-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From: Peter Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, 26 October 1999 9:35 Subject: FAIR: Media Overlook Embassy Bombing Report >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:29:39 -0700 >From: "Hart, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: FAIR: Media Overlook Embassy Bombing Report >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >MIME-version: 1.0 >X-Loop: 700000891 >Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >FAIR ACTION ALERT: U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing > >October 22, 1999 > >A detailed investigative article in the October 17 London Observer reported >that NATO deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last May, >after discovering that the embassy was relaying Yugoslav military radio >signals. > >The report contradicted the public assurances of NATO leaders that the >missile attack had been an accident. The Observer's sources included "a >flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring >Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior [NATO] headquarters >officer in Brussels." > >So far, the reaction in the mainstream U.S. media has been a deafening >silence. To date, none of America's three major network evening news >programs has mentioned the Observer's findings. Neither has the New York >Times or USA Today, even though the story was covered by AP, Reuters and >other major wires. The Washington Post relegated the story to a 90-word news >brief in its "World Briefing" (10/18/99), under the headline "NATO Denies >Story on Embassy Bombing." > >By contrast, the story appeared in England not only in the Observer and its >sister paper, the Guardian (10/17/99), but also in their leading rival, the >Times of London, which ran a follow-up article on the official reaction the >next day (10/18/99). The Globe and Mail, Canada's most prestigious paper, >ran the full Reuters account prominently in its international section >(10/18/99). So did the Times of India, the Sydney Morning Herald and the >Irish Times (all 10/18/99). The prominent Danish daily Politiken, which >collaborated with the Observer on the investigation, was on strike, but ran >the story on its website. > >The difference in perspective with which American journalists have greeted >this story can be observed by comparing the headlines over several >international news agencies' dispatches about the Observer expose: > >Reuters (U.K.): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately--UK Paper" >(10/18/99). > >Agence France Presse (France): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately: >Report" (10/18/99). > >Deutche Presse-Agentur (Germany): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately, >Observer Claims" (10/18/99). > >Associated Press (U.S.): "NATO Denies Deliberate Embassy Hit." > >The U.S. media may today be uninterested in evidence that the attack was >deliberate, but they had no trouble last May accepting NATO's explanation >that the bombing was a mistake. Even before U.S. officials emerged with a >full account of how the embassy could have been "mistakenly" targeted--an >"outdated map" of Belgrade played a prominent role in the official >explanation--the U.S. media began regularly referring, without evidence, to >the "accidental bombing" of the embassy. > >When Chinese officials disputed the U.S. account, protesting that the attack >could not have been a mistake, establishment journalists immediately took >sides in this debate. New York Times diplomatic correspondent Jane Perlez >(5/10/99) referred to "the accidental bombing, portrayed in China as >deliberate." A Washington Post editorial (5/17/99) that discussed China's >reaction to "NATO's unintentional bombing of China's embassy" was indignant >that the official Chinese press was "milking the bombing for propaganda >value" by reporting that the missile strike had been intentional. USA Today >continues to refer to the "accidental bombing" of the embassy (10/20/99). > >Since the New York Times hasn't published the new information about the >embassy attack, it's unclear whether the paper stands by its earlier >reporting. Since May 7, the Times has referred to the "accidental bombing of >the Chinese embassy" a total of 20 times. The last reference was in its >October 17 edition--the day the Observer published its report. Since then, >the Times has run an AP article on the Chinese president's visit to London >(10/19/99), which mentioned only that "China broke off talks with Washington >and the European Union after NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in >Yugoslavia"--taking no stand on the intention behind the attack. > >Even before the Observer's expose, there was no lack of evidence that >China's suspicions were correct. A few days after the bombing, German >Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder took the highly unusual step of publicly >questioning NATO's explanation of the attack. "The explanation given by NATO >on the tragic incident so far is far from enough and the Chinese government >has every reason to demand a comprehensive, thorough, and in-depth >investigation into the incident and affix the responsibility for it," >Schroeder said in Beijing (AFP, 5/12/99). > >The London Daily Telegraph reported in June (6/27/99) that NATO's >precision-guided missiles "carefully singled out the most sensitive section >of the embassy complex for attack"--the intelligence directorate. "That's >exactly why they don't buy our explanation," a Pentagon official was quoted >as saying. > >In July, CIA director George Tenet testified in Congress that out of the 900 >targets struck by NATO during the three-month bombing campaign, only one was >developed by the CIA: the Chinese Embassy (AP, 7/22/99). > >What is perhaps most baffling about the major news outlets' indifference to >the Chinese embassy story is that the same outlets regularly devote a great >deal of attention to other stories concerning China and its relations with >the U.S. Elite media report extensively on China's possible entry into the >World Trade Organization, the political struggle between its "reformers" and >conservatives, and allegations of Chinese nuclear spying and electoral >influence-buying in the U.S. The op-ed pages abound with debates about >China's intentions toward America: Is the country a threat to be contained >or an opportunity for trade and investment? > >The Times of London noted in an October 21 book review that "the bombing of >the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade might yet turn out to be an important >episode in a new Cold War." One might think that a well-sourced >investigative article in a respected foreign daily providing evidence that >the bombing was deliberate would be viewed by editors in the United States >with the same interest they have shown in other aspects of China's relations >with the West. > >ACTION: Please call national and local media and ask them to follow up on >the Observer's investigation of the China embassy bombing. Mention that news >outlets should present the idea that the embassy was bombed by accident as a >claim made by NATO, not an objective fact. > >New York Times >Andrew Rosenthal > Foreign Editor >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Washington Post >Jim Hoagland >Chief Foreign Correspondent >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >USA Today >Douglas Stanglin >World Editor >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >_____________________________________________________________ >Got a Favorite Topic to Discuss? Start a List at Topica. >http://www.topica.com/t/4 > Peter Phillips Ph.D. Sociology Department/Project Censored Sonoma State University 1801 East Cotati Ave. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 707-664-2588 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
