|
Baseless “News” on Page 1
Though I dropped this into the OT thread earlier, I can’t really get over the "nuclear Syria" piece in today’s NYT.
It is on page 1(!) of the print edition and the website and was written by Sanger and Mazzetti with the help of three other named journalists.
The problem is that there is simply nothing in it.
Let’s start with the headline: Israel Struck a Nuclear Project in Syria, Analysts Say
What is supposed to be the news here? That some Israeli "analysts" claim so was reported by the NYT and the Washington Post some four weeks ago. So where is the news?
Let’s read the first graph:
Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.
That "judgement" of some nuclear site was reported before. What may be new here is a "partly constructed nuclear reactor". Why is this said to be a reactor? How does it look like? Some concrete on the ground? What makes it "apparently modeled" on one in North Korea?
Unfortunatly, the article doesn’t even attempt to tell us.
But in paragraph three the say-so "judgement" of some anonymous analysts has morphed into "the reactor project". In paragraph five the "project" seems finished and it is "the reactor". All this based on nothing.
There follows a lot of background on the general working of reactors, the non-proliferation treaty and the administration internal fights over North Korea negotiations. But there is no additional fact. Nothing, zero, zilch on how or why or what is supposed to be new or news at all. The only other text, late in a long piece, that could be relevant is this:
The partly constructed Syrian reactor was detected earlier this year by satellite photographs, according to American officials. They suggested that the facility had been brought to American attention by the Israelis, …
But such claims of sat pictures have been voiced in mid September by the NYT itself as well as by the Washington Post.
The whole Sanger piece does not present one tiny bit of news. It repeats weeks old claims of anonymous intelligence officials that are likely false .
Anyway – this NYT "news" piece, which close reading provides is none, gets repeated by the Telegraph, Haaretz and according to Google news by now 188 other news outlets.
If you, like me, thought people might have learned something from this you were obviously wrong.
After the WMD and Iraq desaster, the NYT has no excuse doing this again. Five journalists plus layers of editors let this unfounded piece of propaganda launch on page 1.
How can this be possible without malicious intent?
Not only was this a front page NYT story, but in the lead position, top right!
Like b, I kept reading looking for “news” or any clearly identified source. No news and nothing more than “analysts” and “US and foreign (read Israeli) officials.” This is, at best, the sort of background piece normally buried on inside pages.
Possibile explanations.
1- Much broader readership for Sunday papers. Someone wants to make sure that no one has missed the story.
2- Another possibility. Writers, editors, and whoever decided to lead the story are not of one mind about the significance of that hole in Syrian desert. Vague sourcing as well as certain details, such as acknowledging that any Syrian nuclear capacity is years away, thus no imminent Syrian threat, undermine any real fear value in the story. It also brings into question the justification for the Israeli raid.
3- Someone wanted to use the Sunday paper specifically to allay fears of Syrian nuclear power and to spotlight concerns about the legitimacy of any pre-emptive attacks where there is no urgent threat.
Details scattered throughout the story create the overall impression that there is no immediate cause for alarm. (Or is this just my personal bias?) The story postulates that the real Israeli motive was as a demonstration, either to the region or to Iran, that Israel will not tolerate any non-Israeli nukes in the region. The last several paragraphs of the article are actually devoted to NKorea, supplying limiting detail on the nature of the threat that NKor posed before or now.
The story dances around an implication, without actually raising the question, of how credible intelligence about the Syrian nuclear site actually was. As if to say, if anything was in the location, the threat was so negligible that it was not worth discussion.
“There wasn’t a lot of debate about the evidence,” said one American official familiar with the intense discussions over the summer between Washington and the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. “There was a lot of debate about how to respond to it.”
At first glance, that description seems to imply that “evidence” was not debated because it was unambiguous. But the article asserts only that there was heated debate about a response – which could have been about hypothetical situations, or which could have been of the nature of “we won’t waste time debating the evidence because, even if it were accurate, there is no need or justification for an attack.” Thus, it was a debate about an attack on Syria, for whatever reasons.
[American officials] suggested that the facility had been brought to American attention by the Israelis, but would not discuss why American spy agencies seemed to have missed the early phases of construction.
The whole article reads like a story written by a committee. Perhaps that is partly due to diverse sources, all on deep background. Nevertheless, based on several aspects of the story, I’d guess that the primary sources for this article were in State and/or Pentagon, i.e. NOT Cheney club.
The dominant tone of the story, which downplays the Syrian threat, and softens the rhetoric on N. Korean transgression, sounds like the analysis of diplomats and a military that has asserted repeatedly that real solutions have to be political and diplomatic. The mention of the “neighbors” of Israel and Syria, and their somewhat complex attitudes about regional nuclear ambitions, again sounds like negotiating talk, not warmongering.
Finally, Rice and Gates are named fairly high in the article (1st page on web, high on the inside jump in print), expressing concern “about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat”. Whereas Cheney positions are only mention at the end of the article, with a reminder that Cheney once advocated “a strategy to squeeze the North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse.”
No man can serve two masters they say. It must be difficult to keep your sources content when they are at each others necks. Perhaps “at each others backs” would be more accurate.
Posted by: small coke | Oct 15 2007 10:54 utc | 13
|
