August, 04 2010, 03:23pm EDT
Does the NY Times Factcheck Op-Eds?
Bogus evidence showing Arab apathy towards Palestinians
NEW YORK
On August 2, the New York Times published an
op-ed arguing that Arabs do not care much about Palestinians--and that
this is a good thing, especially for Palestinians. But the argument
relied on a "poll" of the Arab world that does not exist.
The piece,
by historian Efraim Karsh, intended to show that the "conventional
wisdom" about the Israel-Palestine conflict--that Arabs "are so
passionate about the Palestine problem"--is wrong. His main evidence is
this: "What, then, are we to make of a recent survey for the Al Arabiya
television network finding that a staggering 71 percent of the Arabic
respondents have no interest in the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks?"
But the "survey" was actually a website readers'
poll, the kind one might find on many news websites--and the kind of
thing no one would take as a serious expression of public sentiment on
any issue.
Even this largely meaningless data was
misrepresented by Karsh, as he conflated concern about "the Palestine
problem" with interest in "Palestinian/Israeli peace talks." As James
Zogby of the Arab-American Institute (Huffington Post, 8/2/10) pointed out:
The actual question
makes no mention of "Palestine" or "Palestinians." Rather, it asks
respondents about their level of interest in the "Middle East peace
process"--to which 71 percent indicate "no interest." Given the lack of
results and the repeated disappointments and frustrations experienced
during just the last two decades of the so-called "Middle East peace
process," this lack of interest displayed by respondents in the Al Arabiya website question is hardly surprising.
After recalling various incidents where Arab
governments have abused Palestinians, Karsh closed the piece by arguing
that "it is a positive sign that so many Arabs have apparently grown so
apathetic about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict"--a clear misreading of
the unscientific "poll" Karsh was citing. He concluded that "the sooner
the Palestinians recognize that their cause is theirs alone, the sooner
they are likely to make peace with the existence of the State of Israel
and to understand the need for a negotiated settlement."
Karsh's claim that the Arab public is presently
"apathetic" about the plight of Palestinians rests on an unreliable
Internet poll, and on excluding other polling that would suggest
precisely the opposite. According to the Zogby/University of Maryland
poll of Arab public opinion (5/09),
76 percent of respondents put "the Palestinian issue" as either the
"most important" issue or as one of their "top 3 priorities."
In a piece about how the Times edits op-ed contributions (7/31/05),
the section's editor David Shipley assured readers that articles are
fact-checked: "While it is the author's responsibility to ensure that
everything written for us is accurate, we still check facts--names,
dates, places, quotations. We also check assertions. If news
articles--from the Times and other publications--are at odds with a point or an example in an essay, we need to resolve whatever discrepancy exists."
The Times should adhere to that standard in this case.
ACTION:
Ask the New York Times to publish a
correction pointing out that Efraim Karsh's August 1 op-ed about Arab
ambivalence towards Palestinians erroneously treated an unscientific
website poll as if it were a meaningful survey of public opinion, and
misrepresented even its findings.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Op-Ed Page Editor
David Shipley
shipley@nytimes.com
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Israeli Use of White Phosphorus in Lebanon Injured UN Peacekeepers: Report
One observer said the illegal use of the devastating chemical agent is "yet another reason" why the Biden administration "must halt offensive weapons shipments to Israel."
Oct 22, 2024
Israel Defense Forces troops recently forced their way into a United Nations peacekeeper base in southern Lebanon and fired white phosphorus munitions in close enough proximity to injure 15 U.N. personnel, according to a report published Tuesday.
The Financial Times reviewed "a confidential report outlining a dozen recent incidents in which the IDF attacked international troops in Lebanon." The newspaper said the report was prepared by a country contributing troops to the 10,000-strong U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
UNIFIL forces and facilities have been repeatedly attacked by Israeli troops since the IDF launched a ground invasion of Lebanon earlier this month amid heavy aerial bombardment that has killed or wounded thousands of Lebanese. UNIFIL has condemned attacks on its positions and personnel as a "flagrant violation of international law."
According to the confidential report, Israeli forces began directly firing on UNIFIL bases on October 8. Two days later, two Indonesian peacekeepers were injured when an IDF tank fired on an observation tower.
In a separate incident that same day, IDF troops opened fire on a UNIFIL bunker where Italian peacekeepers sought refuge.
"This was not a mistake and not an accident," Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto said following the incident. "It could constitute a war crime and represented a very serious violation of international humanitarian law."
On October 13, UNIFIL said two IDF tanks crashed through the main gate of one of its bases and fired on a watchtower, destroying cameras and damaging the structure. The tanks left the base after about 45 minutes, following complaints by UNIFIL officials.
However, the report states that within an hour, IDF troops fired what UNIFIL believes were white phosphorus rounds approximately 100 meters, or 328 feet, north of the base, injuring 15 people.
