NYTimes' Double Standards

[bloodyminded]

In the context of a story about an al-Jazeera reporter being detained at Guantanamo for seven years, the New York Times has all but openly declared that it should be held to lower standards than should al-Jazeera.

It's all about spin and propaganda, baby. The Times will not use the word "torture" or phrases like "human rights atrocities"--when discussing US detainees.

Including those who have been tortured, even killed.

But it uses such terms all the time when discussing foreign countries.

I don't even see why some people--especially those on the Right--criticize the Times' bias so often. You'd think they'd embrace it, since it is their own.

by Glenn Greenwald

I've written many times before about Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera cameraman who was abducted by the U.S. in late 2001, tortured at Bagram, sent to Guantanamo for seven years -- where he was never charged with any crime and was interrogated overwhelmingly about Al Jazeera's operations, not about Terrorism -- and then suddenly released without explanation last year, as though the whole thing never happened. The due-process-free imprisonment of this journalist by the U.S. government was ignored almost completely by the American media (other than Nicholas Kristof), even as it righteously obsessed on the far shorter imprisonment of journalists by countries such as Iran and North Korea (hey, look over there at those tyrannical countries - they imprison our journalists!!!!!). Aside from al-Hajj, we've imprisoned numerous other journalists without charges in Iraq -- and continue to this day to do so -- including ones who work for Reuters and the Associated Press.

Continue Reading

Today, The New York Times' media reporter Brian Stelter profiles al-Hajj, who is now an on-air correspondent for Al Jazeera. The article recounts the details of al-Hajj's detention, his description of his torture, and the physical and psychological wounds he still suffers from his treatment at the hands of his American captors. All things considered, the article is a decent effort to explain what happened, and Stelter deserves credit for bringing some desperately needed attention to this story. Nonetheless, the article contains some rather striking and revealing passages, beginning with this:

Among Al Jazeeras viewers in the Arab world since the 9/11 attacks, perhaps nothing has damaged perceptions of America more than Guantánamo Bay. For that reason, Mr. Hajj, who did a six-part series on the prison after his release, is a potent weapon for the network, which does not always strive for journalistic objectivity on the subject of his treatment. In an interview, Ahmed Sheikh, the editor in chief of Al Jazeera, called Mr. Hajj "one of the victims of the human rights atrocities committed by the ex-U.S. administration."

It's amazing that the NYT would claim that Al Jazeera's description of the Bush administration's conduct as it concerns al-Hajj and other detainees -- "one of the victims of the human rights atrocities committed by the ex-U.S. administration" -- departs from precepts of "journalistic objectivity." How can the lawless detention, brutal torture, numerous detainee deaths, obvious targeting of unfriendly media outlets, and explicit renunciation of the Gevena Conventions be described in any other way? The breach of "journalistic objectivity" comes not from calling this conduct what it is, but from refusing to do so -- from obfuscating what took place by using soothing euphemisms and according equal deference to the plainly false denials of those who did it, such as what takes place in these passages Stelter wrote:

Asked about questioning about Al Jazeera, a Pentagon spokesman said members of the media "are not targeted by U.S. forces, but there is no special category that gives members of media organizations immunity if captured engaging in suspicious, terror-related activity." The spokesman added that all detainees were treated humanely while in custody.

Are the Pentagon's denials true? Stelter doesn't say, instead merely passing on al-Hajj's allegations and the governments' denials. Using the standard definition of American journalism, resolving conflicting claims and stating the actual truth is a violation of "journalistic objectivity." Journalists only neutrally pass on claims, not report which ones are true. That's why Al Jazeera's doing so with regard to the Bush administration's conduct is so offensive to The New York Times.

Notably, however, The New York Times itself, in news articles, has repeatedly accused other countries of engaging in "human rights atrocities," often using that exact phrase to do so: see, for instance, here (America intervened to stop "atrocities" in Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo); here (accusing Peru of "human rights atrocities"); here (accusing Central American militias of being "guilty of wartime human rights atrocities"); here (referencing "human rights atrocities" in Bosnia); here (describing "human rights atrocities" by Sri Lanka); and here (detailing "human rights atrocities" by Serbia) Apparently, it's a perfectly acceptable "objective" journalistic practice to describe a government's actions as "human rights atrocities" -- just as long as it's not the U.S. Government being so accused. What a strange concept of "journalistic objectivity" The New York Times has adopted.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

It's all about spin and propaganda, baby. The Times will not use the word "torture" or phrases like "human rights atrocities"--when discussing US detainees.

Including those who have been tortured, even killed....

Patently false....I present the infamous Abner Louima "torture" case, readily reported by the NYT...and other NYT pieces. If your focus be a specific kind of detainee and "torture", then you are being very selective indeed for unknown reasons.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/l/abner_louima/index.html

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/claim-us-used-eminem-raps-on-detainees/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24wed2.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/middleeast/22detain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Edited December 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Patently false....I present the infamous Abner Louima "torture" case, readily reported by the NYT...and other NYT pieces. If your focus be a specific kind of detainee and "torture", then you are being very selective indeed for unknown reasons.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/l/abner_louima/index.html

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/claim-us-used-eminem-raps-on-detainees/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24wed2.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/middleeast/22detain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thanks for underlining the article's point with the links you provide:

The first (the one you jaw-droppingly specify as "evidence")is not about "US detainees" as the term is being used in the article: it's about police brutality. That is obviously a separate issue; and no one--certainly nowwhere in the article I posted--does the claim arise that the Times or anyone else refuses to report on polcie brutality. A non sequiter.

