Action Alert: NYT Misinforms on Iran Crisis

Thank you, FAIR, for highlighting an issue that was already of concern to me when I saw the said coverage in the New York Times. This is the letter that I submitted to the Public Editor as you suggested:

Dear Mr. Brisbane,

As a regular reader of the NYT for over 25 years now, I must bring to your notice (as I am sure others will or already have, including the blog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting/FAIR, from which much of the copy below is provided) that your newspaper's coverage of the Iran nuclear capability issue in recent days and weeks has contained exaggerations or outright misrepresentations, including:

a) Steven Erlanger's article on the front page of the January 5, 2012 edition which contains the following paragraph:

The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign.

There is, of course, no such IAEA assessment. The IAEA report the Times is mischaracterizing raised questions about the state of the Iranian nuclear program, and presented the evidence, mostly years old, that Iran's critics say points towards a weapons program. But the IAEA report made no firm conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and noted that its inspections of Iran's facilities continue to show no diversion of uranium for military purposes.

b) Elsewhere in the Times, readers saw this in an article by Clifford Krauss about a potential conflict over the Strait of Hormuz:

Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons.
Again, Iran has said repeatedly and emphatically that they are doing no such thing.

Interestingly, the Times has changed the online version of the Erlanger article, removing the relevant paragraph, but without noting the error.

Overstating the case on Iran isn't a new problem at the Times. One story last month (12/8/11) referred matter-of-factly to the "recent public debate in Israel about whether time is running out for a military strike to slow Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon."

With tensions between Iran and the United States rising, and Republican presidential candidates agitating for a more confrontational stance, it is imperative that leading media outlets like the Times get the story right. If the Times wishes to do better than it did during the run-up to the Iraq War, it should be more careful.

As someone who counts the New York Times as his favourite newspaper globally, and who has been dismayed by the Iraq coverage referred to above (and other instances), as well as someone who did a graduate school thesis on the Times' coverage of the Holocaust (the first such academic work to do so), I would hope that the Times would heed the lessons of the not-too-distant past and pay more attention to its characterization of issues that are incendiary enough without being further fuelled and stoked. Iran's nuclear program is indeed cause for concern globally and in the United States, of course — I am not downplaying the importance of the issue. But the more urgent the story, the more careful journalists and their media houses must be in how these issues are conveyed, including the language used.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Roy Wadia

Vancouver, Canada / Bombay, India

Hello,

I think it is of utmost importance that you adhere to a stricter policy of fact verification. Not once but twice on 1/5/12 ( Steven Erlanger's article and Clifford Krauss' article) you published provably false statements concerning Iran. As a long time reader it is disappointing to hear about such instances. Given the already tense political situation regarding Iran it is necessary that the paper of record report as accurately as possible.

Thank you,

Nat

My email to the NYT:

I don't waste my money buying the NYT because I have FAIR.org contacting me every time you guys decide to stretch the truth, report just one side of an issue (usually in the context of acting as the unofficial local, state and federal governments' Propaganda Ministry, i.e., most of the Occupy Wall Street), or simply make shit up! And FAIR contacts me about you creeps quite often.

Today I received this and Action Alert about how the NYT is misinforming on the Iran Crisis:

http://www.fair.org/blog/#post-20152

What FAIR doesn't point out, but which I suspect because I saw it plenty of times even at the small-town rags I worked at while a reporter for nearly a decade, is that part of this story's intention is to try to stir up controversy, because nothing sells more advertising at higher rates than controversy.

The public needs to be constantly warned – not just informed – that the most important goal of the corporate media, like all for-profit organizations, is, well, PROFIT! Most laypeople (in a journalism sense) think informing the public of what they need to know is the news media's main goal, but the truth is informing the public is only a secondary goal. And "informing" is really a misnomer because the corporate media really only tell the public what the corporate media WANT them to know. Informing them, which carries with the the assumption of what's in the public's best interest, is actually irrelevant, even counterproductive to profiteering off the public's ignorance.

In other words, you suck.

