On Jan. 23, 1988, FAIR sent a questionnaire -- excerpted below -- to senior New York Times editors and correspondents covering Central America. It challenged Times coverage following the signing of the Esquipulas ("Arias") regional peace accord, which required all Central American countries to respect human and political rights, and called for an end to all outside support for rebel movements.
In a written response, a Times editor referred to the questionnaire as an "indictment" -- but promised that "my colleagues and I will study your questionnaire and put it in the hands of our correspondents."
FAIR analyzed Central America coverage during the 90-day period that
followed the signing of the regional peace accord on Aug. 7, 1987 (215
articles). During a period that saw human rights reversals in El Salvador,
clear refusal to comply with the accord in Honduras and stepped-up fighting
in Guatemala, the Times devoted 3.6 times more column inches to Nicaragua
(almost all of it negative coverage) than to the other three countries
combined. The ratio of Nicaragua coverage to that of El Salvador was five
to one; of Honduras, 22 to one; of Guatemala, 26 to one. This focus on
Nicaragua -- relative to other countries -- appears to have intensified
since November 1987.
Q: How does the Times explain the disparity in coverage?
A ratio of five to one (even 26 to one) in coverage would be justifiable if
Nicaragua were the leading human rights abuser in Central America. But the
findings of human rights groups such as Americas Watch and Amnesty
International reveal quite the contrary. Year after year in the 1980s, both
human rights groups found that torture and extrajudicial killings were
"systematically practiced" in El Salvador and Guatemala, but not in
Nicaragua.
Q: On what human rights sources does the New York Times rely for its
editorial policy regarding which countries to scrutinize for abuses?
New York Times reporting is often skewed about what does or does not
violate the regional accord -- e.g., Steven Kinzer's claim (10/4/87) that
"Nicaragua must permit full press and political freedom" while "other
Central American countries must stop aiding" the contras.
Q: Why does the Times fail to cite well-documented acts of
repression in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala as violations of the
accord?
Numerous abuses in El Salvador have been reported by labor and human rights
groups since the signing of the regional accord. Among them: the Sept. 1
disappearance of labor leader Salvador Ubau; the Sept. 9 arrest and torture
of two high school students for distributing illegal literature; the Dec.
18 assassination of labor activist Medadro Ayala; the killing of two
political detainees while in police custody, including one "beaten almost
until death and thrown from the prison roof," according to a Salvadoran
human rights group report.
Q: Why are such events not scrutinized by the Times?
The disruption by civilian supporters of the Sandinistas of a "Mothers of
Political Prisoners" gathering in Nicaragua received prominent coverage and
a photo (1/23/88).
Q: Why was the disruption by Salvadoran riot police of a "Mothers of
Political Prisoners and the Disappeared" march in El Salvador on Dec. 21,
1987 ignored?
The Nicaraguan government now permits daily publication of a right-wing
newspaper (La Prensa) that is sympathetic to the armed opposition seeking
to overthrow the government.
Q: Why has the Times failed to emphasize that no dailies can
exist in El Salvador or Guatemala that are even remotely linked to the
political left?
When a leader of the Honduran human rights group CODEH and a colleague were
assassinated, a non-headlined New York Times story on the killings
(1/16/88) totaled five paragraphs and 160 words. The day after the
killings, the arrest of five right-wing oppositionists -- all released
within two days -- resulted in 19 paragraphs and a headline across the top
of page 10 (1/17/88). Three days later, the detention of five other
Nicaraguan opposition figures for seven hours prompted a front-page
above-the-fold article (1/20/88).
Q: In the Times' day-to-day coverage, why are detentions in
Nicaragua treated as more significant than recurrent death squad killings
in Honduras?
On Jan. 20, 1988, James LeMoyne's "news analysis" stated that "Honduran
officials, backed by the Reagan administration, appear to be cynically
calculating that Honduran non-compliance [with the peace accord] will be
overlooked as attention focuses on Nicaragua."
Q: Hasn't the Times itself focused attention on Nicaragua in a
way that effectively supports White House strategies?