Veteran reporter berates ‘trigger-happy’ troops
go to article

MEDIA WATCH BRIEF
go to brief

Top editors of The New York Times resign

June 6— The two top editors of the country’s most influential newspaper resigned yesterday after a series of scandals that have severely undermined the paper’s credibility.

The resignations of New York Times’ Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd come after reporting scandals involving journalistic fraud, plagiarism, and pandering to the US government.

Five weeks ago, the New York Times discovered that 27-year old reporter Jayson Blair had fabricated details in more than 30 articles. The paper referred to the incident as a new low in its 150-year history.

Then, one of the paper’s star reporters, Rick Bragg, resigned after he acknowledged he’d relied heavily on young stringers who did not receive byline credit. The paper announced the formation of an internal investigation that vowed to restore the trust of the readership.

Finally, Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz published an internal email communication between Baghdad Bureau Chief John Burns and veteran star Times reporter Judith Miller. In recent months, Miller had written several stories about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They relied heavily on unnamed sources. In perhaps her most remarkable front-page story, Miller suggested that the main reason US forces have failed to find WMDs is that they were destroyed just before the invasion or sent off to Syria. The story conveniently met the Bush administration’s needs as it was facing increased questioning about the whereabouts of the alleged WMDS, and as it was ramping up the rhetoric against Syria.

In the email to Burns cited by the Washington Post, Miller admitted that the main source for all of these articles was Ahmad Chalabi. Ahmad Chalabi is the exile leader who the Pentagon and the Bush administration had hoped to install as the new ruler of Iraq.

The national and international media have treated these three journalistic scandals in starkly different terms. The New York Times itself published an extraordinary four-page account detailing how Jayson Blair had defrauded the newspaper. Executive Editor Howell Raines formed a committee to investigate how Blair was able to commit such repeated journalistic fraud. He convened a two-hour long meeting of newsroom staff and accepted blame for allowing Blair’s fraud to occur. But there has been no news of meetings regarding the Judith Miller scandal; indeed, the Times has given little or no mention to it at all.

Even as the Times was faced with one of the biggest challenges to its credibility in its history, the rest of the US media continued to follow its lead. Jayson Blair become the subject of major news exposes and talk shows for weeks, and graced the cover of Newsweek. The revelations about Judith Miller’s reporting had minor reverberations.

Jayson Blair reported on stories that had few, if any, global and geo-political implications. But Miller’s reporting seemed to provide the Pentagon and the Bush administration with an excuse for the US invasion of a sovereign country.

Race is also central in this story. Jayson Blair is black, Judith Miller is white. After the Blair scandal erupted, columnists and talk shows debated whether Blair’s fraud was a case of affirmative action gone awry.

Source: Democracy Now

back to top

Veteran reporter berates ‘trigger-happy’ troops

By Owen Gibson

June 5— BBC news reporter John Simpson has hit out against the “trigger-happy” behavior of US troops in Iraq and claimed he saved an old Iraqi man from being shot by gung-ho marines.

The veteran reporter, who spent time with American forces in Tikrit, praised British troops for their conduct during the war but said in an interview with Soldier magazine that the Americans “lost control.”

“They lost all control — screaming, shouting and kicking people,” Simpson said, adding that US soldiers’ fear of snipers led to a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ attitude.

“One of the marines shouted ‘Snipers!’ and put up his gun, pointing it at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a blanket to air, and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped,” said the BBC reporter.

Simpson said he believed British troops had handled the situation better because of their years of experience in Northern Ireland, where he began his career as a reporter in 1969.

“The benefits from the army’s Northern Ireland experience have been considerable. I saw that experience put to really good use in Basra. British soldiers didn’t treat the local people like enemies, but like citizens that needed help. It was the same in Bosnia and Kosovo,” he said.

“In Iraq you could see the stark difference between the way the Americans behaved and how the British did things. It was Northern Ireland that gave the British that experience and that edge.”

The veteran foreign correspondent said the situation he experienced in Tikrit would never have arisen with British soldiers.

“They are so much in control. We have a first-class army, which is excellently disciplined. The American military culture does not have the business of careful control of firing weapons. If they took a leaf or two out of the British handbook, they would do themselves and everyone else a favor,” he said.

Simpson was wounded by US troops during the conflict in a horrific “friendly fire” incident that killed his translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed and 17 others, as well as causing 45 injuries.

