US ‘Stumbled Into Torture,’ Says NYT Reporter | FAIR
Criticism is welcome around the margins, so long as motives are never challenged.
US ‘Stumbled Into Torture,’ Says NYT Reporter | FAIR
Criticism is welcome around the margins, so long as motives are never challenged.
Jeremy #Corbyn, un « ex-espion Des Soviétiques »....
....même s’il ne semble pas que l’élu ait jamais divulgué d’informations importantes.
The Butcher Builders : How Western Journalists Helped Create a Monster in Russia
Nonobstant le terme de « monstre » pour désigner Poutine,
While all of this was going on, western journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, The Boston Globe, The Baltimore Sun, and other publications, were enamoured with the narrative of capitalism overcoming Communism. The economic reformers—Yeltsin and his administration—were “good,” as Financial Times reporter John Lloyd put it in a retrospective blog post, and their efforts generally successful. This lasted right up until Russia’s ‘98 economic collapse, when their reporting would undergo a major shift in tone.
My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror
My experience with [some] stor[ies] [...] made me much less willing to go along with later government requests to hold or kill stories. And that ultimately set me on a collision course with the editors at the New York Times, who were still quite willing to cooperate with the government.
By 2002, I was also starting to clash with the editors over our coverage of the Bush administration’s claims about pre-war intelligence on Iraq. My stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether.
Meanwhile, #Judy_Miller, an intense reporter who was based in New York but had sources at the highest levels of the Bush administration, was writing story after story that seemed to document the existence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Her stories were helping to set the political agenda in Washington.
After weeks of reporting in late 2002 and early 2003, I was able to get enough material to start writing stories that revealed that intelligence analysts were skeptical of the Bush administration’s evidence for going to war, particularly the administration’s assertions that there were links between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda.
But after I filed the first story, it sat in the Times computer system for days, then weeks, untouched by editors. I asked several editors about the story’s status, but no one knew.
Finally, the story ran, but it was badly cut and buried deep inside the paper. I wrote another one, and the same thing happened. I tried to write more, but I started to get the message. It seemed to me that the Times didn’t want these stories.
What angered me most was that while they were burying my skeptical stories, the editors were not only giving banner headlines to stories asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were also demanding that I help match stories from other publications about Iraq’s purported WMD programs. I grew so sick of this that when the Washington Post reported that Iraq had turned over nerve gas to terrorists, I refused to try to match the story. One mid-level editor in the Washington bureau yelled at me for my refusal. He came to my desk carrying a golf club while berating me after I told him that the story was bullshit and I wasn’t going to make any calls on it.
As a small protest, I put a sign on my desk that said, “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” It was New York Journal publisher William Randolph Hearst’s supposed line to artist Frederic Remington, whom he had sent to Cuba to illustrate the “crisis” there before the Spanish-American War. I don’t think my editors even noticed the sign.
Quinn Norton à propos de cet article (à dérouler) :
#Egypte : des enfants retirés à leur mère pour cause d’#athéisme - Moyen-Orient - RFI
Au Caire, une mère a été privée de ses deux enfants parce qu’athée. C’est le tribunal des affaires familiales de la ville qui a prononcé dimanche 24 décembre ce jugement sans précédent. La décision de justice intervient en pleine campagne de chasse à l’athéisme [...]
#Honduras : les #Etats-Unis félicitent Hernandez pour sa réélection - Libération
M. Hernandez a été officiellement déclaré dimanche vainqueur du scrutin avec 42,95% de voix contre 41,42% au candidat de la coalition de gauche, Salvador Nasralla, un populaire animateur de télévision sans expérience politique.
US recognizes disputed Honduras election results
The first results reported by the electoral court after the Nov. 26 election showed Nasralla with a significant lead over Hernandez with nearly 60 percent of the vote counted. Public updates of the count mysteriously stopped for more than a day, and when they resumed, that lead steadily eroded and ultimately reversed in Hernandez’s favor.
