Posted by Eugene Volokh:
How the <i>L.A. Times</i> Omitted Key Data from a Reuters Account:
[1]Patterico's Pontifications catches what strikes me as a very
serious omission.
The [2]L.A. Times ran an edited-down version of [3]a Reuters story.
The opening paragraphs were similar (though [4]Patterico's commenters
expressed some concern about a few wording changes, which I won't
focus on here); I quote from the Reuters account:
The United States and Italy on Friday disagreed on the conclusions
of a joint investigation into the killing of an Italian agent by
U.S. troops in Iraq, further straining ties between the two allies.
U.S. soldiers killed Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari
on March 4 when they opened fire on a car heading for Baghdad
airport in which he was escorting Italian journalist Giuliana
Sgrena, who had just been released by kidnappers.
U.S. officials said the soldiers followed their rules of engagement
in firing on the car as it moved toward a checkpoint and should not
be punished. Italy disputed this and left open the possibility of
pursuing the matter in the courts.
So far, so good. But now here is the section of the story that
discusses the specifics of the disagreement (emphasis mine):
Reuters original L.A. Times edit
A U.S. Army official earlier this week said Italy was disputing two
factual issues in the report: the car's speed as it approached the
checkpoint and the nature of communications between the Italians and
U.S. forces before the incident. A U.S. Army official said this week
that Italy was disputing two issues in the report: the car's speed as
it approached the checkpoint and the nature of communications between
the Italians and American forces before the shooting.
The Army official said one of the "trip wires" in the incident was
that "there was, in fact, poor communications between the Italians and
the Americans." [Not reproduced in the L.A. Times]
Italy's government has said the Italians had been driving slowly,
received no warning and had advised U.S. authorities of their mission
to evacuate Sgrena from Iraq. Italy's government has said the Italians
were driving slowly, received no warning, and advised U.S. authorities
of their mission to evacuate Sgrena from Iraq.
The U.S. Army said the car was "speeding" toward the checkpoint, that
U.S. soldiers tried to get it to stop by using hand and arm signals,
flashing white lights and firing warning shots then shot into its
engine block when it did not stop. The Army says the car was speeding
toward the checkpoint and that U.S. soldiers tried to get it to stop
by using hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing
warning shots, and then shot into its engine block when it did not
stop.
CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting
and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was
traveling at more than 60 mph per hour as it approached the U.S.
checkpoint in Baghdad. [Not reproduced in the L.A. Times]
Iraqis often complain that U.S. troops are too quick to fire from
checkpoints that are difficult to spot. [Not reproduced in the L.A.
Times]
Now I realize that the L.A. Times probably had to cut the story down
in some measure -- but was it really proper to cut the "CBS news has
reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had
been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than
60 [miles] per hour as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad"
paragraph?
Without the paragraph, the matter sounds like a swearing contest --
the Italians say the Italians were driving slowly, the Americans say
they were speeding (which is how the L.A. Times story reports). With
the paragraph, though, it sounds like the Americans were indeed right
about the car going fast, and [5]the surviving Italian passenger,
journalist Giulia Sgrena, who apparently said the car was going at
around 30 mph, was wrong.
Perhaps the U.S. military may be faulted on other grounds; but if the
CBS is right, then a big part of the factual conflict that the L.A.
Times describes seems to be resolved in the U.S. military's favor.
After describing the dispute, shouldn't the L.A. Times have given this
critical piece of evidence related to the dispute? (Some of
Patterico's commenters suggested that the Times might not have found
the CBS account credible, but unless there's really strong evidence
that it's false, it seems to me that the account has to be at least
mentioned, even if the newspaper would then explain why that account
may be worth discounting.)
Interestingly, even the [6]Islamic Republic [of Iran] News Agency
article on this notes the satellite claim, but then gives a
counterargument: "According to Italian intelligence sources, this is
not to be believed. No satellite could have filmed the event because
there was too much cloud cover, they said." [7]Al-Jazeera likewise
notes the satellite claim, as Patterico pointed out. Shouldn't the
L.A. Times have done as much?
Thanks to [8]Patterico for uncovering this, and to [9]InstaPundit for
the pointer. If I'm mistaken on this, please do let me know. But if
Patterico and I are right, then the L.A. Times seems to have seriously
disserved its readers; and we're fortunate that a blogger, despite
[10]his lack of the vaunted "several filters" that the L.A. Times
provides to assure, among other things, "accuracy" and "fairness" has
uncovered this lapse.
References
1.
http://patterico.com/2005/04/30/2934/ilos-angeles-timesi-editors-edit-reuters-story-to-remove-critical-facts-supporting-us-position/
2.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nicola30apr30,1,6728628.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
3. http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8350013
4. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/volokh/posts/href=
5.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-italy27apr27,1,3327748.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true
6. http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-16/0504301219192346.htm
7.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8141
8.
http://patterico.com/2005/04/30/2934/ilos-angeles-timesi-editors-edit-reuters-story-to-remove-critical-facts-supporting-us-position/
9. http://instapundit.com/
10.
http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/cl-ca-shaw27mar27,0,2372137.column?coll=la-home-utilities
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