Sincerely,

Frank Sellers
Philadelphia, Pa.

Thanks, FAIR guys. Great work. For ease of reference for the recipient, I moved the conclusion and request to the top and otherwise copied and pasted the entire FAIR assessment as recieved in the FAIR missive. The beginning of my e-mail, then, looked like this: To the New York Times
Public Editor Arthur Brisbane, as per FAIR

Dear Sir:

In two articles yesterday (1/5/12), the New York Times misled readers about the state of Iran's nuclear program.

With tensions between Iran and the United States rising, and Republican presidential candidates agitating for a more confrontational stance, it is imperative that outlets like the New York Times get the story right. If the Times wishes to do better than it did during the run-up to the Iraq War, it should be more careful.

Please (1) investigate, (2) explain the editing of the January 5 front-page article, and (3) correct both misleading assertions about Iran and nuclear weapons.
——————
Thanks again, FAIR people. Appreciated.

Wanting a war with Iran?

Editor,

Your false statements about Iranian activities remind me of the lies and rising war drumbeat leading up to war with Iraq. I seem to remember the NYT had a big part to play in that misadventure, for which we are still paying "in blood and teasure".

Here's some questions for you. 1. Has the Times ever posted a "correction" or "retraction" of statements and justifications made to justify "Shock and Awe"? 2. Have you made any apologies to the victims for the part you played in commiting these war crimes? 3. Do you now want a war with Iran?

The IAEA report made no firm conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and noted that its inspections of Iran's facilities continue to show no diversion of uranium for military purposes.

4. Does anybody check the facts before deciding what is, "Fit to Print"?

B. O'Brien

One of your authors, Erlanger is dangerous and you published an erroneous article about Iran and its nuclear program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/europe-moves-toward-ban-on-iran-oil.html?_r=1

In a piece by Clifford Krauss about a potential conflict over the Strait of Hormuz:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/business/oil-price-would-skyrocket-if-iran-closed-the-strait.html

"Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons."

Again, Iran has said repeatedly and emphatically that they are doing no such thing.

CBS even received an award for a documentary that edited out what the main points of Ahmadinejad said to Mike Wallace in that interview, FOX is poisoning even the NYTimes I see, as well as CBS.

You need to investigate and explain your editing of a January 5 front-page article, and to correct both your misleading assertions about Iran and nuclear weapons.

Oh, and read this:
.http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4430
You would also do well to read this article about the scaremongering going on since 1984 over the "threat" if Iran getting the "bomb."

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html

The NYTimes has got to do better than it did during the Iraq war, touting it all along based on falsehoods.
If there is a military conflict with Iran, it will be partly your fault for telling such lies and distorting the truth. The US/Israeli policies are pushing the US in a dangerous direction, while concerned with Iran, Israel is still an apartheid state in Gaza, and this is a way to distract from that fact. After all, if we are concerned with "WWIII," then Palestinian's human rights have to take a back seat.
Correct your mistakes about Iran and stop trying to scare the public into a favorable view of attacking Iran.

And another thing, so what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? Pakistan, India and Israel have them. So, why are they privileged and Iran not? The US and Russia have enough to kill the whole planet many times over, why is there not a push to get them to get rid of their weapons, why pick on other countries for what they themselves have? The goal should be to get rid of all the nuclear weapons everywhere, they have the potential to kill the whole world.
What human ambition is greater than protecting entire species and all of life on earth, which nuclear weapons and even nuclear power has the potential to do? Israel's 400 nuclear warheads is no threat? Israel's continued apartheid in Gaza and the West Bank is a worse threat, at least for the poor Palestinians, or has anyone forgotten about the 1948, decades in the planning and making, of the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Iran has not even said they want to wipe Israel off the map. Ahmadinejad was quoting an Imam, who said that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Talk about paraphrasing, those who got from that that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, got it dead wrong.
Read" "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," by Ilan Pappe, who is an Israeli historian, yes, and a Jew.

