MEDIA WATCH

Citizen-Times finally notices global protests -sort of

By Nicholas Holt

Asheville, North Carolina, Oct. 16 (AGR)— On Sun., Oct. 13, The Asheville Citizen-Times (AC-T) ran a short article on page A-3 titled “5,000 march in Paris against Iraq invasion.”

An article, accompanied by a photo, elaborated slightly on the headline, explaining a few of the reasons “5,000 people took part in the protest, organized by human rights groups, trade unions, and leftist political parties” to urge France to use its power in the United Nations Security Council to block US moves towards war with Iraq.

The article also noted that “Smaller demonstrations were staged in some 30 cities across France” but that “Though the protests were the biggest in France so far, turnout was low compared to the 150,000 people who marched through central London two weeks ago urging the United States and Britain not to invade Iraq.”

This article would be the first time anyone who relies on Gannett’s AC-T for world news would have seen any reference to the by then more than two-weeks-old London protests.

This move on the part of the AC-T has the dual effect of 1.) depriving the commercial newspaper’s readership of timely information on events of global significance and 2.) creates the illusion for the casual world news reader that the AC-T is in fact providing accurate and thorough coverage of world events, in this case, as relates to the nature of international opposition to President Bush’s war on Iraq.

In fact, between Sept. 28 (the date of the London protests) and Oct. 13, the AC-T reported only on an unspecified number of protesters who “outnumbered Bush supporters” in Denver, Colorado (9/28, front page) and “More than a hundred activists” who marched in Asheville (9/29, front page).

This would leave the reader ignorant of more than a million protesters who gathered across the world — and in the US — to voice their opposition to the war.

The previously ignored London marchers, whose gathering constituted the largest United Kingdom anti-war rally in at least three decades, were not only reported on tardily, but had their numbers shorted, as organizers’ (and Rupert Murdoch’s Sky TV’s) estimates put the total number of participants closer to 400,000 — a figure much higher and of much greater news-worthiness than the AC-T’s belated total of 150,000.

The AC-T also neglected to mention 1.5 million people who marched in cities across Italy and thousands more in Australia.

And those Denver protesters – who numbered between 2,000 and 4,000 – were joined across the US by between at least 10,000 in New York, 5,000 in Portland, OR, 8,000 in San Francisco, 3,000 in Los Angeles, and hundreds more in other cities.

The AC-T did not find these worthy of column space.

However, in the issues of the AC-T published in the interim between the Sept. 28 protests and their reference on Oct. 13, there was enough space to publish stories on “Mayor swears in husband as police chief” in Southgate, MI (10/1, A-5), “Swine get to sit out this greased pig race” in Henderson County (10/5, frontpage), “Alabama state quarter to depict Helen Keller” (10/8. A-5), and “Man changes name to ‘I Am who I am’”(10/9, A-5).

The readers of the AC-T – who hopefully branch out in their materials — must infer the meaning of such omissions (and inclusions) on their own.

Connie Chung: skeptical of skepticism

Oct. 10— On her Oct. 7 broadcast, CNN’s Connie Chung took a US congressmember to task for doubting President George W. Bush.

After Rep. Mike Thompson (D.-CA) told Chung that there seemed to be no evidence that Iraq posed an immediate danger to the people of the United States or its allies, the anchor responded, “Well, let’s listen to something that President Bush said tonight, and you tell me if this doesn’t provide you with the evidence that you want.”

She then aired a clip from the speech that Bush made in Cincinnati: “Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making, in poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after Sept. 11, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.”

After this soundbite, Chung continued: “Congressman, doesn’t that tell you that an invasion of Iraq is justified?”

Thompson began to respond: “Connie, we haven’t seen any proof that any of this has happened. I have sat through all the classified briefings on the Armed Services....”

But this questioning of what Bush said appeared to be too much for Chung. She interrupted Thompson’s answer, saying, “You mean you don’t believe what President Bush just said? With all due respect....you know... I mean, what...”

Faced with Chung’s obvious alarm that someone might not take Bush’s word as definitive proof, Thompson tried to reassure her: “No, no, that’s not what I said.... I said that there has been nothing in the committee hearing briefings that have substantiated this. If there is substantiation, we need to see that in Congress, not hear it over the television monitor.”

Later in the broadcast, Chung returned to the question of whether Thompson trusted Bush, suggesting that skepticism toward Bush was equivalent to an endorsement of Saddam Hussein: “Congressman Thompson, there are those who believe that you and your two colleagues who went to Iraq came back with the basic position of ‘President Bush may be trying to tell you something that in his effort to get approval for an invasion in Iraq, that you shouldn’t believe.’ So it sounds almost as if you’re asking the American public, ‘Believe Saddam Hussein, don’t believe President Bush.’”

Rather than insinuating that it’s unpatriotic to question a commander in chief, Chung might better have looked into the question of whether or not Bush’s statements on Iraq have been trustworthy. That was the approach taken by two reporters for the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, who interviewed more than a dozen military, intelligence and diplomatic officials on this question (10/8/02): “These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses — including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network — have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.”

According to Strobe and Landay, none of the officials they interviewed disagreed with this assessment.

The Knight-Ridder story addresses the very issue on which Chung chided Thompson for doubting Bush: “The officials said there’s no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida, with whom he has deep ideological differences.”

While it’s Chung’s job to ask tough questions of politicians like Thompson, asking him how he dares to contradict another government official is hardly the way to go about it. A skeptical response to official claims is something Chung would do well to emulate, not attack.

Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR):