The New York Times is adept at printing reasonable-looking lies. A slight shift here and there and pretty soon international aggression looks good.
In today's NYT, Julia Preston writes "critics of the [Saddam Hussein's] trial said the five Iraqi judges who heard the case had made a reasonable effort to conduct a fair trial in the face of sustained pressure from Iraqi political leaders for a swift death sentence." This is under a headline that concludes "Hussein Trial Was Flawed but Reasonably Fair, and Verdict Was Justified, Legal Experts Say". So, a "reasonable effort" to be fair means it was "reasonably fair". That's like saying someone who made a reasonable effort to breathe underwater (but drowned) was "reasonably successful" in breathing. This after the article presents damning evidence that there was massive political interference in the trial, something that were it to occur here would be immediately condemned. The article is a case study in framing, excluding serious critics and relying on pro-US (CIA-financed Georgetown University) sources, and allowing a phrase in by a human rights group representative. Bill