To the editor:

I've been following the Times' reporting on Iran and continue to be concerned about incorrect and irresponsible statements. When the recent IAEA report on Iranian nukes was released, the Times presented the facts misleadingly, reminding me of the mistakes made by the paper during the run-up to the Iraq war.

This recent article by Steven Erlanger does it again. The IAEA report's conclusions have been so overblown in the US media in general that it's especially important that the Times retain greater skepticism of the official US line in order to make sure it gets the facts right. It would thus appear crucial to broach the issue of whether or not the IAEA report's conclusions, which are really nothing new, are being mischaracterized and exploited by US officials for anti-Iran or pro-war propaganda purposes. It also seems highly relevant to mention/discuss the fact that the new head of the IAEA Amano has political links to the US (revealed in State Dept. cables released by Wikileaks) and has previously stated his commitment to US foreign policy objectives on Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/230076
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/21/slanting-the-case-on-irans-nukes/

I'm extremely concerned that the paper's misinformation might lead our country into another disastrous, unnecessary, and immoral war in the region.

Sincerely,

Yosef Brody, PhD

Color the NY Times yellow. To say they have 'misinformed" readers is too mild. They no longer represent truth. They represent special interests who want to wage a bigger war in the Middle East. What I wonder : will there even be a history for the NY Times to go down in as the turncoat lapdog it has become?

New York Times
Public Editor Arthur Brisbane

I am a New York Times reader and am alarmed to see that you have included inaccuracies in a January 5 front page article by Steven Erlanger and a piece by Clifford Krauss. Both made misleading claims about Iran and nuclear weapons. Americans are haunted by the memory of false reports in the New York Times that led to years of war, thousands of deaths, ruinous expense and damaged foreign relations between our country and the Middle East.

Your paper bears enormous responsibility when reporting on topics such as Iran, when there are factions eager to foment aggression there. You need to be wary of sources eager to lead us to war, and to search out the truth in the best tradition of investigative reporting.

Please investigate and correct the misleading assertions your paper has made about Iran's nuclear activity, and exercise caution in future reports on topics of such gravity.

Mr. Brisbane,
Your newspaper printed false stories leading the U.S. into the unconstitutional, illegal war crime of invading Iraq. Now, you print false stories about Iranian WMD misrepresenting the recent IAEA report on Iran's nuclear development. If you wish not to be perceived as an unrepentant war-monger organization, you must investigate and explain the editing of the January 5 front-page article, and to correct both misleading assertions about Iran and nuclear weapons. You must also stop printing erroneous information on the Iranian nuclear developments in the future.
David Broadwater
Atascadero
California

The importance of the New York Times
requires that its stories about Iran nuclear
intentions remain free of sloppy
reporting or subjective assertions.

We hope your editorial oversight aspires
to a high national standard for accuracy
where the subject concerns Iran.

rand dawson oregon

Public Editor Arthur Brisbane,

For you to hype up public outrage over Iran's "nuke" program reminds me of the propaganda originating during the McCarthy hearings when fear mongering was the main tactic of those seeking political power. Haven't we Americans been lobbied by the Israel Public Affairs Committee enough during its long existence and its complete control of our Congress and executive branch? Israel has done as it wishes with the Arab community and demanded and received hundreds of billions of tax-payers dollars to defeat Middle East armies, occupy Palestinian lands, seize the Golan Heights, establish illegal settlements throughout the area, imprison Palestinians without trial, murder nine humanitarian workers, kill 1,300 defenseless Palestinians in Gaza, ignore Moslem human rights, usurp Palestinian water rights, bully and humiliate Palestinians. All these violations of international law do not earn criticism from the New York Times. Have you no sense of decency? The Times was one of the greatest newspapers in the world once and hesitated to defend the indefensible (to borrow from Orwell). Where is the moral compass? One of the finest chapters in American journalismâ┚¬”honoring objectivity and veracity–is dead, and you killed it.

Frank A. Walter

Why is Iran hardening its nuclear production facilities?

This is not a chicken or the egg thing. It is not safe to automatically discount Iran's need to protect itself or Israel's need to do the same.