Simpson filed a remarkable report by phone just minutes after the bomb landed on the convoy, breaking off at one point to tell a US army medic coming to his aid: “Shut up. I’m broadcasting... Oh yes, I’m fine — am I bleeding?”

The BBC later showed pictures of the tragedy shot by cameraman Fred Scott, who at one point is seen wiping blood from his lens, of Simpson and others running around trying to treat the wounded in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, while vehicles burned in the background.

Speaking about the incident in the interview with the Ministry of Defense magazine, Simpson recounted the horrific attack in detail for the first time.

“We were going forward with a convoy of Kurdish and American forces,” he recalled. “As we approached a town, several Iraqi tanks fired at us, and the American commander called up an air strike. Two F-14s came in low and I saw the missile leave the aircraft.”

It landed a few yards away, the explosion blowing up cars in the convoy, most of which were laden with ammunition.

“There was a lot of panic and unpleasant sights. People burning to death or staggering around with their insides in their hands. Our translator, Kamaran, had some shrapnel through the femoral artery and I don’t think he stood a chance,” said Simpson.

The rest of the BBC team travelling with Simpson when the attack happened sustained minor injuries, and the reporter told of his pride in his team.

“My whole team behaved superbly. Nobody lost it, and I was very proud of them. They behaved in the finest traditions of the BBC.”

Simpson, who sustained ruptured eardrums and remains deaf in his left ear, said he would like to see justice done for Muhamed’s family.

“We owe it to them to find out why it happened and to see if it’s possible to avoid it in the future. And I’d like to see what disciplinary measures were taken. It is not a crusade but a desire to see what went wrong,” said Simpson.

In the interview, Simpson also reminisces on his previous assignments and criticizes both the US and British forces for their conduct during the siege of Sarajevo in the 1990s.

“It was terrible, horrifying and wicked. It was a war crime that went on for three years and was appalling. I didn’t feel that Britain or the Americans came out of it very well, and I don’t think the BBC covered itself in glory,” he said.

Source: Guardian (UK)

back to top

Occupiers propose new media code in Iraq

The US-led occupation authority is devising a code of conduct for the press, drawing protests from Iraqi journalists who endured censorship under Saddam Hussein and worry for their newfound freedom.

Coalition officials say the code is not intended to censor the media, only to stifle intemperate speech that could incite violence and hinder efforts to build a civil society. The country is just too fragile for a journalistic free-for-all, they say.

As US-led occupation officials draw up press regulations, the US State Department brought together media people this week in Athens, Greece, to devise a proposed rule book for Iraqi journalists.

Coalition officials haven’t released details of their planned code. But, Iraqi journalists, when told of the idea, worried that it could lead to censorship.

“How can they say we have a democracy?” demanded Eshta Jassem Ali Yasseri, 25, editor of the new satirical weekly Habezbooz. “That’s not democracy. It sounds like the same old thing.”

Under Saddam Hussein, all media were controlled by the government and anyone who strayed beyond the official line was punished. But in the weeks since his government fell, new newspapers and other media have sprouted, blanketing the streets with information and opinions — some of which have called for resistance or even violence.

The Americans already are making clear they are keeping an eye on Iraqi media.

Editors at the new daily newspaper Al-Manar said US soldiers turned up at its offices last week to tell them about a new media monitoring board and ask for their opinion.

“They plan to set up a committee and some jerks will be on it,” said Mohamad Jubar, the editor in chief. “I’ll fight any attempt at censorship.”

Iraq’s postwar journalists and politicians say criticism of authority is at the core of the democratic ideal.

Some key proposals for the Iraqi press code of conduct that surfaced in Greece:

• Adopt media law with penalties, ranging from public apologies to closure, for defamation, incitement to violence, hate speech.

• Set up council to help draw up code of conduct for journalists, resolve complaints against media.

• Create commission to regulate media, with authority to allocate radio and TV frequencies, monitor content, hear complaints. Separate board would hear appeals.

• Do not require licenses for newspapers, magazines, individual journalists.

• Grant public and press access to all documents and decisions of US-led interim governing authority.

• Allow private Internet service providers to operate.

• Transform state-owned radio and TV into public broadcasting system with editorial independence.

• Turn government newspapers over to independent, private owners. (AP)

back to top