After our new alert (2/24/12), the New York Times public editor's office contacted FAIR to let us know that Arthur Brisbane responded to readers who complained about one of the articles discussed in the alert.
Below is that response, which was emailed to readers. It was not published on the Times' site.
Thanks for your message, one of a number I received about this story. I have had an opportunity to ask the reporter, Scott Shane, about it and reflect on the circumstances. On the positive side, I applaud the Times for covering the findings of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as I believe that the scale of civilian casualties is a very important aspect of the U.S. drone program. Covering this aspect of the issue, especially considering the findings that civilians casualties are significant, is essential for the Times and, it should be mentioned, not welcomed by the Obama administration.
Among the challenges of covering the drone program is the fact that administration officials refuse to speak for the record on the basis that the program is secret. Obviously, this is an area of contention–I have written in the past challenging the Times to do more to force the government to say more for the record about the program and its legal rationale.
The Times since then has sued the government to publish its legal rationale.
There is, I believe, a very legitimate question about whether Mr. Shane should have used the anonymous quote in his recent story. His defense is that there's a good case for letting readers know what their government actually said. On the day he was reporting the story, Mr. Shane said, the only response he had from the government was the statement he used, which had come to him as a formulated statement via email. It can certainly be argued that the government's statement appeared to put the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in a bad light, particularly the unnamed official's phrase about a "number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al-Qaeda succeed."
On the other hand, the quote does not specifically accuse the Bureau of anything, and it is possible to interpret the quote as referring not to the Bureau itself but instead to sources of information to the Bureau, which could include militants and others with an interest in countering the U.S. drone program.
Mr. Shane acknowledges it would have helped the story if he had been able to get officials to clarify the meaning of the statement but he was not able to do so.
On balance, my view is that the quote was vague and did not explicitly accuse the Bureau of anything. The Times' reliance on anonymous statements by U.S. officials remains a significant problem but it has to be acknowledged that the paper, via its lawsuit, is actively engaged in forcing more public accountability of the program. At the present, given the choice between no statement at all from the government and an anonymous one, the anonymous one is preferable so long as it complies with the Times' policy on anonymous sources (which I believe allows for the quote that was used in this instance).
Mr. Shane, thanks to readers raising questions about this and other uses of anonymous quotes in coverage of the drone program, tells me he will work in the future to try and get better clarity from officials when they offer statements like this one, which carried a dark implication re the Bureau but was vaguely worded.
Sincerely,
Art Brisbane
public editor
About Peter Hart
If you read the article, Brisbane's explanation doesn't really address the issue. No matter what the fine print says, the military guy seems to be lumping the Bureau together with terrorists. Brisbane acknowledges that and that's a horrible thing to introduce into print.
But the explanation about why they had to do this just doesn't wash.
The idea that you use a hidden official for such a heavy quote because the U.S. government isn't open about this stuff is absolutely ludicrous! What Brisbane says about the difficulty in getting this quote *is*, in fact, a major part of the story. They're killing people with these drones, they're out of control and they are hiding the fact. Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say: "Efforts to get U.S. officials to comment on the report have proven impossible. No official would quote on this story." No?
Here we go, taking the Truth in our own hands again, as illicit as vigilantes, demanding more than stenography from our dear 'public editor'. I suppose the issue with Khader Adnan is simply not open for discussion. So, in the convenience of the issue with Shane's reporting, I sympathize that he was unable to receive clarification from his protected source concerning the 'elements' that are hell-bent on aiding Al Qaeda. But there's no sympathetic reason why Shane should have omitted noting his inability to obtain further clarity in his article. Something like, "The source did not provide clarity on the particulars of these 'elements'." By omitting the question of clarity, he is implying that the source's quote is clear in and of itself, and that's exactly the problem that Brisbane is refusing to deal with. It's noble that Shane attempted to extract clarity from his source, but much less so that he failed to mention to his readers that further clarity was needed, attempted and denied. That would involve questioning the validity of a public official's statement, and Brisbane has already been quite clear on his job requirement regarding such a rogue method of discernment.
(1) Why wasn't this Public Editor statement published on the Times' site?
(2) Shane's article apparently did not provide an opportunity for the BIJ to defend itself or respond to the anonymous allegation that its reporting contained 'misinformation,' nor to the unsupported insinuation that BIJ wishes to 'help Al Qaeda succeed.' Brisbane's response is therefore clearly inadequate. Maybe that's why it was not published in the Times.
The Times needs to stop letting anonymous voices accuse people and organizations of terrorism, supporting terrorism, and/or disinformation campaigns.
If the NY times wanted to make things clear….imagine what the headline might be? The balancing effect of an informed citizenry to the weirdo's in the US secret government ….needs plain spoken reporting…. wake up NY times….stay focused brothers and sisters.