So, let's look at the facts. Israel has been attacked multiple times by hostile neighbors, some of whom have vowed to destroy it, to which Iran's rhetoric on the subject is not helpful.

No one would be bothering with Iran if they were not deliberately belligerent and behaving in a manner consistent with military objectives and not just electric power generations.

Is that simple enough? Again â┚¬Ã‚¦ why is Iran hardening it's nuclear production facilities if it is not planning on making a nuclear weapon of at some time in the future switching over the making a weapon?

HELLO !

AGAIN – WHY IS IRAN HARDENING ITS NUCLEAR PRODUCTION FACILITIES AGAINST MILITARY ATTACK?

You expect Israel to reveal strategic information but what do you think Iran is doing?
Why is Iran hardening its nuclear facilities?
What will Israel do by explaining how many nuclear weapons it has?
Israel is surrounded by enemies who have attacked it, Has anyone attacked Iran? Why does Iran think it needs to destroy Israel – why are their posters in every mosque calling for the destruction of Israel. Do you think there are any posters anywhere in Israel calling for the destruction of Iran?

Mike, what is Iran hardening it nuclear facilities?

As far as your recollection, maybe you need to go back and look at the history of Israel, as soon as they were declared a state they were attacked, and have been attacked and terrorized ever since – a fact that Iran has been supportive of. Talk to Lebanese who had their beautiful country ruined by Palestinian and radical Islamic terrorists. Remember the Munich Olympics, all the airplane hijackings — your memory is pretty selective â┚¬Ã‚¦ which is why I am asking NOW â┚¬Ã‚¦. what purpose does it serve to Iran to put their nuclear facilities in the Holy City of Kuum, in a hardened facility?

Any reason?

> but I don't take my information from Israeli state propaganda.

Clever implication that I do just because I am against Islamic terror and defend Israel's right to exist. So blow it out your ear if you cannot be direct and have to name call and imply your opinions because you cannot actually defend them with facts.

> the constant threat of attack from the U.S. and Israel, two countries
> with vastly larger military capabilities than Iran, may have something to do with it.

The US, the European Union and the IAEA all said they do not have a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons, but they do not want Iran to possess bomb making materials. Russia offered to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, so rather than being a peaceful program and build a trust and openness with the world, instead Iran choose to make belligerent comments about destroying Israel, cutting off oil to the world, and send arms and economic aid to Hamas, Hezbollah and also joins Syria is killing their own people when they demonstrate in public for more freedom and human rights.

Just what kind of person are you who continually ignores all of this preferring to make distorted posts based on innuendo and hate in support of terrorists. This has been going on for years, if the US wanted to attack Iran we could have done it already, but the truth is most of the other countries in the region do not want Iran to go nuclear and begin an arms race in an already volatile area.

Bravo to you though for demonstrating what kind of people support Iran and its crazy rabid Islamic leaders.

By the way, do you ever watch Rich Steves travel videos? There is one where he visits Iran and sows quite clearly big posters in mosques calling for the destruction of Israel. So, I assume you must be happy to support a state that is run by religious fanatics where all the people who are not active in Shiite Islam will never have the rights of the elite abusive majority of the Shia religious fanatics. Somehow you compare that to the US and the West and up finding only fault with it.

Thrn you call me paranoid and delusional â┚¬Ã‚¦ par for the course if one is looking for a job in Iran.

"Iran\'s 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said has said that if Iran oil is banned not a single drop of oil will pass through Hormuz Strait." — Islamic Republic News Agency (Dec 29) http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30739102&SRCH=1

"Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi has said that if oil sanctions are imposed on the Islamic Republic, Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz and will not allow other countries to export â┚¬Ã…“a drop of oilâ┚¬Ã‚ through the strategic waterway, IRNA reported on Tuesday." — http://tehrantimes.com/politics/93958-iran-will-close-hormuz-strait-in-case-of-oil-embargo-vp

These go against your claim that the Iranian government has not claimed it will stop oil at the Strait. When even Iranian sources say that the Iranians have done the "such thing" you claim they haven't, you should revise your Alert.