Israel denies deliberately targeting UNIFIL troops and claims without evidence that U.N. peacekeepers are being used as human shields by Hezbollah, which has launched nearly relentless volleys of rockets and other projectiles at Israel in solidarity with Gaza. Israel has demanded the U.N. evacuate its peacekeepers from southern Lebanon. UNIFIL and countries contributing troops to the mission have steadfastly refused.
"Despite the pressure being exerted on the mission and our troop-contributing countries, peacekeepers remain in all positions," UNIFIL said on Sunday. "We will continue to undertake our mandated tasks to monitor and report."
White phosphorus is banned for use in civilian areas but is commonly deployed on battlegrounds as a smokescreen or to smoke out enemy forces. It burns as hot as 1,500°F. Water does not extinguish it. Upon contact, white phosphorus burns thermally and chemically straight through to the bone.
It can also enter the bloodstream and cause organ failure. Dressed injuries can reignite when bandages are removed and the wounds are reexposed to oxygen. Relatively mild white phosphorus burns are often fatal. Survivors often suffer various physical disabilities.
Israeli forces have used white phosphorus in Gaza and Lebanon since last October, when Israel retaliated for the deadliest-ever attack on its soil by obliterating the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave in a war for which it is now on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Israel has also used white phosphorus in past wars, including during the 2006 invasion of Lebanon and at a United Nations school during the 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead invasion of Gaza. Responding to a 2013 petition to Israel's High Court of Justice filed by human rights groups including Human Rights Watch, the IDF said it would no longer use white phosphorus in populated areas, with "very narrow exceptions" that it would not disclose.
Other nations also use white phosphorus, including the United States, whose forces fired munitions containing the chemical agent during the invasion of Iraq and elsewhere across the region during the post-9/11 so-called "War on Terrorism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Exposed: Elon Musk's Real Reasons for Going Full MAGA for Trump
"As eccentric and provocative as Elon Musk wants people to think he is, he's really just another corporate billionaire who wants to avoid accountability."
Oct 22, 2024
Tesla founder Elon Musk has spent his career cultivating the image of a provocateur who's driven by a passionate commitment to free speech and technological innovation—but a new report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen makes the case that when it comes to Musk's political priorities, there's nothing unique or trailblazing about him.
Musk, said Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool, is galvanized by the same concerns that lead oil executives to pour money into the campaigns of pro-fossil fuel politicians like Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump: self-preservation.
Claypool published research cataloguing the numerous business-related incentives Musk has for supporting Trump, whose rallies the billionaire has spoken at recently and for whose campaign he has created a super political action committee.
At least three of Musk's businesses—electric car maker Tesla, space exploration company SpaceX, and social media platform X—face a total of at least 11 criminal and civil investigations over alleged fraud, labor violations, and other accusations.
"Enforcement priorities can shift significantly when administrations change," wrote Claypool. "Musk's self-serving desire to thwart the numerous civil and criminal investigations into his businesses seems a likely reason for the billionaire's increased involvement in electoral politics."
"Trump has promised to put Musk in charge of government efficiency. Since Musk's companies receive billions in government contracts every year—and often clash with government regulators—Musk would in effect be given the power to trim the very agencies that regulate him."
The report points to federal investigations into Tesla's claims about the "self-driving" capability of its vehicles, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) examining whether the claims constitute criminal fraud, and a case at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging that Tesla retaliated against Black workers who reported being subjected to racist harassment at work.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating Musk's $44 billion takeover of X and the Federal Trade Commission has received reports that Musk gave orders to employees that would have breached an FTC consent decree which the company, formerly called Twitter, entered in 2011 as part of a settlement for alleged deceptive practices and privacy violations.
SpaceX has been accused by the Environmental Protection Agency of pollution that violated the Clean Water Act, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last month accused the company of safety violations in its rocket launches in Florida.
Musk, who is the richest person in the world with a net worth of nearly $250 billion, has attempted to fight federal investigations and cases against his companies by threatening a lawsuit against the FAA alleging "regulatory overreach" and challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board and a DOJ case.
Last October, as the DOJ was expanding its probe of Tesla and just after the EEOC sued the company over racial discrimination, Musk called for "comprehensive deregulation."
"As eccentric and provocative as Elon Musk wants people to think he is, he's really just another corporate billionaire who wants to avoid accountability," said Claypool. "Nobody—not government officials or massive corporations or billionaire executives—is above the law. But if self-serving campaigns to the contrary succeed, the injustice of America's two-tiered justice system will only deepen."
The Public Citizen report comes days after Musk urged his followers to sign his petition supporting "free speech and the right to bear arms," promising a random $1 million payment each day to one registered voter who signs—a scheme legal experts say amounts to illegal vote-buying for Trump.