NYT Prints Government-Funded Propaganda About Government-Funded Propaganda | FAIR
An op-ed by the president of the right-wing human rights group Freedom House, published in the #New_York_Times Monday (12/11/17)—later boosted by New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker—warned of the menace of “commentators, trolls, bots, false news sites and propaganda,” and their negative effects on democracy. Missing from its analysis was any account of how the government that funds their organization—86 percent of Freedom House’s budget comes from the US government, primarily the State Department and #USAID—uses social media to stir unrest and undermine governments worldwide.
L’aide militaire fournie aux rebelles syriens a indirectement contribué à armer l’EI
Trois ans d’enquête de terrain entre Kobané, en Syrie, et Bagdad, en Irak, 40 000 pièces récupérées sur les lignes de front et soigneusement analysées, des dizaines de contrats d’achat et d’exportation passés au crible : le rapport sur les armes de l’organisation Etat islamique (EI), publié jeudi 14 décembre par l’ONG Conflict Armament Research (CAR), est l’étude la plus complète produite à ce jour sur ce sujet aussi explosif que complexe.
Il fait la lumière sur les filières d’approvisionnement souvent tortueuses mises en place par l’organisation djihadiste, via la Turquie en particulier, pour constituer et entretenir son arsenal. Il démontre qu’au-delà des saisies réalisées dans les stocks des armées syrienne et irakienne, l’EI est parvenu à récupérer beaucoup d’armes fournies aux groupes rebelles syriens par leurs parrains étrangers, notamment les Etats-Unis et l’Arabie saoudite. Il révèle enfin que ces livraisons ont été effectuées quasi systématiquement en violation des accords conclus avec les pays où ces armes ont été produites – principalement des Etats d’Europe de l’Est – qui incluaient une clause de non-réexportation.
Comme le souligne @kassem, toutes les reprises de ce rapport indiquent, avec une précision quasi-maniaque : « indirectement ». Hum…
Mais, si l’on reprend un précédent rapport de la même organisation de septembre 2016 : les armes partent d’Europe de l’Est à un second pays d’Europe de l’Est, puis à l’Arabie séoudite, qui l’expédie à la Turquie, qui les remet à l’opposition syrienne, et les armes arrivent à l’État Islamique à Fallujah, en moins de deux mois. Et de préciser : c’est presque direct ; si vouliez mettre des choses sur un bateau et les expédier, rien que ça ça prendrait un mois.
Donc, précisons bien : « indirectement ». Mais comme le précise l’organisation qui a écrit ce rapport, il faut comprendre « indirectement » dans le sens de « presque direct »…
His company is currently challenging the governments of Bulgaria and Serbia, among others, over the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. Despite signing an agreement saying it would not sell the weapons to any other countries, Saudi Arabia appears to send them “straight to Turkey”, from where they get into Islamic State’s hands “very, very rapidly” via illicit means.
“We have a supply chain which goes from an Eastern European manufacturer, to a second Eastern European country, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, to a Syrian opposition group and then to Islamic State in Falluja in Iraq, in less than two months,” he says. “That’s almost direct. If you want to put something on a boat and float it, it’s going to take a month.”
The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages : Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened
Non, un email envoyé à Trump et à son fils ne prouve pas qu’il y a eu collusion avec la Russie
Donald Trump va pouvoir crier « #fake_news », mais cette fois il aura sans doute raison. Un article de CNN affirmait ce vendredi que le président américain, son fils et plusieurs cadres de la campagne ont reçu un email le 4 septembre 2016 offrant un accès à des documents de WikiLeaks avant leur publication, ce qui serait une preuve potentielle de collusion. Mais la chaîne, qui a publié un correctif, s’est trompée de date, et ça change tout.
Selon le Washington Post, l’email a été envoyé dix jours plus tard, le 14 septembre. Il s’agissait d’une archive d’emails piratés du parti démocrate publiés la veille par WikiLeaks, et pas des emails d’Hillary Clinton, eux publiés trois semaines plus tard, début octobre.
« Les articles de CNN + CBS à propos de WikiLeaks sont 100 % des fake news. Qui va être viré ? », a réagi son fondateur, Julian Assange, sur Twitter.
» L’assaut du #New_York_Times contre la liberté de la presse, par Daniel Lazare
S’agit-il de dire que ce qui est dit importe moins que celui qui le dit ; et que si c’est RT, WikiLeaks, ou qui que ce soit, nous devons tous nous boucher les oreilles pour que le message soit bloqué ?
