NYT's Embarrassing Response on Iranian Missiles
12/06/2010 by Peter Hart
New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane wrote a response (of a sort) to the criticisms that the paper's reporting on Iranian missiles was fundamentally flawed. It's hard to believe that his column was meant be taken seriously.
To review: The Times published a story, based on a WikiLeaks cable, on November 29 alleging that Iran possesses powerful missiles with "the capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe." The Times kept the cable off its website, but it was available on the WikiLeaks site. The cable showed that these were not facts, but U.S. claims--and weak ones at that, to the point where doubts existed as to whether the kind of missiles Iran had supposedly purchased from North Korea even existed.
The Washington Post wrote a piece (12/1/10) that cast considerable doubt on the Times' account. (The Post pointed out that the U.S. position was apparently based on a German newspaper article that did not fully corroborate the U.S. claims the Times was touting.) That was followed by a Times article (12/3/10) headlined "Wider Window Into Iran's Missile Capabilities Offers a Murkier View," which hinted at some of the weaknesses in the case--the ones the Times didn't see fit to report the first time. For a useful comparison, compare the definitive headline of the original story: "Iran Fortifies Its Missiles With the Aid of North Korea." FAIR issued an Action Alert (12/1/10) and a follow-up (12/3/10) urging activists to ask Brisbane to address the problems in the Times' coverage.
So now to Brisbane's column. Here is what he wrote about the incident:
United States officials believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government obtained so-called BM-25 missiles from North Korea, enabling Iran to extend its range enough to strike Western Europe or Moscow. This development largely explains the Obama administration's willingness to shift its missile defense strategy in Europe.
But wait, other news organizations have now weighed in to say the Times' coverage of the BM-25 missiles was misleading, that other authorities have cast strong doubt on whether such missiles even exist. That leads me to the further point: Publication isn't necessarily a short hop to the full truth. It is sometimes only a first step. But it is the essential first step in a process that has to start before the marketplace of news and information can establish the facts.
Read those last three sentences again. He is saying (without really saying it) that the Times' publication of an erroneous article was commendable, "the essential first step in a process that has to start before the marketplace of news and information can establish the facts."
I guess you could say the same thing about the Times' infamous pre-war "scoop" on Iraq's aluminum tubes. It was totally wrong, but other news outlets--including the Washington Post--published articles that accurately conveyed the doubts about the bogus intelligence the Times was touting. So, yes, the Times is performing a service, in the sense that other reporters get the opportunity to demonstrate how poorly the Times is covering important news stories.
Brisbane asked: "The real question should be: Are Times readers and Americans at large better informed on these issues because of the stories?" In this case, the answer is obviously no. But somehow he arrived at the opposite conclusion.
Tags: Arthur Brisbane, missiles, North Korea, WikiLeaks
Posted in Asia, Iran, New York Times | Permalink | Trackback | Share
Diggit
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo
Facebook
StumbleUpon
December 6th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
[...] NYT's Embarrassing Response on Iranian Missiles [...]
December 6th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Ahh, the Paper of Record!
"We publish; the marketplace fact checks."
Coming up next: a Times exclusive feature expressing bafflement over the death of print journalism.
December 10th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I have noticed that Brisbane is significantly more defensive in his uncrticial support of the Times's biased and erroneous reporting than his predessessors
December 10th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Well Iran has promised us on a stack of Korans that they have no interest in missiles, or nuclear weapons.I believe them.Then again i still believe in Santa.So if this story or that is wrong…….
December 10th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Great work. Thanks for posting.
December 11th, 2010 at 11:41 am
The marketplace establishes the facts. Shades of Steven Colbert (Colbare).
December 11th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Sounds like Sword over Pens Envy!
December 11th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
How prestigious newspapers with unusually impeccable credentials like the New York Times can pass along specious accounts of missiles and nuclear weapons or attempts to manufacture the same by Iran while Israel sits with 300 nukes intimidating its Muslim neighbors defies common sense. Will the American people ever have light shone on the Middle East with anything resembling objectivity or honesty or veracity? I am beginning to think not!
December 12th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Frank I think the simple truth is Israel and the United States…Russia and China….Britain and France have proven they will not use this horrible horrible technology lightly.The horror of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a memory that chills all of us.But Iran with their religious madness and support of terrorism.The insanity of the regime in North korea.Pakistan with its ties with the Taliban.It does not give one confidence.
December 13th, 2010 at 2:37 am
It doesn't have to be the truth or anything resembling the truth? Just throw it out there in the "marketplace" and see what sticks? Shameful. Truly shameful.
December 13th, 2010 at 7:17 am
I wonder about something in this printing of massive volumes concerning Wiki-leaks.If you are listening to two diplomats jawing about this or that.Throwing out opinions fact based or not. Basically shooting the shit.Are we going to take this pilfered fly on the wall stuff as a matter of record?And then feel angered at print media that passes on what these people said?
December 15th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Michael Moore says he will bail out Mr Assange.Wow who could of called that one?They are starting a club.Its not called LOVE AMERICA FIRST.
December 15th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I hope that FAIR today throwing in whole heartedly with Wickileaks will lead to two things being done by FAIR personal and her bloggers.
1)I hope they help in a thorough investigation into the ways that WL obtains their information.The legalities and so forth beyond the morals of pedaling in what may be in effect stolen information.Whistling down the lane and being the third person in the line who finally releases information is not deniability.It does not remove the onus from you.
2)We have heard at length from our President,our secretary of state ,intelligence analysts ,and an endless stream of those holding top secret clearance that this is devastating.Let us not be flippant in our belief that they are only trying to keep egg off their faces.Lets give some weight to their concerns and delve deeply into the ramifications of these document thefts.
Freedom of speech never meant having bugs/secret video cameras planted in the oval office to be live streamed on CNN.Although there were a few moment Monica spent with Bill that may of been good on girls gone wild.
Although If