the New York Times should correct the story.
The story as it appeared in the January 5th NYT print edition.
Brisbane wrote:
I think the readers are correct on this. The Times hasn't corrected the story but it should because this is a case of when a shorthand phrase doesn't do justice to a nuanced set of facts. In this case, the distinction between the two is important because the Iranian program has emerged as a possible casus belli.
In other words: it's important to get this right, because getting it wrong unjustly promotes the cause of war.
As of this writing - eight hours after the Public Editor's post, six days after the original article appeared, and people first complained about it - there is still no correction.
You can't find the article, as it originally appeared, on the New York Times website, because the Times deleted the paragraph with the offending claim from the version now on the web, without running a correction or publishing a note explaining the change. But you can see the article as it originally ran here.
Note that in other contexts - not linked to the fervent desire of some people for military confrontation with Iran - the Times purports to be quite punctilious about corrections, as when it corrected a misidentified character from an animated children's TV show.
Although it is unacceptable that the Times is still refusing to run a correction of its erroneous and dangerously misleading story, it is unquestionably a very good thing that at least there is a place associated with the Times where you can complain about its reporting and get a public response that acknowledges the justice of your complaint.
We complained to NBC's Meet the Press about the fact that David Gregory did not challenge Rick Santorum on his claim that there aren't UN nuclear inspectors in Iran, and did not even receive any acknowledgement of the complaint, let alone a response.
We complained to the Washington Post when it used the headline "Iran's quest to possess nuclear weapons." The Washington Post did the right thing. They corrected the headline, and they added an editor's note explaining the change. In addition, the Washington Post Ombudsman wrote in his column that the complaints about the headline were just and important.
So, to the Washington Post, full marks. To the New York Times, partial credit. To NBC's Meet the Press, zero.
Now, let's engage in a little experiment. Some people see PBS and NPR as publicly funded alternatives to commercial media. Others see them as the "Pentagon Broadcasting System" and "National Pentagon Radio."
If we complain to PBS and NPR when they report allegations that Iran has a nuclear weapons program as if they are known facts, how will they respond? Will they be more like the Washington Post, the New York Times, or NBC?
On Sunday, Defense Secretary Panetta told Face the Nation that Iran is not now trying to develop nuclear weapons. "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."
AP reported this straight: "US: Iran has not yet decided to build nuclear bomb."
But as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting noted, on Monday, PBS NewsHour deceptively edited Panetta's comments to exclude his statement that Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and then used his comments to try to suggest the opposite, that Iran is now pursuing a nuclear weapon.
You can write to NewsHour here. You can write to the PBS Ombudsman here.
On NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday, reporter Tom Gjelten said, "The goal for the U.S. and its allies ... [is] to convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program," thereby implying that Iran already has a nuclear weapons program, which is certainly not a known fact.
You can ask for a correction from NPR here. You can write to the NPR Ombudsman here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllAn important oligarchy whore house
Does anybody read the NYTs anymore? lol
The Covert war inside Iran is alive and well.......
A nuke scientist was just killed yesterday by a car bomb that blew up.
If that happened inside israel or the USA we'd already be fueling the jets for bombing runs.......
In fact I believe the war has Already started -
Stuxnet computer virus,
munitions factories blowing up,
capture of a spy drone over the skies of Iran(invading a country's airspace can be seen as an act of war or at the least aggression),
sanctions,
And Iran has responded by war games in the straits and on the Afgan border.....
Now a scientist is killed when his car blows up -
Step by step by step we'll have this damn war - it's the Obomber ace in the hole.
While the NY Times and WaPo sit at the top of the news (propaganda) pyramid more people get their information from local (terrestrial/public airwaves) broadcasting.
I regularly call and email the local news stations (radio and television) when they repeat these lies in their broadcasts with little success.
Even the frickin' local "progressive" radio station runs AP news at the top of the hour which repeats these lies over and over and over.
While it's worthy to fight against the pro-war spin of the Times equal effort should be spent to end the non-stop propaganda on the nation's 10,000+ radio and television channels that broadcast over the public airwaves.
It's the massive vertical reach of these stations along with their endless repetition that enables the lies of the elite to take root in the public mind. That type of mind control cannot be achieved with one false paragraph in the Washington Post.
gerald celente calls the nyt the "toilet paper of record" and that about says it all
gerald's site is awesome - http://www.trendsresearch.com/index.php
spend some time there - you'll be glad you did
amerikan journalism - man that was good for a laugh
kind of like amerikan edgamukation - summarized as it is by its never fading slogan - god god kill kill muslim muslim
i feel sorry for any lost soul who reads the crap or watches the crap in the corporate media
as alan watt says: when it comes to trying to detox a person who is caught up in watching the tv - you can't, forget it
alan's site is here: http://cuttingthroughthematrix.com/
Those links to PBS and NPR ombudsmen to raise a complaint didn't work for me.
i find myself in the rather awkward position of defending the development of nuclear weapons by iran. and i don't think there should be any doubt that they are doing their best to do just that.
if the evidence is skimpy at best, it means they are so far successfully hiding the program. if, however, they can proceed without significant delay, they will already be in possession of a testable device by the time the rest of the world discovers it. this will guarentee that an attack by the u.s. or isreal won't happen. sanctions, maybe worse that the ones now in place. but not war.
No offense, starkraving, but apart from the still-open question of whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, I don't find defending its right or imperative to do so awkward at all.
Not that you're doing this, but what's REALLY awkward is attempting to defend terrorist rogue states like the Amerikan Imperium and Israel possessing nuclear arsenals with presumptuously blithe self-righteousness-- or in Israels case, with coy self-righteousness-- and impunity.
awkward insofar as it takes something of a "lesser of two evils" position relative to the proliferation of weapons of insanity - not that there really exist sane weapons systems currently deployed by the various rogue powers, the u.s. and isreal foremost among them.
but if this might be one of the few exceptional instances in which the lesser evil perspective yields a positive outcome, i'm happy to plug my nose and advocate its partial application in this case - without allowing it to take hold and spread it's ugly roots over what remains of my clear conscience.
Point taken!
I agree that it's the proverbial sticky wicket to unconditionally oppose the existence of nuclear weapons, but also oppose the reprehensively arbitrary and utterly hypocritical policies and pronouncements of the "haves" in the course of denying the "have-nots".
The Corporate mind set, If you believe it's true it is True.All corporation run on large quantities Faith,not in God but in themselves. Maybe that explains why so many Corporate Politicians feel they have right to pick an choose which the 10 commandments they will obey?
Many thanks, Robert. Very well done indeed. I hope many of us will join you in these efforts to derail the warmongering propaganda, and to show it up for what it is. I still maintain that incitement of war should be recognised as the most egregious of war crimes, and further, that winners and losers alike in all armed conflict between nations must be referred to the ICC to explain their actions, and any and all falsehoods that they broadcast in the cause of war.