-Caveat Lector-
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:43:34 -0500
FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and news reports
Chinese Embassy Bombing Update:
Media Reply, FAIR Responds
Nov. 3, 1999
Since FAIR released its October 22 action alert, "U.S. Media Overlook
Exposé on Chinese Embassy Bombing," many readers have written to
mainstream media outlets, asking them why they have devoted so little
attention to the Chinese embassy story. A number of readers have received
replies from Andrew Rosenthal, foreign editor of the New York Times, and
from his counterpart at USA Today, Douglas Stanglin.
Andrew Rosenthal of the Times admitted that, "in a few articles," his
paper erred in referring to last May's embassy attack as an "accidental
bombing," since, as FAIR pointed out, the intent behind the attack remains
disputed. Rosenthal described the Times' choice of words as "poorly
phrased." (It's worth pointing out that those "few articles" actually
amounted to a total of twenty stories over a five-month period.)
More importantly, Rosenthal responded to FAIR's questions about his
paper's lack of coverage. "The Times is well aware of the reports in the
Guardian, the Observer and Politiken," he wrote in response to several
inquiries:
"We have assigned reporters to follow up and when we have the facts, we
will publish an article. That is the responsible journalistic course. We
have been criticized by the organization FAIR, which accuses us of
ignoring or, worse, covering up these articles. That is grossly unfair and
simply not true, as FAIR might have found out if anyone from that
organization had bothered calling someone at the Times."
In a later message, Rosenthal added that "The Observer article was not
terribly well-sourced, by our standards at least. I assure you that if we
can show that the bombing was deliberate, you will read about it on the
front page of our paper."
FAIR never accused the Times, or any other news outlet, of attempting to
"cover up" the Chinese embassy story. That should be clear from the text
of our alert, which can be viewed at
http://www.fair.org/activism/embassy-bombing.html . FAIR simply documented
that since October 17, when the Observer published its report, the paper's
findings have been reported prominently in major news outlets all over the
world -- except in the United States, where there has been virtually no
coverage.
FAIR did not attempt to explain this lack of coverage. Instead, we urged
our readers to contact important media outlets and ask them why they had
chosen, so far, not to cover the story. We also encouraged them to ask
media outlets to follow up on the Observer's reporting. The embassy
bombing has potentially severe ramifications for U.S.-China relations. Yet
so far, the public knows only that NATO has apologized for its "mistake"
while China remains inexplicably furious -- despite the media's repeated
assurances that China's suspicions are groundless.
AP, Reuters and Agence France Presse all chose to send out dispatches
about the Observer's embassy bombing report (all 10/17/99). The editors of
those news agencies clearly believed that the Observer's findings were
important and credible enough for many of their clients around the world
to be interested in publishing them.
Indeed, the foreign editors of some of the most distinguished news outlets
in the world picked up the wire accounts or reported on the Observer
investigation themselves. Those outlets include the Times of London, the
Globe and Mail of Canada, Le Figaro of France, Corriere Della Sera of
Italy, the Sydney Morning Herald of Australia, the Irish Times, the Times
of India and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (all 10/18/99). (The
Zeitung, which ran the story on its front page, has been described by the
New York Times as "Germany's most prestigious newspaper" -- 3/1/98.)
Since Rosenthal has asserted that the Observer article was "not terribly
well-sourced," it's worthwhile to review the sourcing of the embassy
expose. To clarify any ambiguity about who the sources were and what they
said, FAIR contacted journalists at both the Observer and Politiken.
According to the Observer's U.S. correspondent, Ed Vulliamy, its foreign
editor, Peter Beaumont, and Politiken reporter Jens Holsoe, their sources
included the following:
--A European NATO military officer serving in an operational capacity at
the four-star level - a source at the highest possible level within NATO -
confirmed three things: (1) That NATO targeted the Chinese embassy
deliberately; (2) That the embassy was emitting Yugoslav military radio
signals; and (3) That the target was not approved through the normal NATO
channels but through a second, "American-only" track.
--A European NATO staff officer at the two-star level in the Defense
Intelligence office confirmed the same story.
--Two U.S. sources: A very high-ranking former senior American
intelligence official connected to the Balkans - "about as high as you can
get," according to one reporter - confirmed that the embassy was
deliberately targeted. A mid-ranking current U.S. military official, also
connected to the Balkans, confirmed elements of the story and pointedly
refused to deny that the embassy had been bombed deliberately.
--A NATO flight controller based in Naples and a NATO intelligence officer
monitoring Yugoslav radio broadcasts from Macedonia each confirmed that
NATO's signals intelligence located Yugoslav military radio signals coming
from the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. When they informed their superiors,
they were told that the matter would be handled further up in the chain of
command. Two weeks later, the embassy was bombed.