#Yémen : l’aéroport de Sanaa et le port de Hodeida rouvrent aux livraisons d’aide humanitaire - #France_24
Aid agencies say Yemen blockade remains, Egeland calls it ’collective punishment’ | Article [AMP] | Reuters
Guardian, NYT Paint Power-Grabbing Saudi Dictator as Roguish, Visionary ‘Reformer’ | FAIR
The most prominent sources for this spin were two major newspapers, the New York Times and Guardian:
Per usual, the Guardian reserves the label “regime” for Official Enemies like Syria and North Korea; Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a regime, it has “leadership.” Unlike adversary governments, often seen in need of “regime change,” the Saudi government merely requires “reform”—and a bold new “reformer,” of the sort championed by the likes of the Guardian and New York Times.
Saudi Arabia, which denies women equal rights, makes a robot a citizen
Même les #MSM trouvent la ficelle trop grosse
Le Premier ministre irakien en visite en Arabie saoudite
Règle intangible des #MSM : n’utiliser (massivement, lourdement) « chiites » et « sunnites » qu’en situation de conflit.
#Iran Doesn’t Have a Nuclear Weapons Program. Why Do Media Keep Saying It Does? | FAIR
So why do some many reporters keep mucking this up? A few reasons: It’s just a #mantra repeated ad infinitum, and journalists and pundits often mindlessly repeat an oft-repeated phrase.
Another major reason for this recurring falsehood, as FAIR (7/6/17) noted after the #New_York_Times twice “mistakenly” accused Iran of carrying out 9/11 (one of the smears going uncorrected for over three years), is that one can say pretty much anything about Iran without any professional or public backlash. Because Iran is an Official US Enemy , and its motives are therefore always deemed sinister, the idea that it is plotting to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a nuclear weapon is simply taken as a given. The lack of hard evidence for this is irrelevant: Intentions of those in the crosshairs of US power are always presented as cynical and malicious; those of the US and its allies benevolent and in good faith. Iran’s sinister motives are simply the default setting—no matter much evidence points to the contrary.
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: Long time Saudi regime propagandist gets an offer to write regularly for the Washington Post
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?
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
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.
If the gunman was Muslim, would we be talking about Las Vegas ‘terrorism’?
Tweeting after the attack, Piers Morgan said, “If the shooter was Muslim, we’d call this a terrorist attack.” Our results suggest it’s not that simple: The effect of social identity on terrorism classifications is real (especially among respondents who self-identify as politically conservative) but modest compared to many of the other factors we analyze.
The broader problem is that the media treats Muslim perpetrators differently — they are less likely to be referred to as suffering from histories of mental illness and their actions more likely to be attributed to political motivations.
These results suggest media coverage profoundly shapes how the public comes to understand violent events. Many of the considerations we rely on most heavily when categorizing events as terrorism are relatively subjective — and require information that’s not available for days or weeks after an incident occurs.
This means pundits and policymakers have considerable leeway in how they choose to frame acts of violence — and our results show that what they report may shape public opinion long before the full details are known.
Corporate Media Analysts’ Indifference to US Journalists Facing 70 Years in Prison | FAIR
For over two years, many in corporate media have been trumpeting the looming threat to a free press posed by Donald Trump. “Would President Trump Kill Freedom of the Press?” Slate (3/14/16) wondered in the midst of the primaries; after the election, the New York Times (1/13/17) warned of “Donald Trump’s Dangerous Attacks on the Press,” and the Atlantic (2/20/17) declared it “ A Dangerous Time for the Press and the Presidency.”
It’s strange, then, that the attack on the press that kicked off the Trump administration—the arrest and subsequent threatening of two journalists with 70 years in prison—has been met with total silence from most of these same outlets. Aaron Cantú, Santa Fe Reporter staff writer and editor at the New Inquiry (and a contributor to FAIR.org), and professional photographer Alexei Wood are both facing decades in prison for the act of covering the January 20 unrest in DC—charged with felony rioting for little more than being in the proximity of window-breaking and brick-throwing. (Prosecutors initially brought and then dropped felony charges against six other reporters, though how their cases differ from Cantú and Wood’s is unclear.)