The second one is such a nice illustration of the article's thesis that I'm surprised you use it; perhaps you figured I wouldn't read it or somehting, so you could pretend it applies: it is about a detainee claiming to be tortured. There is no editorial line about how it WAS torture. Whereas, when speaking of foreign governments, the word is used routinely (as cited precisely in the article).

The third article isn't a news story, but an editorial. Nevertheless, while it stands on the detainees's rights to try to sue, it takes no stance about whether the torture allegations are true or not. This is not an incorrect stance (because in these particular cases we just don't know as of yet); the problem is that such considerations are not taken when it comes to claims made by victims of foreign governments...as is shown in the OP.

Your fourth link also doesn't apply. It's not about American abuse of detainees--it's about Iraqi abuse of detainees. This article even goes to pains to say "what the Americans didn't know and what the Iraqis didn't tell them.....

To sum up your underwhelming links:

1. Not even ABOUT the subject under discussion;

2. reports on CLAIMS of torture;

3. An editorial: Reports on CLAIMS of torture;

4. Specifically proclaims the Americans' innocence of wrongdoing. True, there IS a rare use of the word "torture", involving Americans, without the quotaiton marks, later in the article...but it was all in the past, you see, so it's of little consequence.

This is how propaganda works.

And, interestingly, it takes it as a GIVEN that the Iraqi-led torture DID happen. Because, of course, if Americans aren't involved, we can believe that torture happens. Right now. But if we're invovled (a rare admission) it happened...in the past. Maybe.

Thanks for adding fuel to the original argument.

This was all very clear, all spelled out in the article; which suggests you didn't even read the original article; you read my comments, skipped the article itself, and imagined yourself knowledgeable enough (about that which you haven't read) to respond.

Edited December 28, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....This was all very clear, all spelled out in the article; which suggests you didn't even read the original article; you read my comments, skipped the article itself, and imagined yourself knowledgeable enough (about that which you haven't read) to respond.

Duh....that's why your post was patently false. No need to tease out the pretzel logic of your intent. My only purpose was to demonstrate that the NYT has indeed reported on many such cases.

You cannot squirm away from this fact, but I am sure you will try.

[bloodyminded]

Duh....that's why your post was patently false. No need to tease out the pretzel logic of your intent. My only purpose was to demonstrate that the NYT has indeed reported on many such cases.

You cannot squirm away from this fact, but I am sure you will try.

It's not squirming to point out your factual errors, as I did at some length. Of course I knew you'd disagree--without touching on any of the points raised, since you cannot.

Again: one of the four links you provided is not even ABOUT the subjerct at hand. (!!!!! Amazing.)

And the other three go some way to buttressing the author's original point.

So once again, thank you for your help.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not squirming to point out your factual errors, as I did at some length. Of course I knew you'd disagree--without touching on any of the points raised, since you cannot.

The points are obvious....except to you.

Again: one of the four links you provided is not even ABOUT the subjerct at hand. (!!!!! Amazing.)

And the other three go some way to buttressing the author's original point.

So what was your point?

So once again, thank you for your help.

That's what America is for....we provide the media, criticism, and wars to get you through another boring winter.

[bloodyminded]

The points are obvious....except to you.

The points you made buttress the OP's thesis.

So what was your point?

I was correct that you didn't read the article.

That's what America is for....we provide the media, criticism, and wars to get you through another boring winter.

America has excellent media critics and brilliant dissidents, no question about it.

[Oleg Bach]

Ethnic cleansing or genocide? Which is the real word that describes the true evil of the matter and which is the softened word invented by western media?

[Michael Hardner]

So what was your point?

It's in the OP. Just admit when you've misfired, will you ?

[Oleg Bach]

The NYTimes is a buisness venture..double standards double your profits.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's in the OP. Just admit when you've misfired, will you ?

OK...you misfired.

[Michael Hardner]

OK...you misfired.

Stubborn !

[Shwa]

...just as long as it's not the U.S. Government being so accused. What a strange concept of "journalistic objectivity" The New York Times has adopted.

So?

There seems to be a big surprise when big US media does their best to serve the interests of the US government. This is no "double standard" it is business status quo. Believing that the NYT would somehow be neutral, objective or impartial is a wee bit of delusion which is likely propagated by the NYT themselves.

It is a good that this sort of thing is pointed out on a regular basis, as a public service, and I applaud you on that bloodyminded, but this sort of thing is not new, will never go away and is asmuch a part of the culture as baseball & apple pie.

It goes without saying that for the large part Canadian media follows this pattern since governments tend to control the largest sources of content - product - for big news organizations.

[Oleg Bach]

If the bank owned the publication and that publication was bankrupt..the publication would report that all is fine. Success and finacial well being is strickly a blief system, a religion. You must believe that you are the top dog to be the top dog..just as you must firmly believe that you are the submissive bottom dog..it's all about what is projected..But some have projected longer than others hense are more established.

[JB Globe]

Stubborn !

He takes after his handle quite well.