--An official at the U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency told the
reporters that NATO's official explanation, which involves a faulty map of
Belgrade, is a "damned lie." The Alliance claims it was targeting the
Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement which had once
been located at that site. But Holsoe discovered through simple
open-source inquiries that no building was ever on that site before the
embassy. The Yugoslav office for supplies is in fact 500 meters down the
street and was struck later by NATO. According to Helsoe, "nearly everyone
involved in NATO air operations or signals command knows that the embassy
bombing was deliberate." (Pacific News Service, 10/20/99)
The Observer's findings appear to corroborate other information that was
previously known about the attack. For example, the CIA admitted that out
of more than 900 sites targeted by NATO during the Kosovo campaign, it
developed only one target: the site of the Chinese embassy (AP, 7/22/99).
The London Daily Telegraph (6/27/99) disclosed that NATO's
precision-guided missiles struck only the embassy's intelligence-gathering
section. And German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder took the unusual step of
publicly questioning NATO's explanation of the attack (AFP, 5/12/99).
Together with these additional pieces of information, the Observer
investigation appears to stand on remarkably firm ground.
Since the quality and quantity of the Observer's sources do not seem to be
the issue here--six NATO-country officials from both Europe and the United
States, up and down the chain of command--FAIR can only speculate that the
Times' real objection to the Observer's sourcing is that the paper does
not cite by name any of the NATO officers who confirmed the story. If this
standard -- a named official source -- is the one the Times is applying,
it has condemned the story never to see the light of day, since a military
officer could quite possibly face a court martial for disclosing such
information. The New York Times regularly grants anonymity to sources who
have far less justification for concealing their identities.
Finally, Rosenthal wrote to one correspondent: "There is nothing in the
distinguished history of the Times - where reporters have risked their
lives, been threatened with jail and indeed gone to jail to protect the
public's right to know things the government does not want to get out - to
suggest that we would withhold such a story."
Certainly, the history of the New York Times contains some very admirable
and courageous moments--for example, publishing the Pentagon Papers in the
face of government threats. But the Times also has a long record of
silencing reporters and stories which might cause the government
discomfort. The Times pulled a reporter out of Guatemala on the eve of the
1954 coup at the request of the CIA. In 1961, the Times sanitized and
downplayed a story about the upcoming Bay of Pigs invasion at the request
of President Kennedy. After the 1982 El Mozote massacre, the Times
reassigned its El Salvador correspondent to New York under pressure from
the Reagan administration. More recently at least one reporter for the
Times withheld information about the CIA's use of U.N. weapons inspectors
to spy on Iraq.
-------------------------
USA Today foreign editor Douglas Stanglin wrote to a correspondent:
"We have checked into the report and do not find it credible. We will
continue to monitor the situation. If we find credible evidence, we will
print. I should point out, in case the observer didn't, that the relaying
of radio information (whether by the Chinese embassy or not) is frequently
done and is not all that unusual. There are plenty of embassies and other
sources that do the same thing all the time. So this is not a situation
where the Chinese, if in fact they did that, are somehow the only lone
operator here doing something of vital military significance. It makes a
nice story that way, but does not reflect the reality of wartime
situations. That, among other things, is what our Pentagon reporter has
found which makes us not want to rush into some judgment that looks less
compelling in the bright light of day."
Unlike Rosenthal, Stanglin says explicitly that he chose not to print the
Chinese embassy story because his paper had looked into it and did not
find the reporting credible. It is impressive that USA Today managed to
see through a story that fooled the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the
London Times and the Globe and Mail. It is equally impressive that USA
Today took less than five days to disprove a story the London Observer and
Politiken spent four months reporting.
But what is most striking about Stanglin's message is the new information
he says his paper has uncovered. Apparently, USA Today's Pentagon
correspondent has found that it is not unusual for embassies to relay
radio military signals for their host country. "There are plenty of
embassies and other sources that do the same thing all the time," Stanglin
writes.
Stanglin seems to imply that during the Kosovo war, other embassies in
Belgrade were providing the same assistance to the Yugoslav military that
the Observer and Politiken's sources say prompted NATO to bomb the Chinese
embassy. Of course, this does not disprove the Observer/Politiken story;
there could be differences in the quality of the help provided by China,
or political reasons why the U.S. would choose to strike at the Chinese
embassy -- or not strike at other embassies.
But if Stanglin's assertion is true -- if his paper has evidence that
other countries were militarily helping Yugoslavia in this way during
NATO's bombing -- that is important news, and USA Today should publish it
rather than simply relate the information to a reader in an e-mail
communication.
-------------------------------
Editors are frequently forced to make difficult decisions about which
stories to publish and which to leave out. It is not uncommon for an
important story to be overlooked by a newspaper or news broadcast. But
FAIR does find it significant that U.S. media, broadcast and print,
overwhelmingly ignored a story that put the U.S. government in a negative
light, even while respected international media outlets afforded the story
significant attention.
----------
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
responses, to us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
spammers.
You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
command to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:
FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
P.O. Box 170
Congers, NY 10920-9930
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list administrators: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
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