At The Nation on Monday, Jeet Heer noted that Trump has pledged to put Musk in charge of a “government efficiency commission” that could help eliminate federal regulations and advised Democrats to fight Musk's attempts to influence voters by calling attention to what he really is: "an oligarch threatening democracy."
"Musk's eagerness to elect Trump is clearly rooted in a squalid quid pro quo," Heer wrote. "Trump has promised to put Musk in charge of government efficiency. Since Musk's companies receive billions in government contracts every year—and often clash with government regulators—Musk would in effect be given the power to trim the very agencies that regulate him."
"Musk," wrote Heer, "is the perfect face of the new American robber barons."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Outrageous': New Roundup Is 45 Times More Toxic
"With the new formulations of Roundup, Bayer had the opportunity to make us safer, but it did the opposite," one expert said.
Oct 22, 2024
Facing tens of thousands of lawsuits after it acquired Monsanto, Bayer promised to remove cancer-linked glyphosate from its commercial Roundup weed killers by 2023. But an analysis published by Friends of the Earth on Tuesday reveals that the replacement is even more dangerous.
The environmental group found that many residential Roundup products still do contain glyphosate, and those that don't have replaced it with a chemical cocktail that is 45 times more toxic to human health following long-term exposure.
"With the new formulations of Roundup, Bayer had the opportunity to make us safer, but it did the opposite," Kendra Klein, deputy director of science for Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "Bayer's willingness to deceive the public and disregard our health as it continues to cash in on the Roundup brand name is outrageous."
"In short, the new Roundup is not the old Roundup—it's worse."
Roundup weed killer was first commercially released by Monsanto 50 years ago. Since then, tens of thousands of people say they have come down with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after repeated use of the product and its active ingredient glyphosate, which the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer says is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Despite the risk, it is so widely used that it has been found in 80% of a test of U.S. urine samples.
"The human toll of Roundup is enormous—tens of thousands of people have lost their lives and their health because of this toxic weed killer," Klein said.
In response to both legal challenges and popular pressure, Bayer announced in 2021 that it would remove glyphosate from residential Roundup sold in the U.S. within two years.
To track how well Bayer kept that promise, Friends of the Earth assessed the Roundup products for sale at Lowe's and Home Depot—the largest home and garden stores in the U.S.—between June and October of 2024.
It found that seven of the Roundup products for sale still contained glyphosate, while the eight that did not used chemicals "of dramatically greater concern."
Bayer has replaced glyphosate with a combination of four chemicals—fluazifop-P-butyl, triclopyr, diquat dibromide, and imazapic—the latter two of which are banned in the European Union. All four chemicals are even more dangerous to health than glyphosate on average following chronic exposure, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) analysis of safety studies. The new ingredients have been linked to kidney and liver damage; reproductive, birth, and development problems; and allergic reactions or irritation that impact the eyes, skin, and respiratory system.
While all four are toxic, one stands out: Diquat dibromide is 200 times more toxic than glyphosate and is considered a "highly hazardous pesticide."
The new ingredients also pose a greater risk to the environment. They are, on average, more likely to threaten bees, birds, worms, and fish and other aquatic life. They are also less likely to break down in the environment, and therefore more likely to infiltrate groundwater and pollute rivers and drinking water.
"In short, the new Roundup is not the old Roundup—it's worse," Friends of the Earth concluded in the report.
The environmental group also criticized Bayer for not providing a warning to consumers about the altered ingredients, as well as lax federal law that does not require pesticide makers to alert shoppers when they change the ingredients of a known brand. While pesticide makers do have to list the active ingredients of a pesticide on the container, the average consumer may not be aware of the relative toxicity of these chemicals. A frequent Roundup user is also likely to assume that anything sold under that brand is similarly toxic to products they have used before.
"Drug companies are not allowed to replace the aspirin in a brand-name pain reliever with oxycontin or fentanyl, and for good reason," Friends of the Earth senior campaigner Sarah Starman said. "It is unconscionable that the Environmental Protection Agency allows this toxic sleight of hand and unethical that Bayer is exposing consumers to dramatically greater risks with no warning."
Friends of the Earth called on Bayer to develop safer chemicals and retire toxic brands like Roundup. At the very least, it urged the company to sell the new formulations under a different brand and warn buyers of the new products' health and environmental risks.
Home and garden retailers, the group argued, should also step up by removing all Roundup products from their stores and online catalogs, or at least selling them with clear warnings of the new risks; phase out toxic pesticides; and offer safer and more organic options.
Finally, the group called on the EPA to toughen its regulations by requiring ingredient-specific safety warnings on commercial pesticides, mandating that new formulations be sold under a new brand, and banning chemicals that harm human health and the environment from consumer products.
"Bayer, like other chemical companies, cannot be trusted to protect our health," Starman said. "We need serious reform at the EPA to ensure that the agency does its duty to protect people and the environment from dangerous pesticides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular