Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (6 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   6 comments

General News

The New York Times misleading public on Iran

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 1/9/12

Become a Fan
  (4 fans)
The paper has made faulty allegations about Iran's nuclear program without running proper corrections.


The NYT retracted questionable claims in an online article without informing their readers [GALLO/GETTY]

It's deja vu all over again. AIPAC is trying to trick the United States into another catastrophic war with a Middle Eastern country on behalf of the Likud Party's colonial ambitions, and the New York Times is misleading the public with allegations that say that the country is developing "weapons of mass destruction."

In an article attributed to Steven Erlanger on January 4 ("Europe Takes bold Step Toward a Ban on Iranian Oil"), this paragraph appeared:

"The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear programme has a military objective , is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign." [emphasis my own]

The claim that there is "a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective" is misguided.

As Washington Post's Ombudsman Patrick Pexton noted on December 9:

"But the IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one, only that its multiyear effort pursuing nuclear technology is sophisticated and broad enough that it could be consistent with building a bomb."

Indeed, if you try now to find the offending paragraph on the New York Times website, you can't. They took it down. But there is no note, like there is supposed to be, acknowledging that they changed the article, and that there was something wrong with it before. Sneaky, huh?

You can still find the original here.

Indeed (at least at the time of writing), if you go to the New York Times website and search with the phrase "military objective," the article pops right up. But if you open the article, the text is gone. But again, there is no explanatory note saying that they changed the text.

Note that in other contexts, the New York Times claims to be quite punctilious about corrections.

This is not an isolated example in the Times' reporting. On the very same day, January 4, they published another article, attributed to Clifford Krauss ("Oil Price Would Skyrocket if Iran Closed the Strait of Hormuz"), that contained the following paragraph:

"Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons ." [emphasis again my own]

At time of writing, that text is still on the New York Times website.

Of course, referring to Iran's "development of nuclear weapons" without qualification implies that it is a known fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But it is not a known fact: It is an allegation. Indeed, when US officials are speaking publicly for the record, they say the opposite.

As Washington Post's Ombudsman Patrick Pexton also noted on December 9:  

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org

Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Does AIPAC want war?

An Anti-War Candidate Announces for President

Kucinich to Introduce Gaza Ceasefire Resolution - Who Will Co-sponsor?

Reset: Stephen Kinzer's Vision of a New U.S. Relationship with Turkey and Iran

Amnesty vs. AIPAC: Senate to Consider AIPAC Resolution Endorsing War in Gaza

The New York Times misleading public on Iran

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Why isn't this front page news and the leading sto... by 911TRUTH on Monday, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:30:24 PM
News of this engineered travesty is intentionally ... by Joan Mootry on Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:44:09 AM
Our gov knows we are stupid and will fall for the ... by tincansailor on Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:13:43 PM
Yes, it is deja vu all over again. Recall the twis... by David Ruhlen on Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:03:18 PM
Why involve "the Likud Party's colonial ambitions"... by zzz05 on Tuesday, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:40:56 PM
Israel makes a big show of threatening Iran with n... by Richard Pietrasz on Wednesday, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:24:45 AM