Ben Hubbard [journaliste du #new_york_times] on Twitter: «Bravo to HassanAmmar5, the @AP photographer who took the coolest photo from Damascus this morning.…»
▻https://twitter.com/nytben/status/985101517345755136
▻https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DavIeA1XcAEOm4o.jpg:large
#cool
Tweet effacé par l’auteur
Via naked capitalism
How The #New_York_Times Is Making War With Iran More Likely
▻https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks
C’est une constante au New York Times : on avait eu Judith Miller et Michael Gordon pour l’Irak (et certainement d’autres journalistes sans scrupules pour vendre une guerre antérieure avant eux) on a maintenant Ben Hubbard, Isabel Kershner, et Anne Barnard pour l’Iran, avec bien sûr systématiquement un mea culpa du journal entre deux boucheries pour faire bonne mesure.
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: Long time Saudi regime propagandist gets an offer to write regularly for the Washington Post
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/10/long-time-saudi-regime-propagandist.html
Jamal Khashoggi announced that he received an offer to write regularly for the Washington Post. He spent a career working as a propagandist for various Saudi princes. Do you think that a man who devoted a career for serving the propaganda of Bashshar Al-Asad or Iranian regime or Putin would get an offer writing regularly for a US newspaper?
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: The lousy journalism of Ben Hubbard: he defames Syrian football players: would he say that about Saudi football players?
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-lousy-journalism-of-ben-hubbard-he.html
This is the trend in US journalism: you can get away saying the most absurd and ridiculous thing about a country if the regime of that country is not an ally of the US.
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: The case of Syrian opposition director who said he survived an assassination attempt in Istanbul: new developments
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-case-of-syrian-opposition-director.html
you really can’t believe Western media on Syria because they are Pavlovian in regurgitating whatever is posted by Syrian rebels on their social media accounts—fabrications and lies and all.
Ben Hubbard du New York Times : les saudileaks sont des pétards mouillés
▻http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/world/middleeast/cables-released-by-wikileaks-reveal-saudis-checkbook-diplomacy.html
Some found the documents underwhelming, noting that similar activities are carried out by many countries, including the United States.
“There is not really something shocking that compromises Saudi security,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political science professor in the United Arab Emirates, who had read about 100 cables.
Everyone knows that Saudi Arabia practices checkbook diplomacy, he said, adding that it now had to compete for clients with other rich states, like Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
Et cette perle qui m’avait échappé : WikiLeaks comme un violateur de la #vie_privée,
via Evgeny Morozov sur Twitter.
Ben Hubbard on Saudi cables: My take versus the NYTimes
▻http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2015/06/ben-hubbard-on-saudi-cables-my-take.html
There is so much wrong about the article by Ben Hubbard on Saudi cables.
1) There is clearly an attempt by Western media to downplay those documents, and not to cover them extensively. Just compare the coverage to the coverage of silly emails by Syrian officials. They have inflamed Arab social media and this is even after the release of 60,000.
2) It is not true that there are is no explosive information. There is much there about the close work of Saudi foreign ministry with the Saudi intelligence service and Ministries and interior and information.
3) Saudi bureaucracy is weird as revealed: Saudi princes can spend millions and billions and not account for them, but civilians in the bureaucracy have to account for every penny and the purchase of new furniture for the Saudi embassy has to reach the King himself.
4) The level of political corruption is staggering: Ben Hubbard does not tell the story of how the entire class of March 14 is revealed in the documents as nothing but paid puppets for Saudi Arabia. Lebanese MP Butrus Harb begs for money to form a new political party and then requests that the money not go through Sa‘d Hariri, whom he criticizes.
5) One document talks about how the Saudi government should issue a statement on behalf of its own Mufti (without the Mufti knowing about) after he made a statement about the ban on churches in the peninsula.
6) Al-Azhar is also revealed to be a mere tool for the Saudi government.
6) Mr. Hubbard missed the most important point about the document: that they reveal clearly that anti-Shi‘ite hatred is an official policy and obsession by the Saudi regime.
7) he cited the opinion of a UAE professor (Abdul-Khaliq ‘Abdullah, one of my closest friends at Georgetown and a former political comrade of mine) but he does not mention that ‘Abdul-Khaliq tweets praise for GCC royal family around the clock. He is hardly an objective observer in this.
8) Why did he not mention the case of the brave former Reuters correspondent, Andrew Hammond? Andrew is mentioned and singled out because unlike most Western correspondents in the region has has been critical of the Saudi royal family, which pressured the management of Reuters to expel him from the kingdom, and he was. That is worth mentioning, Mr. Hubbard.
9) There was the curious case of Egyptian journalist Mustafa Bakri and a proposal that he sought funding for, and which was studied by the government and his plan including an anti-Shi‘ite TV channel. This was also not of interest to Mr. Hubbard.
10) Hubbard does not mention that the documents reveal two systems of payment to journalists, politicians and clerics: one price for silence and another price for praise. 10) He does not mention how monitoring of individuals is requested by embassy dispatches. That was not of interest either.
11) He does not mention that Saudi and Qatari regime media are ignoring those documents. 12) He does not explain the Saudi official position: that they claim that “many documents” are forged and yet also say that they don’t contradict the policies of the kingdom.
The end of Michel Suleiman’s presidency
▻http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/end-michel-suleiman%E2%80%99s-presidency
The New York Times published a rather comical tribute to Michel Suleiman by its correspondent Ben Hubbard (who got the year of the civil war wrong by more than a decade and who got the year of the National Pact, which set the sectarian tags of all top posts of government, by several decades). Hubbard talked about Suleiman like he is an elder statesman who was widely respected by the Lebanese people. Of course, what made Suleiman popular with Western governments and their dutiful foreign correspondents (it is arguable that Western correspondents are not less loyal to the foreign policy goals of their governments than the Syrian or Saudi correspondents of official regime media) is that in the last two years — only — of his administration he became mildly — very mildly — critical of (...)