ACLU lawyer Scott Michelman insists that these arrests “punish journalists for being near the action” and will “inevitably chill freedom of the press and, with it, First Amendment rights not only of the journalists themselves, but of all of us.”
The three most influential media reporters in US media—CNN’s Brian Stelter, New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg and Washington Post’s Erik Wemple—have completely ignored the felony rioting charges leveled against the two #J20 journalists altogether. In their dozens of columns, reports, and on-air segments since the arrests nine months ago, neither Stelter nor Rutenberg nor Wemple has made a single mention of the reporters facing jail time.
EDITORIAL: The Washington_Post Editorial Board’s Epic Fail on ’#Carbon-Free' Nuclear Power - EnviroNews | The Environmental News Specialists
An examination of nuclear energy from point A, where the drill bit hits the ground in the initial quest for uranium, to the process of uranium enrichment and zirconium-clad fuel rod production, on to energy generation, power plant dismantlement, nuclear waste disposal and finally uranium mine remediation, nuclear power presents anything but a clean and green energy paradigm. Au contraire, what can be observed is a dirty, deadly, carbon-loaded process that litters the environment with radioactive isotopes and radon gas, while dumping plenty of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere along the way. To top it all off, nuclear power facilities require an enormous amount of concrete, which releases heavy doses of CO2 as it dries. Does that all sound “carbon-free?” If so, sit tight, we’re just getting started.
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: Allies of ISIS in Lebanon: the pro-US/pro-Saudi camp
Because the attention of Western correspondents in Beirut is focused on serving the propaganda of the Saudi-US-Israeli camp in the Middle East, and because they are allies of the March 14 in Lebanon, there is an unreported story about Lebanon and ISIS. As soon as ISIS emerged, March 14 figures supported ISIS and even publicly. This guy, is a major March 14 figure (and is now the man in charge of all media for the pro-Saudi Lebanese Forces) wrote in 2013. It says: “Is ISIS against the Syrian regime: Yes. Is ISIS against Iran? Yes. Is ISIS against Hizbollah? Yes. Therefore I am with ISIS”. This sentiment, by the way, was pretty much the sentiment of Western powers in the region.
#Jordanie : les relations avec le régime en #Syrie vont dans la « bonne direction » - L’Orient-Le Jour
Les relations entre la Jordanie et le régime en Syrie vont dans la « bonne direction », a affirmé le ministre d’Etat à l’Information et porte-parole du gouvernement jordanien, Mohammed al-Momeni, exprimant l’espoir que les postes-frontières entre les deux pays puissent bientôt rouvrir.
The rare occasion the media swoons over Trump: when he embraces war | Ross Barkan | Opinion | The Guardian
For political reporters, the value of critiquing style instead of policy is in avoiding the nasty partisan fights that actually matter. Analyzing how something is said, rather than the meaning and impact of the words, is a supposedly objective act, allowing reporters to appear neutral.
Talk about elocution, and you’re fine. Talk about policy and you’re – gasp – biased.
War, though, triggers something else in the reporter class. As the disgraced Brian Williams, swooning over cruise missiles laying waste to a Syrian airfield, showed us a few months back, #establishment journalists and talking heads haven’t met a war yet they couldn’t get behind – or at least fetishize. #Washington journalists cheered on the Iraq war and reversed course when it was too late.
There is nothing quite as presidential, in Washington’s eyes, as a war. A war allows the most shallow, flailing and destructive presidencies to be redeemed in the eyes of the media, at least for a day. “War and killing are the US media’s pornography,” Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept tweeted.
North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
[...] the Western press apparently did not know one crucial fact: The rocket carried a reduced payload and, therefore, was able to reach a much higher altitude than would have been possible if it had instead carried the weight associated with the type of first-generation atomic bomb North Korea might possess. Experts quoted by the press apparently assumed that the rocket had carried a payload large enough to simulate the weight of such an atomic bomb, in the process incorrectly assigning a near-ICBM status to a rocket that was in reality far less capable.
The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: Who is more war-mongering? Trump or the US media/punditry?
By far, the US media/punditry are far more pro-war than Trump. The only time that the US media/punditry applauded Trump since he came to office was when he lobbied missiles on Syria.