If no admin person will comment on the record then LEAVE THEM OUT, period.
"Among the challenges of covering the drone program is the fact that administration officials refuse to speak for the record on the basis that the program is secret."
Bullshit. The admin routinely comments on the program publicly when they feel it suits them. It's only "secret" when someone outside wants some insight through interview, comment, or court challenge.
The western public only understands the cost of their wars based on the bodybags returning homes. Drone is the latest invention of the cowards who cannot fight conventional wars. Americans have been using drones against civilians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and for spying over Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
Some of USraeli victims have come-up with some primitive-type drones of their own. In September 2004, Israel\'s most circulated English daily Ha\'aretz had reported that an â┚¬Ã…“Iranian-made Hizbullah drone had spent about five minutes in space over Israelâ┚¬Ã‚Â, without being detected by the Israel Air Force…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/hizbullah-drone-over-dimona/
I did write to the Times, and I am not satisfied with the response. Brisbane is acting as a mediator or referee between the secretive government and the public right to know. The NYT should be unequivocally on the side of the public. As I said in my letter, this whole incident is a clarifying lens which reveals the true purpose of the NYT and other corporate media. They are walking a broad line between two interests and never taking their eyes off their own agenda.
Rehmat
You sound like a man who should read your own press.Its disturbing.Stop rubbing your hands with glee because mad men are arming up around you against Israel.Thats not a good thing dummy.Israel has been a good steward of the bomb.Never using it no matter how many times they were attacked.Dont count on any sanity from Iran.And if Iran follows the holy Koran and believes" no compulsion to religion"why is it again that they are the going to kill that man who converted to christianity?Sounds a little nuts to me …how bout you?
Oh and Latest reports say it WAS a weather balloon.Im sure it would make you very happy if it were a nuke.
michael e – Before calling other "dummy" just listen to son of your Israeli Jewish hero – Gen. Matti Peled. But, I know, idiots like you're the backbone of Israeli Hasbara lies.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/israel-as-seen-by-an-israeli-generals-son/
It's funny how some folks get to be stewards (us, Israel), and other folks (the rest of the planet) are toads–when the lunatic, irrational Israelis start their war, I'll be keen to watch all the good boys and girls line up here to put themselves into the meat grinder. Sooner or later, the US will sign on to a war that we can't win, and the Iran war might be it. We'll see.
P.S.: Don't waste your time, Rehmat. The troll is as the troll does, and you might a well bark at the moon.
Rehmat sorry for the dummy bit.That was uncalled for, though I meant it light heartedly.As far as Peled's book coming out, understand what it shows.Not that he has the respect of his countryman for his service, or his birth right to his father, and his experiences there of.That will be seen.It shows the amazing aspects of freedom alive and well in Israel.He has the right to his opinion.To publish it.To speak of it.To become famous and make his living from it.His opinion is safeguarded whether or not he is right or wrong.Oh but that be true in many muslim countries we could name you and I.
Your Blog seems to have a burning hatred of israel seething underneath it.I hope I am wrong.It is a beautiful land full of amazing people.I hope you get to go someday.I believe Israel will find a road to peace with her Palestinian brothers and sisters.Everyday without bombs brings it closer.It is, and has been Israel's desire.Weather or not she deserves that peace I will leave to your conjecture.
Tim what bothers me about you is not that you perceive the wrongs in our policies ,and that of Israel's and the possible bad repercussions that could befall us….But that you seem to revel in it.Maybe even to "hope"for it.It reminds me of Obamas apology tour one and two where he more than once seemed to give creedence to those who believe we "deserve" what we get.Tigers may eat there own.But only man would eat himself for the sake of argument.
michael e – Here you go again – whining like a typical Israeli professional propagandist liar.
First of all – I don't follow your Talmud which Israeli historian, professor Israel Shahak, called the most hateful religious literature in the world. Second, giving truthful former Zionist Jews like Peled and his sister, Gilad Atzmon, professor Finkelstein and Roger Tucker – a chance to expose the warmongering Zionist Jewish garbage on my blog – cannot be equated as Muslim hatred. Though I do dislike my ancestors' liberation of Jewish Serfs (slaves) in Spain (711 CE), Jerusalem (638 CE), Palestine (1186 CE) and Europe (1939-41).
Here is my today's Jewish presentation on my blog – Richard Foyer – From Israel-Firster to Zionist hater!
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/richard-foyer-israel-firster-to-anti-zionist-regime/
[...] (UPDATE: The Times public editor has notified FAIR about his email response to readers critical of the February 6 story. You can read it at the FAIR Blog). [...]